Promising, Consent, and Citizenship: Rawls and Cavell on Morality and Politics

8/13/2019 Promising, Consent, and Citizenship: Rawls and Cavell on Morality and Politics

1/23

Promising, Consent, and Citizenship: Rawls and Cavell on Morality and PoliticsAuthor(s): Stephen MulhallSource: Political Theory, Vol. 25, No. 2 (Apr., 1997), pp. 171-192Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/191944.

Accessed: 22/01/2014 04:26

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Sage Publications, Inc.is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Political Theory.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 110.172.129.54 on Wed, 22 Jan 2014 04:26:21 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sagehttp://www.jstor.org/stable/191944?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/191944?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage


2/23

PROMISING,CONSENT,AND CITIZENSHIPRawls nd Cavell nMoralityndPoliticsSTEPHENMULHALLUniversityf ssex

IN N EARLIER ARTICLE' I attemptedoelucidate nddefendtanleyCavell's recent ritique f JohnRawls's theory f usfice2-a critiquemountedrom he erspectivefwhat avellcalls moral erfectionism.nthis ssay returno that opic, ecause feel hat failed ntirelyodispelthe ppearancef diosyncrasyndeccentricityhat avell takes ewpainstoavoid n hisdevelopmentfhiscritiquend hat didso inpart yfailingproperlyocontextualiset. nparticular,failed oemphasisehedegree owhichCavell'srecentritiquefRawls'sfirstook s a successoro,andperhaps reiterationf,his much-earlierriticismsf an earlypaperofRawls'sthat s primarilyevoted o ssues nmoral hilosophy,nd alsofailed oexplore he uestion fwhether avell'scriticismsfA Theory fJusticemight e applicableo Rawls'smost ecent ook, olitical iberal-ism.Byrectifyinghese mbalances ndomissions, hopetoreinforce yearlieronclusion-namely,hat avell'scritiqueocuses pon naspect fjusticeas fairness hat s fundamentalo Rawls's visionofmoralityndpolitics uitegenerally,nd that emains onstanthroughoutis career,includingisrecentspousal fa purely oliticaliberalism.

MORALITY: ROMISING,PUNISHING,ANDPLAYINGGAMESInhis 1955essay, TwoConcepts f Rules 3hereafterCR), Rawls'simmediate oal is to defend tilitarianismgainst heobjection hat tconflicts ith lementaryoral rincipleselatingopunishingndpromis-ing,for xample,hat t s not nacceptableeason or reaking promisethatt s best nthewholenot okeep t.Hedoesso bydrawingdistinction

POL1TICALTHEORY,Vol.25 No.2, April 997 171-192? 1997SagePublications,nc.171

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/23

172 POLmCALTHEORY/Apnl997betweenndividualcts f romisingrpunishingnd he socialnstitutionorpractice fpromisingrpunishing,nd henrguinghattilitarianismis designedo ustifyhepractices a whole atherhanndividualctsperformedithint.nthe oursefhis rgument,e lsodrawsn nalogybetweenuch racticesnd ames.his ermitsim o rguehatubmittinga utilitarianefenceor reakingparticularromise ould e no moreintelligiblehanefusingo eave he ield fterne's hirdtriken gameofbaseball n he roundshattwould ebettern hewholeo llow ourstrikeso constitutestrikingut -anargumenthich ccountsor ursuspicionsboutheompatibilityf tilitarianismnd romise-keeping.uthecanneverthelessismisshoseuspicions,yarguinghat utilitariandefencef he racticefpromisings awholewould e ust s feasiblesone irectedo he hree-strikeonventionn he amef aseball;n he aseofpromising,or xample,neneed nly ointut hat practicehichdenies othe romisor,s a defence,nygeneralppeal othe tilitarianprincipleas he reattilitariandvantagef llowinghe utureobetieddownndplans obecoordinatedn dvance. awls akes hesergumentsto how hemportancef he istinctionheyeploy,ndhe nds is ssayindiagnosticode, y utliningwo ery ifferentonceptionsf heogicalstatusf he ulesfhumanractices:ne-which awls hinkshilosophersareproneo assume-serveso obscurehemportancefthedistinctionbetweenracticesnd ndividualcts,whereashe ther-towhich e scommitted-makeslear tsnecessityndts ogical asis.Cavell's rimaryoncernnvolveshessumptionhatnderlieshewholecourse fRawls's rgument-thatromisingnd unishingrepracticesrsocial nstitutions.awlsdefines isquasi-technicalermpractice sfollows:

Anyformfactivitypecifiedy systemfruleswhich efinesffices,oles,moves,penalties,efensesnd oon, ndwhich ives he ctivityts tructure.s examples nemay hinkfgames ndrituals,rials ndparliaments.TCR, p. 3, fn1)Whatustifiesawls's laim hat romisinganbe added o this ist fexamples,hattfits his efinitionbeyonduestion ?

This sshown ythe act hathe orm fwords I promise s a performativetterancewhich resupposeshe tage-settingfthepractice ndtheproprietiesefined y t.(TCR, p. 30)But o are Iwarn,eseech,et, ick,ccuse,orgiveou, I commendimtoyou, Iwithdraw,rotesterformativetterances.re heyllpractices?



4/23

MulhallPROMISING,ONSENT,NDCIT1IENSHIP 173They an certainlye thoughtf as socialactions,nesoccurringetweenpersons gainst definiteocialground,nd there reparticular aysofperforminghem-notust nythingoudo willbecompetentlyerformingthem. ut this hows nly hat heyre conventionals well as social, hatthey avewhat nemightalla logicorgrammar;tdoes not how hathisis specified ya systemf rules hat efines setofoffices, oles,moves,defences, enalties,nd o on.Comforting,hreatening,ndrevengere lsosocialactions ossessed fa grammaronly omeonewhohas been njuredcan takerevenge, nly omeonewho s sufferingan be comforted),utalthough hey an takehighlynstitutionalisedormse.g., revenge,nsocietieshat avenot evelopedertainegal onceptsf rime ndredress),they eednotdo so (I can beinjured yanother,ndtake evenge ponher,in highly nexpectednduninstitutionalisedays).IfRawls's nalysisfpromisingere orrect,hen eing promisorouldbecalled noffice,ut t sobviouslynlike ther fficeshatre stablishedinpracticesuch as gamesor law-courts. nlike he office fpitcherrprosecutingounsel,heresnospecialprocedureor nteringt no oaths),noestablishedoutes or eing electedrtrainingourselfort, nd o on.If t s anoffice,t sonethatnynormal dult scompetentohold, ndonethathe can hold imply yputtingerselfn twith espectoanyonewithwhomhe s n, rwithwhom hemightreate,certain ormfrelationship.Thesameholds or hedeathat romisings apractice ith ertainpecifieddefences.nlearning hat promises,we do indeed earnwhat efencestis appropriatercompetentoenter,ndwhere,houldwe fail okeep t.Butthese re notdefencespecificopromisings opposed o other upposedpractices;heyreust he efences e earn n earningodefend ny fourconduct hat omes to grief-those xcuses,explanations,ustifications(what avellcalls elaboratives )hatmake p the ulk fmoral efence erse. Someonewhohasnotyetgrasped hosedefences oes not implyackthenformationeeded oparticipatena specificocial nstitution;or f hewereunaware f thevariousways n which uman ctions an be excused,defended,r ustified,nwhat ense would he understand hat humanaction s? Sucha personwould acka masteryfsocial ntercourseer e, amastery ithout hich hewouldnot ualify s a responsiblend autono-mousmember f ociety.What s goingwrong ere anperhapsmost learly e seen f we turnbrieflyo Rawls's parallel nalysis f punishings a practice r socialinstitution.orCavell,unlike romising,unishings or ncludes clear aseofa social nstitution;ut the nstitutionfpunishment an be conceivedin twovery ifferentays.



5/23

174 POLITICAL HEORY April 997Wemay econceivingf t ithern parwithnstitutionsike inshipystems,aw ndreligion,nstitutionshichistinguishocietiesromives rgalaxies,eneralimen-sionsn ermsfwhichny ommunityfhumaneings ill edescribed;rwemaybethinkingf t s a specificnstitution,n a parwithmonogamyrmonotheismrsutteer eathy toning,nstitutionsn ermsfwhichne ocietysdistinguishedromanotherociety,rfromhe ame ocietyt an earliertage.TheClaim fReason,Oxford:UP, 979, p. 99-300;ereafterR)

On Cavell'sview, tilitarianisman ofcourseustifynespecificnstitutionofpunishmentver nother,ut tcannot,nd s notmeant o, ustifyhegeneralnstitutionfpunishments such-sincethe nly tilitarianustifi-cation or unishments itsdeterrentffect,tilitariansanonlyustifyhelightestystemfpunishmenthatscompatible ith hatffectnd o mustin principle e committedo abolishingt altogether herevereasible.Whateverhemerits f that iew,however,t should e clear hatRawls'sanalysis fpromisings a practicereatst as if t were nespecificocialinstitution,s if it might e compared o or replacedby anotheruchinstitutioninthewayan institutionfrevengemight e supersededyalegal system), hereas, orCavell,promisings more kinto one ofthegeneraldimensions y means of whichhumanforms f lifemight edistinguishedrom he ctivitiesnd nteractionsf beesand stars.Humanbeingsmake ndbreak romises,ustas they oint oobjects, ollow ules,make hreats,ssueorders,ndmake ndbreak riendships;opoint his utis not o engagencomparativeociology rcomparativenthropology,uttocompile emarksbout henatural istoryfmankind.To see this,we needonly try o imagine ltering r removinguchdimensionsfourform f ife.Wecan magineomeone rging reformfa givennstitutionfrevengerpunishment,revenurginghathenstitu-tion frevenge e left ehind ltogether,utwhatmighttmean ourgereformlet lone he upercession)f he practice fpromising?ndhowmightne ustifyhatpractice s itnow tands? awlsoffershe ollowingjustification:

The ointf he racticesto bdicatene's itleo ct n ccordanceith tilitarianndprudentialonsiderationsn rderhatheutureaye ied ownnd lanso-ordinatedin dvance. herere bvious tilitariandvantagesnhavingpracticehicheniesto he romisor,sadefence,ny eneralppeal o he tilitarianrinciplen ccordancewith hichhe racticetself ay e ustified.TCR, . 16)This second entencesnot bviouslyomprehensible.or since as Rawlsemphasises)t spart fthe oncept fpromisinghat ne does notkeeporbreakpromises ngeneral tilitarianrounds,herewouldbe nopromise



6/23

Mulhall PROMISING,CONSENT,AND CITI1ZENSHIP 175apartromknowledgef hat actn he artf hewould-beromisor;owe couldnotntelligiblyttempto ustifyndividualctionsallingnderthatoncepty ppealo hat act.he irstentence akeshe advantagesofthe practice fpromisingppear ather ore ptional,atheressfundamental,han hey eallyre.Forabdicatingne'stitle o actuponutilitarianndprudentialonsiderationssnot,s itwere,ust ne nstitu-tionalway fcoordinatingurplans or he uture;he eryxistencefhumanociety,nd he oherencef ndividualonduct,ependspon urso doing. uch abdications notonespecific umannstitution,utpreconditionornynstitutionmong ersonst ll.Moreover,y solatingsuch bdications the ointf he practicefpromising,awlsmpliesthatromisingsthe entral,r ven he nly, aynwhichumaneingsdo so abdicate;ut nyhumanommitmentasexactlyhis ffect,ndpromisings byno means heonlyway nwhich umaneings reatecommitments.

There re nynumberfways, ther han romising,or ommittingourselfo courseof ction: he xpressionnddeclarationf n ntention,he ivingf n mpression,otcorrectingomeone'smisapprehension,eginningcourse f conduct nthebasis ofwhich omeone lse hastakenction,nd o on. CR, p.298)Theresnothingacredboutromisinghatsnot acredboutxpress-ing nintention,rany ther ayofcommittingneselfa categoryowhich-insofarsany tterancearries ithtmplicationsr ommitmentsof he indnalysedyAustin, ittgenstein,ndGrice,mongstthers-wemustssignny nd ll inguisticcts). romisesre mportanthent s

importantobe xplicitboutne's ommitments,ut hatoesnotmakeurmanynd ariousonexplicitommitmentsnyess eal r onstraining.In otherwords, awls's nalysismakes romisingppear oth essfundamentalndmorepecial hant eallys.As aresulttmakesromisingappearo bemoreike game hantreallys.Aboutompetitiveames,muchhat awls acksnto isdefinitionf practiceoldsrue.herereclearlyefinedffices;hat ountss amoven he ame,nd ohow nemightdjudicateisputesverwhethergivenctionountss amove,ssettledn dvancey systemf ulesthe ulesfplay),nd ne an asilyimagineisputesver ossibleeformsf he ame'sules-overaseball'sthree-strikes-and-outule,r occer'sffsideule-disputesowhichtili-tarianonsiderationsould epertinent.venwithespectogames,ow-ever, awls'snalysisigidifieshe ealityfpractices.On his ccount,heneverpersonsquestionedrchallengedboutparticularctionhatsdefinedr pecifiedy practice,nd hathallenge



7/23

176 POLITICAL HEORY/ pril997is not irectedtthe ractices awhole, e mustssume hat he uestionereither oesn't now hat e sengagedn tordoesn't nowwhat he racticeis (TCR, p. 27). Since he ormf he ction sspecified y rule hat elpsto define hepractice s a whole since it is only by referenceo thestage-settingf thepractice hathis action s the action t is), theonlyjustificatione cangivefor he pecificction s tocite he elevantule, ndsomeone anonly ntelligiblyaisea questionbout hat pecificction ftheyreeithergnorantbout hepractice e s engagingn or gnoranthathe sengagingn t.TheexampleRawlsgives oback his p sdrawn rombaseball.

In a game fbaseball,f batter ere o sk Can have ourtrikes? ,twould eassumedhat ewas sking hathe ulewas; ndf,whenoldwhat he ulewas, ewere o ay hat emeanthatn his ccasion e houghttwouldebest n hewholefor imohave ourtrikesatherhanhree,his ouldemost indlyakensajoke.Onemightontendhat aseball ould e a betterameffourtrikeserellowedinsteadf hree;ut ne annoticturehe ules saguideowhatsbest n hewholeinparticularases,nd uestionheirpplicabilityoparticularases sparticularases.(TCR, . 26)Herewe aretouching pon hepracticeonceptionfrules hatRawlsconcludes isessaybyrecommendingver he ummaryonceptionwhichpicturesules s guides o what sbest nthewhole), nd tshould e clearhow this onceptionmight e thoughto underlinehedistinctionetweenjustifyingracticess a whole ndustifyinghe ndividualctionshat ccuras part f them.His batters questioningn actionwhoseforms partlydefinitivef he racticefbaseball,ndwithespecto his articularhighlyimplausible)xample,Rawls's claimthat hisquestion howsthe ques-tioner's ncompetencer ignorances surely rue.But does that laimgeneralizeo allquestioningfall actionshat nemighthink f s definedorspecified ythepracticefbaseball?Theproblems that action efinedy he ractice sambiguous:t ouldrefer o any ction hatsrequired ythe ules fthegame, r tcouldreferto ny ction hat oesnot iolatehose ulesany ctionwithinheegitimatelimits fplay).Thepoints thatmost egitimate oves n thegame renotrequired ythe ules fplay: nlynsituationshere oalternative ove sopento herdo thedefiningulesof playdictatewhat playermustdo,althoughf course hey lwaysdictate ow she must ct fher ction s tocount s a legitimate ove n thegame. faccordingly,t a certain oint nthegame, hechooses otryosteal econd ase when twasopen ohernotto do so, and her ction onformso therulebook'sspecificationf what



8/23

MulhallPROMISING,ONSENT, NDCITIZENSHIP 177counts s stealingecondbase,herdecision o to act canneverthelessecompetentlyhallengede.g., as short-sighted,elfish, r otherwisell-considered),nd t annothenompetentlyeansweredimply y itingherule hat efines hat t s to steal base.In onesense, fcourse, ucha challenges notdirectedt theplayer'sgrasp fthedefiningules fthegame; tratherriticises ergrasp fwhatonemightall its trategicrinciples-andtmight ethoughthathey onot etermine hat t stoplay he ame ut ather hat t s toplay he amewell. But no one whograsped game'sdefiningules ndyet howednograsp f tsstrategies ould ount s a competentlayer;s Cavellputs t,a certainmasteryf he ame srequirednorder obesaid oplay he ameatall CR,p.304).Accordingly,querybout player'sctionhatsbasedupon tsviolation fa game'sprinciplesfplaycan be thoughtfas achallengeoher rasp fwhatt stoplay he ame-ofsomethinghat elpsto define hepracticefbaseball.Ingeneral,hen,notknowing hat game s is not ynonymousithnot nowinghe ules f he ame ; o t s not he asethatveryntelligiblechallengeo a particularction pecifiedya practiceanbe satisfactorilyanswered y citingtsdefiningules.Rawls's analysis fgamesfailstoaccommodatehis act;t sas ifhepresupposeshatveryction erformedas partof a gamemustbe determinedy (ratherhan imply eing naccordance ith) he efiningules f hat ame-as if verymove nagameisprescribedy tsrulebook.Andbecausehe eavesno room or trategicrules n his visionofgames,he loses sight fwhat s perhaps hemostfundamentalact bout hem-thatwithinames,whatwemust o s deallycompletelypecifiedndradicallymarked ff rom hatweought r houldnotdo,so thatwemightocus xclusivelyn the atter.

It sasthoughithinhe rosecutionf game, e re et reeo oncentratellof urconsciousnessnd nergynthe ery umanuests or tilitynd tyle:f hemovesand ules an etakenforranted,hen e an ive urselvesverotallyodoing hatwillwin,ndwinpplause.Thedea hatreedomsachievedhroughubjectiono helaw sfullyrueo he onductngames.)CR, .308)Thepoint fa game iesnot nthe rameworkfprescriptionhatmakes pitsrules fplay, ut n the pace the ules fplaydefine;withinhat pace,thosewhocanmarrygrasp f trategyo thenecessaryalent ndphysicalcondition, hocan seewhat ughto bedone ndare n a position odo it,aresetfree oachieve orms fhumanxcellence. awls'svision fgamesmistakeshe rameworkor he pace, he rescriptiveeans or he elebra-torynds heyubserve.



9/23

178 POLITICAL THEORY/April 997

Cavell's view, herefore,s thatRawls'sunderstandingfgames s aserroneouss hisunderstandingf thephenomenaeerroneouslyreatssanalogous ogames-namely, unishingndpromising.ut hemost atefulimplicationfthatrroneousnalogys its uggestionhat owan action sto be describednd evaluated n moral ermss determinedn advancebysomethingkin o a systemfrules. art f whatwillbe called rules nagame's ule ook ettle hat ounts s a moven he ame, owdisputesverwhetherr not a givenaction o counts re to be settledwhencertaineventualitiesrise,ndwhat enaltiesrdefencesre pen o hosewhomakesuch move.Withouthis rearrangedommon nowledge,ames ouldnotbepractised,ndumpiresndrefereesouldnot o what hey o. Butmoralconductannot epractisednthisway, ndmoral onflictannot e settledbyreferenceoanythingnalogous o thedefiningules f a practice. naction uch as making promises notanalogous o a move n a game,because n uch ontexts,hat recisely asdone-what move wasmade,what defence ffered-isnotsettled n advancebut s rather n openquestion.Amoral ebate ver he reakingrkeepingf promiseill xactlyoncernuchquestionsswhether hat ou aidwas tantamounto) (serious)romise,hetheryouwere eallyreventedromeepingt orperhapsnlyuccumbedo emptationrintimidation),hether,nowinghat as ikelyohappen,ou ughtohavemadet,whetherou idwhat aspossibleo lleviateheonsequencesorhe romisee.CR,p. 295)As we sawearlier,ompetencenmoral rguments a matterfknowing

whichdefences, xcuses, nd ustificationst is appropriateo enter ndwhen, ut lthoughhe elevance fa particularonsiderations notup fordiscussion rargument,hepreciseweighto be attachedo t s-and thissecond uestions typicallyhe oreofanyrealmoral ispute,n which nappropriateefencemay e met y pertinentounter,nd hen y pertinentresponse o that ounter,nd so on. So, although nyresponsible ndautonomous emberf ocietymust now ow omake promise,ndknowthatmaking promisemountsomaking commitment,ndknow hat nedoes notbreak rkeepparticularromises n general tilitarianrounds,tdoes not ollow hatnyonewhohasmade promise nd hen ailed okeepit snecessarilyubjectomoral ondemnation.verythingilldepend ponthenature fthe ompetingonsiderations,he fforts adebythe romisorto warn hose elyingnherpromise,ndso on; in fact,f the mmediateconsequences f keeping hepromisewere sufficientlyevere, nd thepromisorideverythingossible omitigatehenegativeonsequences f



10/23

MulhallPROMISING,ONSENT, NDCITIZENSHIP 179breakinger romise,nd he nterserustificationn he ight ay t herightime,hentwould ot eobviouslyaradoxicalo urmoralensibili-ties or er o xcuse er ctionnutilitarianerms.ForCavell, hen, oral iscoursesnot n renanwhichndividualsakeuppositionsndmakemoveswhose esponsibilitiesnd onsequencesrefixedn dvance,ut athernewithin hichn ndividualomes ofix hepositionorwhichhe spreparedotake esponsibilitynd thersttempttodecidewhetherhatositionssomethingheyanrespect.oralgentsmustmake finaludgmentoncerningherehey ill tandndhow heywill egardhe ifferenttancesf thers,nd hoseudgmentsustonformtotheogic rgrammarfwhat avell alls laboratives,ut heyrenotdeterminedy ules rprinciplesgreed ponndknownn dvance.Bynow, erhaps,e an eewhat avell hinksf sthe ommonhreadinRawls's ortrayalfgames, unishingnd romising.y nalysinghemin ermsfhis echnicalefinitionf practice,t he eartfwhichieshisconceptionf efiningules,e igidifieshese ormsfhumanife, educingthemo renasnwhichhe reciseangend cope f ur esponsibilitiesare ixedn dvancey mpersonalrinciples,nd estrictingur ole n hemto the arrying-outf thefixed esponsibilitiesfanofficeholder.ithrespectogames,hismeans hat e tresseshe onstrainingrameworkfthe ules fplay o the xclusionf the reedomsndvirtueshathoseconstraintsake ossible. ithespectopunishing,tmeanshat is ocusisupon he ocial pecificityf ts nstitutionalanifestationsatherhanupon ts pecies-specificitys a responseowrongdoingndguilt.Withrespectopromising,tmeans hat eregardsne mongst any ays fcreatinghe ommitmentshatmake umanocial nteractionossibles fitwere unique utmodifiableode f nteraction;nshort,awls reatspromisessif hey ereegal ontracts.

Aboutheseverythingawlsaysboutffices,efences,ovestc.,strue;he etailsof offer, acceptance,consideration,misrepresentation,tc., reelaboratelyspecified,he racticesdefinitive,nd givenonflictanbe adjudicatedumpired).This, owever,nvolves wholeway f ookingtsociety,ne nwhichllhumanrelationshipsrepictureds contractualatherhan ersonal, ithin hich ne'scommitments,iabilities,esponsibilitiesre romhe utsetimited,ndnot otal,r tany ate lwaysnthe ourse fbeing etermined.e till elate oone notherspersons,ut nlynsofars we tandn ertainociallyefinedoles ithespecto neanother.hepicturesmade learerfwe ncludeheuggestionhat he entraldeaunderlyinghe nglishawofContracts thatf bargain.CR, . 299)It wouldnotbe difficulto ink his iberal ision fmoralityo therationalizationf ocietyhatociologistsave haracterizedntermsf



11/23

180 POLITICALHEORYApril997distinctionetween emeinschaftndGesellschaft,nd herebyo the om-munitarianritique f iberalism. ut tmight rovemore lluminatingoconcludehis ectionfmy ssayby doptinghe iagnostic ode fwhichRawls makesuse at theend of his own,and ask: whyshould omeonemisrepresentothpromisingnd themoral ife moregenerallyn thisparticularay?Howorwhymightomeonedopt conceptionfrules hatencourages im o contractualizeoth urpersonal esponsibilitiesndourinterpersonalelations?To think f he ommitmentsowhich umanpeech nd ction ives iseas fixed ya systemfdefiningules nsures hat hose ommitmentsrelimitedn advance, nd limited n impersonal ays;to think fhumanrelationshipss exhaustivelyeterminedyouroccupationfsocially e-fined oles imits n advance he ange nddepth f theirlaimsuponusaspersons. n Cavell'sview, he ealitys that he each f uch ommitmentsandrelationshipssalwaysnthe ourse fbeing etermined,nd omustnfact e fixed yus. So Rawls'svision fthemoral ife ffectivelyakes heself'scommitmentsndrelationshipsess fluid ndmore videnthan heyreallyre, nd herebyonjurespa fantasyf self hats more ixed,moreinvulnerablendmore ransparento tself hantreallys.Takefirst awls'sconceptionfthe elf's ommitments.heconcept fhuman ction s tied othe oncept f laborativesecause hendependenceof theworld ndthepreoccupationsfthemindneluctablyrive wedgebetween hat nagenthinksfherselfsdoing ndwhat he ctually oes;that apis onlymadebearable yher apacityo excuseorexplain t, ndtherebyocontributeodetermininghat heis answerableor e.g.,bycharacterisingheactual onsequencesfwhat hedid orfailed odo asunforeseenrunforeseeable,s inadvertentraccidental,s heedlessly runwillinglyntrained). y subjecting ersonal nswerabilityor ne's ac-tions o impersonalimits, awlstrades nekindofhuman reedomoranother: erestrictshe otentialndividualityfour laborations,nd oourpersonalontributionofixing hat orwhichweare nswerable,uthealsorestrictshe apacity fworld ndmind orequireuch laborationfus,toput nquestionny ettled ensewemight aveofwhatwe areor canberesponsibleor, nd so of whoweare.He transformsneperson's etermi-nation f the imits fhervulnerabilitys an agent nto n objective ndforeseeableimitationponhuman ulnerabilityssuch, nd herebyttenu-ates the elf'ssenseofexposure o tsworld ndto theopacity f tsownmotivations.n short, yrestrictingheself'scapacity or elf-definition,Rawlsfortifiests apacity or elf-possession.Asimilarrade-offroundsiscontractualizationfhumanelationships.Byregardingheirange nd xtentsfixed y mpersonalules efininghe



12/23

MulhallPROMISING,ONSENT, NDCIT NSHIP 181social olesweoccupy,awls elieves s ofthe esponsibilityfhavingconstantlyodefinend edefineheirimitss ourmoralelationshipsithothersevelop ndalter nder hepressurefnewcircumstancesndunforeseenctions.nstead,ecan egardur bilityo ontinueo nhabitthe amemoral niversespurelyfunctionfour uccessn pplyinghedefiningules f urmoralractices,nd ny iscontinuationsthe esultfa certainind f mpersonalncompetence.nneitherasedo wediscoversomethingbout he articularther ithwhom earedealing,raboutourselves; oralncounters no ongermatterf xploringnddefiningthe ositionse feel ble ooccupy,nd o ofdefiningurselves.uchvision ules ut nydvantageshat ightccrue romnterpersonalelationsofgreaterepthr ntimacy,ut t lso ules utny isadvantageshat ightaccrue romny eep r ntimatelaims hat thers aymake pon s.Forthekey nxietyonsequentpon emainingpen othe evelopmentfamore ersonalelationshipith therss thatmore fthe elfmust eexposednorderodo so. Once gain, awls acrificeshe elf's otentialforelf-definitiono ts esireorelf-possession.

POLITICS: CONSENTANDCITIZENSHIPATheoryfJustice

InhisCarus ectures,avellrgueshat awls'sontractualisionf hemoralife arriesvernto isvision fpoliticsnd ocialustice,sthatspresentednATheoryfJusticehereafteri). Tobegin ith,ection2ofATheoryfJusticeeploysntirelynalteredhedea f romisingsasocialinstitutionrpracticehatwehave pentomuchimeriticisingere.nother ords,hatarlyccountf his umanctivitysdeemedyRawls ofit eatlyntohewiderheoryhat e sconstructingn hismuchaterook.Butcan it be shown hat hiswider heorytselfmbodiesnundulycontractualotionf he oliticalife?InATheoryfJustice,omethinghat emightall he onversationfjusticeccurst wo oints.heresthe onversationventualitizens usthave bouthe airnessfthe riginalositionnwhichhe rinciplesfjusticere hosen,nd heresalso heonversationctualitizens ustavein udginghe egreeowhichhose rinciplesre mbodiednthe ctualsocietyfwhichheyrepart. hefirst,oundingonversationsmeantoestablishhe aimessf he rinciplesequirednthe econdonversation,tomeasurehe egreeowhichxistingocialnstitutionsivergeromdeal



13/23

182 POLMICAL THEORY/April 997

justice.hefirstonversationims o ttaineflectivequilibriumetweensome et fprinciplesnd hose four ntuitionsboutusticehaturviveupon eflection,ut ow s the econd onversationobeconducted?awlssays hat themeasurefdeparturesromhe deal s leftmportantlyointuitionut sultimatelyobeunderstoods a matterfthe egreefsociety'somplianceith the rincipleshat haracterizewell-orderedsocietynderavourableircumstances,nd hatthose hoxpressesent-mentat he xistingtatef ociety] ust epreparedo howwhyertaininstitutionsreunjustrhow thersavenjuredhem TJ, p.245, 46,and 33).These emarksmplyhat he econd onversationfusticelsoinvolvesmatchingf ntuitionsnd rinciplesnd hatf n nitialudgmentthatninjustices being erpetratedannotltimatelye backed p byreferenceo or rticulatedn ermsf) principlefustice,hentmusterejected,nd hose fustowhomhe ccusation asvoiced anthinkfourselvesnd our onducta]sbeyondeproachTJ, . 422).As Rawls xplicitlycknowledges,isgeneralpproachothe uestionof ocialusticearriesnthe raditionf ocial ontractheory.y imingto nsurehatny rincipleshatre greedowithint re air,hetructureof the riginalositionives s reason oconsentomembershipfanysocietyhat mbodieshem,nd husmakes hose rinciplesentralo nyattemptso ssesswhetherur ctualocietyt ny ivenmomenteservesour ontinuedllegiance.n other ords,hemphasispon rincipleshatis centralo the irstonversationf usticearrieshrougho the econdconversationfustice,nd his asverypecificonsequences.

The dea ofdirectingonsent o the rinciplesn whichocietys basedratherhan, sitwere, osocietys such, eems obe or to ead to an efforto magine onfiningrproportioninghe onsentgivemy ociety-to magine hat he ocial ontractot nlystatesn ffecthatmaywithdrawy onsentromociety hen he ublic nstitutionsof ustice apse nfavour f which haveforegoneertain aturalightsof udgementandredress),ut hat he ontract ight,nprinciple,pecify owfar may educemyconsentin scopeordegree) s justice s reducedlegislativelyr udicially). utmyintuitions thatmy onsents not husmodifiablerproportionablepsychologicalxileis not xile): cannot eepconsent ocussed n the uccesses rgraces f society; treachesnto very orner fsociety's ailure rugliness.Conditions andsome ndUnhandsome,p.107-8)On Rawls's rinciples-basednderstandingfpoliticalonsent,society'spartialomplianceithts rinciplesfusticemustmounto ts istancingitselfromtsmembers-theegreerdepthf he istancingeing ropor-tional o he egreef tsnoncomplianceith hoserinciples.nCavell'sunderstandingfpoliticalonsent,uch artialomplianceay atherre-



14/23

MulhallPROMISING,ONSENT,NDCITIZENSHIP 183sent tself sa sense f ompromisey torconspiracyith t-as revealingthedegree o which havegivenmy onsent o njustice.In effect,awls's nterpretationfmembershipnthepolitical ommu-nity,ust ike his nterpretationfpromising,s toocontractual;e under-stands henaturend xtentf he ommitmentsnd esponsibilitiesowhichthey penus as settlednadvance y mpersonalefiningules rprinciples.This has theeffectfdistancings fromociety,makingtappear s anartifact-an ffecthats indeed entralothe eachingfthe ocialcontractmyth,ut t also hasthe ffectfdenyingomethinghatsequally entralto itsteaching-its rticulationf howdeeplywe experienceurselves sjoined o ociety,sbeing mplicatednor dentifieditht, nd o ashavingalways lreadyonsentedo t.Hemisses,nshort,ts ense hat ur onsentis tosocietys such s much s it s toanyprinciplesponwhich tmightefounded.ForCavell, he lassical ontractheoristsparticularlyousseau)do notthink hat he ull each four onsent osocietysdeterminablenadvancein terms fspecific rinciples,egardlessf whetherrnotweexplicitlyrtacitly greedto them, r whethernsteadwe can legitimatelyhink fourselves s ifwehaddone o. On hisview,hese heoristsatheregin romthedatumhatwe think fthis ocietys ours, hatwerecognizeurselvesaspartyosocietynd ts rrangements,ut hatwe donot lways ecognizeourselves s responsibleor he pecificnequalities,acksoffreedom,ndabsence ffraternityhat heyustain. aced with hese ircumstances,eneed o discover owfar ur onsenteaches,orwhat tmakes sresponsi-ble,and to whatwe arepreparedo continueoconsent;he ontent fourconsent,ts ubstance,nd ts angerenot ettledn dvance f uch racticalinstances f the econd onversationf usticebut reratherneoftheircentralopics, art fwhatmust edeterminedythem.Abetterense fwhat uchdeterminationnvolveswill ppear fwe ookmore losely thow, ccording o Cavell,themyth f the ocialcontractconceptualisesolitical onsent.What consent owhen consent othesocialcontractsnotmere bedience othegovernment,utmembershipfa political ommunity,ndfor avell, hat as two mplications:

First,hatrecognizehe rinciplef onsenttself; hich eanshatrecognizetherstohave onsentedithme, ndhence hatconsentopoliticalquality. econd,hatrecognizeheocietyndts overnment,o constituted,smine;which eanshatamanswerableotmerelyo t, ut ort. ofar,hen,s recognize yselfobe xercisingmy esponsibilityort,my bedienceo t s obedienceomy wn aws; itizenshipnthatase s the ame smy utonomy;he olis s the ield ithin hichwork utmypoliticaldentitynd t sthe reationfpolitical)reedom.CR, . 23)



15/23

184 POLITICALTHEORY/April 997

Politics ere ppearss anarena nwhichhe elf efines rcreatestself;politicalutonomys anaspect fhumanutonomys such, nd nsofars Iexercisemypolitical esponsibilities,must hink fmyselfs shaping rforming y political)dentity.ut this rocess f self-definitions essen-tiallyommunal;he ieldwithin hicht an lonebeachieveds constitutedonly nsofars recognizethers,nd heyecognize e, sfellow-members;since he olis sa community,nd ince cannot onsent o he olis s minewithoutecognizinghat nyone lse whogivestheir onsent anequallyclaim t stheirwn, must iew he awsof he erfectedolis s bothmineandours. cannotwork utmypoliticaldentitylone.

Inotherwords,ospeakfor neself oliticallys tospeakfor he therswithwhomyouconsentoassociation,nd t s to consent obespoken orby hem-as someonenmutualitypeaks or ou, omeonewho peaksyourmind. peakingor thersndbeing poken or y thersspart f he ontentofpolitical onsent; rantinghat onsent s a condition fspeaking oroneself olitically.ut henhe undamentaldisadvantage fwithdrawingone's consent ecomes lear: twould mount ohaving othingpolitical)to ay, obeing oliticallyoiceless.Withoutecognizingpoliticalommu-nity s yours,whichmeansmaking ourselfnswerable ortandallowingothers o speakforyou,there s no suchthing s political dentity,opossibilityfworkingutthat spect fone'sautonomy.his s why hesocial contractmythhinks f us as deeply oinedto society; o talkofmemberships having advantages mountsothinkingtanadvantageoexist olitically,ohave politicalelf.Itwillthereforeardly e news oa socialcontractheoristhat, espitethespecificmperfectionsf most ctualpolitical ommunities,heywillrarelyutweighhe isadvantagesfwithdrawingne's onsentromt.Thismeans hathemode fpolitical iscoursehats ikelyodominateverydaypoliticalife sthat fdissent-not nundoingf onsent,ut dispute boutits ontent,dispute ithintoverwhetherresentrrangementsrefaithfulto t. tamountsodeclaringhat, hilsthepolitical ommunityontinuesto beyours,tdoes notnthis espectpeak or ou; t mountso an attempttoexercise our esponsibilityo make he aws ofthepolisyour wn, nesforwhich ouarepreparedo beanswerable. evertheless,f tsomepointthedegree fsociety's istance rom ts dealbecomesntolerable,henwithdrawalfconsentmay ppear navoidable.ince,however,hat oo sa kindofpolitical ct, tmustnvolve peaking oth oryourselfnd forothers: oumust ay both It is notmineany onger I am no longerresponsibleort, tno ongerpeaks orme) and It s no onger urs notwhatwebargainedor,weno onger ecognize he rinciplefconsentn t,theoriginalwe is nolonger ound ogethery consent utby force, nd



16/23

MulhallPROMISING,ONSENT, NDCITIZENSHIP 185sono ongerxists).t s, n ffect,last-ditchttemptore-foundhe oliticalcommunity,o restoretsfaithfulnesso the riginalontractyforcingnacknowledgementf tspresentaithlessness.Bothwithdrawalsfconsent nddisputesboutts ontentreexercisesofone'spolitical oice nd oconstituteart fwhat avellcallsthe econdconversationf ustice.n both ases, hose ngagedn them re ttemptingto determinehe substance ndrange f their onsent-todiscoverwhatpositionheyrepreparedo ake pwith especto he resentrrangementsof ociety.ndetermininghat heyre nswerableor oliticallypeaking,theywork utthe imits ftheir oliticaldentification,ndso the imits ftheiroliticaldentity-which eans he imits f he ommunityithwhichtheyonsento ssociate.nshort,heyxplore, efine,nd edefinehe epthof heirmembershipnd he xtentf hoseoinedwithhem.nsofars theycontinue oclaim political oice, heymust cknowledgehat hey peakfor thersnd hat therspeak or hem,utwho hose thersre sno moreknowablepriorihan he angend ubstancef heironsent.ntheseways,politicalntercourseonstitutesmode feducation:tpresupposeshat hefinding ndformingfmyself equires hefindingndformingfmyrelations ith thers.From avell'sperspective,awlsmultiplyistortshe eality fpoliticalintercourse.e assumes hat hosewho xercise heirolitical oice ccord-ingto theterms fthe socialcontract yth ossess a settledndsharedknowledgefthepreexistingimits ftheir onsent,incethis onsent sdirectedt he rincipleshat ound heirocietyatherhan t ocietyssuch.This mplies hat heir oliticaldentitys not o much ound rformedytheir ntercourse ithothers s confirmedr reaffirmed;ts depth ndextent-which,ccordingothe ermsf he ocial ontract,eans he epthoftheir dentificationith ociety nd the xtent fthosewhoshare hatidentification-isever pen oexplorationrfurtherefinitionorredefi-nition) hrough olitical ngagementractivitynthecommunity,ut sentirelyransparentr self-evidentn advanceofanyparticularoliticaldiscussion rencounter ith thers.n short, he political) elf, ike themoral elf,s entirelybvious o tself.As we haveseen, tfurthermplies hat onsent an be thoughtfas amatterfdegreend sentirelyroportionalo he egree f ociety'successinimplementingtsfoundingrinciples.hiseliminates hat s surely otan uncommonspectofpolitical henomenology-theense that t leastsomeof ociety's ailures f usticemplicatetsmembers,hat mongstheworst f the llconsequencesttendantpon ocial njustices thefact hatit s done n ourname, ndthat omere ersonal ecitationrreiterationfourcommitmentoprinciplesf ustice aneradicateurresponsibilityor



17/23

186 POLMICAL HEORYApril997whatsbeing one.For fwe think fpoliticalonsents consentingohavea political oice,and fhaving political oice means llowing thers ospeak nyour ame, hen oucannot ick nd hoosebetween he articularthings hey ayas representativefyour oliticalmind-youcannot,s itwere, onsentosociety utwithdrawour onsent romome ubset fthethingsaid and done n ts andso inyour)name, s ifyour oliticalmindwaspartly ublic ndpartly rivate. ccordingo the erms fthemythfthe ocialcontract,heres no such hings a private art fyour oliticalmind, o uch hings aprivate ode fpolitical peech. odistanceourselffrom our ociety'smperfections,oumust itherntirely ithdrawourconsent, hichmeansosingyour olitical oice ntirely-becomingoliti-callyvoiceless,with llthe disadvantages hat ccrues; ryoumust howthat our ociety's epresentativeso not peakforyouby peakingdiffer-ently) or ourself-by issentingolitically,hichmeans ddressinghoseyou ake obe ncommunityith ou nd laiminghat our resentoliticalarrangementsre faithlessoyour riginalompact. ou willthen ind uthowmanyf hose ou ddress re nesforwhom ou an peak, nd herebyprovisionallyix heimits fyour oliticalommunitynd he imits fyourpoliticaldentity.By thinkingfpolitical onsent s directed oward rinciples,awls'svisionofpolitics urtherntails hat hosewhocharge hat ociety s nowintolerablyaithlesso ts riginalontractthosewhoprepare or,rherald,their ithdrawalf onsent)anonlyegitimatelyo so f heyanshow hattheirociety as beenradicallyaithlesso tsprinciples. hat his erspec-tive bliteratess the ossibilityhat his aithlessnessightake he orm fher ociety's ailingogiveher voice nher wn political) istory.he deahere s onethatsgiven xpressionnMarx's alk inTheCritique fHegel'sPhilosophy fRight) f a socialgroup hats thedissolution fall socialgroups, f a sphere hat as a universalharacterecauseof tsuniversalsufferingsnd aysclaim o noparticularight ecause t s the bject fnoparticularnjusticeut f njusticengeneral. t scentraloMill'sdescrip-tion f ur imesinOnLiberty)sanepochnwhichveryone ho xercisestheir aste nddecides course fconducthinks irstfconformity,untilbynotfollowingheir wnnature, heyhave no nature o follow. Theproblemsnot hat fair ule rprincipleas beenunfairlypplied n theircase; theproblems ratherhat hewholeframeworkfprinciplesntermsof which heymust onduct hesecondconversationf ustice s experi-encedas so pervasivelyndsystematicallynresponsiveo theirufferingthat t ppears o stiflehem,oconstitutevocabularynwhich othinghatcanbe said rulypeaks heirmind, ives xpressiono heirxperience.heirsense s that ociety s itpresentlytands hreatensheir oliticaldentity



18/23

MulhallPROMISING,ONSENT, NDCITIZENSHIP 187becausethey an nolonger ecognizets nstitutionss ones n which heymightead a life hatmight enuinelye expressivef theirenseofwhotheyre.Insofar s onemighthink f therightoleada lifeofone's own as afundamentalrinciplef iberal emocracy,uch nappeal ouldbe saidtobe a matterfprinciple,ut tsgroundies not nsociety's ailure oapplyone oftheprinciplesf ustice,but n one of itsmember'sxperiencefpain-individual ain, ut fpoliticalrigin,nd hereforecknowledgedythe ufferers somethingowhich he hasconsented,orwhich he bearssome measure fresponsibility.ince,however,t threatenser enseofidentity,nd since tspolitical riginntails hat he must egardhose hetakes o be fellowmembersfherpolitical ommunitys implicatedn tsimposition,he canonly akeupthat ersonal esponsibilityythreateningto withdrawer onsent-whichmeans laiminghat ocietys no longerhers ndno ongerheirs,y neffectskinghose heregardssher ellowswhetherheyancontinueo onsentotheway hingsrewhen neof hosewithwhom hey akethemselveso be in communityharacterisesheirpresent olitical rrangementss ones n which he canonly xercise ervoice nthis adical,nd na sense elf-punishing,ay-calling ttentionosociety's efusalfhervoicebyrefusingociety ervoice.On Cavell's view, uch a challenge utstheextentndrangeofourpolitical ommitmentsnquestion; resumingpon shareddentificationwith ociety,t asks us torecognize n unusual utradical hreat o thewell-being f a fellowmembernd challenges s to acknowledgeurimplicationnthathreat-which ouldmean akingn the esponsibilityfspeaking urmind bout t,demonstratinghat ociety's epresentativesonot peakfor s when heymaintainhat hreat,ndtherebyeginningodowhatwe canto deflect reliminatet.Sincethis ppealdoes notbase tselfonprinciples,uchaction ouldnotresemble hat equired orespond opolitical issent-noreadjustmentfpolitical ealityo itsframeworkfprinciples ill uffice,ut nly nopenness o theneed ore-foundociety,to the ossibilityhat aithfulnesso tsfoundingrinciplefmutualonsentmight equirehat tsfoundingrinciplesf ustice etransformedrom heground p. In this ontext, ersonalmisery imstoprovokempersonalshame,nd f hat hame esultsnpolitical ction,tmay how o he uffererthat er ocietysnotyet ntirelyaithlesso ts riginalompact,nd o notyetentirelyndeservingfcontinuedonsent. f course, heperson oaddressedmay hoosenot orespond; emay hinkhat he hallenges basednot nmiseryut nenvy,r sotherwisencompetentlyeveled, ndhemaybe right. ut on Cavell'sview, nysuchchallenges notdismissable sincompetentnadvance, urely yreferenceo tsform;urpolitical om-



19/23

188 POLITICAL HEORY/ pril997mitmentsoone anotherrenot o narrowlyefined,r so impersonallydischarged.We must atherespondo the pecific ualities feach suchchallenge,nd fwedecide o dismiss ne, henhat sourpersonalespon-sibility-hat is thepositionwe choose to takeup withthisparticularwould-befellowmember f ourcommunity.ince her addressputs nquestionhercontinuedense of identificationith s, then urnegativeresponse edefineshe imits four ommunity-andnso doing,tfurtherfixes our senseofwho we are,politicallypeaking.On Cavell's view,therefore,ychoosing odefine olitical elationshipsnsucha wayas tomake hem eyond rabove uch eproaches,awlshas made hem ndulynarrow ndsuperficial. oreparticularly,e hashelped o ensure hat isidealpolitical ommunityillbeunresponsiveoany alls for evisions fits founding ision, o anysense that ts inevitable aithlessness ightsometimesake he orm fviolatinghe dentityf tsmembersatherhantheir ights. awls's overly ontractualonception f consent mits tsembodimentfour onsent oenvisage ransformationsn the ubstance four onsent,ndsoto transformationsfour elves ndour ociety.

Political iberalismAgainsthis ackgroundf rgument,t s not ifficulto eewhat avellmightmake of theshiftsn methodologynd emphasis ttendantponRawls'srecentepresentationfhistheoryfustice s fairnesss a speciesofpoliticaliberalism. key omponentfRawls'sdefinitionfthepurelypolitical ealm s his conceptionf itsconcerns s relatingo theperson

understoodurelys a citizen-anaspect ftheperson'sdentityhats tobesharplyistinguishedromhose hat epend pon ermembershipf ub-andsupra-politicalommunitiesuch s churches,rofessionalodies, ndtrade nions, ndthat s a functionf herembeddednessncertain asicpolitical,ocial, nd conomicnstitutions.hemore recisely awlsdefinestheduties ndobligationseassociateswith itizenship,hemore videnttis likely o appear o CavellthatRawls s attemptingherebyo limit heresponsibilitiesndcommitmentsfpoliticalxistence r dentityothoseofcitizenship-ormoreprecisely,hemore ontractualisconception fcitizenshipurnsut o be. Theproblems not, fcourse, hatRawlshas astrongense of thedistinctivenessf thedemands laceduponus in ourpolitical elationships-as pposed othose hat lowfrom ther inds fassociation r dentificationith thersreligious, oral,esthetic,rofes-sional, nd so on).Theproblems ratherhat econceives fthose istinc-tively olitical emandss if heypply nlynsofarswe stand na certain



20/23

MulhallPROMISING,ONSENT, NDCITIZENSHIP 189sociallydefined olewith especto one another-as fcitizenship erespecialkind f nstitutionallyefinedrpractice-basedffice atherhanbasicdimensionfhuman xistencendrelationshiphatsessentiallypenorpartlyndefinednadvance.Thiscontractualizingmphasis ppearsn its mostgeneral orm nthethird fRawls's criteriaor pecifyingherealm f thepolitical.Wehavealreadymentionedisconceptionfcitizenshipnd tsrelationo thebasicinstitutionsf ociety,uthis hirdriterionestrictsny oliticalheoryhataimsto dealwith uchmattersoresourceshat reavailablen thepublicpolitical ulture fthe ocietyowhich hatheorysintendedoapply. hismeans hat tmust otdraw pon lements f nyparticularomprehensivedoctrinesrconceptionsf hegood-on painoffailingroperlyorespectthe qualrightf ll its itizens reelyo choosehowto ive heirives.Thisrestrictionerives rom awls's onvictionhatWesterniberal emocraciesexist n a conditionfreasonableluralism;heirmembersre ubjectotheburdens fudgmenta varietyf uasi-conceptualactorshatmake eason-abledisagreementverfundamental oralssues nevitable),nda varietyof competingnd reasonable onceptionsf thegoodhave accordinglyestablishedignificantupport.ince reasonableitizens rebound o dis-agree verwhich fthese omprehensiveoctrinesoadopt,nd ince heyare qually ound o cknowledgehis act,heyanonly especthe reedomandequality f their ellow itizens yagreeingot outilize heiroercivepolitical owernways hat re ustifiablenly yreferenceo one ofthesecontroversialomprehensiveonceptions.This pecificationfwhat ountss a legitimateoliticalheory-namely,a purely oliticalsopposed o comprehensivene-bases itsdefinitionfthepolitical ealm, nd so ofpolitical dentityndcitizenship,pon thepresuppositionhat heboundaryetween urely olitical aluesandcon-ceptionsndcomprehensivenes canbe sharplyndobjectivelyettlednadvance f verydayolitical ebatei.e.,beforengagingnthe econd indof conversationbout ustice),and it assumesfurtheron pain of self-condemnation)hat his anbesettlednways hat onot hemselvesrawupon lements fcontroversialomprehensiveoctrines. nclosernspec-tion, owever,oth ssumptionsppear xcessivelyemandingnddistor-tive fthe ealityfpolitical ebate.Let us imagine, or xample,omeonewhoacceptsRawls's descriptionofmodernocietiess existingn the onditionfreasonableluralism,ndwhofurtherccepts hat he ery reat alueof societyrganisedlong helinesof ustice as fairness enerallyutweigh nyvalues thatmight efurtheredy he oliticalmpositionf ny articulareasonableomprehen-



21/23

190 POLMCALTHEORYApril997sive conception.uch a personmight everthelesseel hat ertain unda-mentalpolitical ssues overturn hisgeneralcalculationof costs andbenefits-thathe pecific omprehensivealue at stake n the ssue s ofsuch mportances to ustify localsuspensionfthe eneral riorityf herelevantolitical alues.One obvious uch ssue ncontemporaryocietysthat fabortion.orthosewhoregardbortionsmurder,ocitationfthegeneral ains hat ccrue rom liberal olity illoutweighheironvictionthat he tate houldgivenosupporto thosewhoengage n that ractice.What, hen,might defenderfpurely olitical iberalismay to suchcitizens?

Rawls says his:Suppose.. that econsiderhe uestionn ermsf hreemportantoliticalalues:the uerespector umanife,he rderedeproductionfhumanocietyver ime,includinghe amilyn some orm,ndfinallyhe qualityfwomens equal iti-zens.... Now believehatny easonablealance f hese hree alueswill ivewoman dulyualifiedightodecide hetherrnot o ndher regnancyuringhefirstrimester.hereasonor hissthattthisarly tage fpregnancyhe oliticalvalue f he qualityfwomensoverriding.. any omprehensiveoctrinehateadsto balance fpoliticalaluesxcludinghatulyualifiedightn he irstrimestersto hatxtentnreasonable;nd ependingndetailsf ts ormulation,tmaylsobecruel ndoppressive.Political iberalismhereafterL],p. 243,fn 2)It s hard o void he onclusionhat he oiceof he pponentf bortionhashere eenfirmlytifled. o hintmergeshathe uestionf bortionstroubled, ecauseformany t nvolves hedestructionfa humanife;everythingawls says implies hat his oncernwhethereligiouslyn-

flectedrnot) s somehow oliticallyrrelevant-thatny uch pponentfabortionmust ither e failingoacknowledgehe mportancefpoliticalequalityorwomen r s somehowommittedo anunreasonablealancingof that olitical alue with thers. ven f we acknowledgehat his s nomore han sketchf possible rgument,he keletonf ssumptionst aysbaremakes tclear hat ven uch roubledssues s these o not uggest oRawlsthatheboundaryetween hat s andwhat snot political alue sopen oquestion,hat he oint f he rocess fpolitical ebate spreciselytowork oward nswers o suchquestions, nd that n so doingboth urconceptionfthepolitical ealmndour onceptionfourselves s citizensis subjecto furtherrovisionalefinition.Whatwill only heightenhe sense of misery nd rageproduced nopponentsfabortionythis assage, hepoint hat rystallizesheir enseofvoicelessness,s its eeminglyntroubledse ofthe dea ofwhat sand snot easonable.Wesawearlierhat hisdea sutilised yRawls odefine he



22/23

MulhallPROMISING,ONSENT, NDCITIZENSHIP 191boundaryetweenoliticalnd omprehensiveoncernsnd hattmustoso withouttself reachinghat oundary.tsepistemologicalvertonescertainlyuggesthekind f mpersonalitynd priorirecisionharac-teristicfRawls's ontractualism,nd ts ole sequallyharacteristic:heimpersonalimitsf he easonableunctionsa means f xcludingromthe ealmfpoliticshe ualityhat avell as nterpretedscharacteristicof he ealm fmorals ut hat awls's ontractarianccountf hatealmrepresses-thevailabilityf multitudefdifferentut quallyeasonablepositions.nother ords,awls seshis dea f he easonableo nsuresfarspossiblehathe ealm fpoliticseed ot rapple ithhe ossibilityofreasonableisagreement.Unfortunately,closernspectionevealshathisxclusionaryovesmoreontroversialhantmay ppear.orwhats reasonablesmoremoralhannepistemologicalotionor awls;npartt s definedy nacceptancef he uasi-conceptualdeaofthe urdensfudgment,ut talsorequiresnacceptancef verypecificonceptionf ociety:

Reasonableersons.. are otmovedy he eneralood s such ut esireorts wnsake socialworldnwhichhey,sfreend qual,an ooperateiththersn ermsallcan ccept.PL,p. 50)In other ords,he easonables anelementfRawls's dea f ocietysasystemffairooperationetweenreend qual ersons;t s anaspect fhis urelyoliticalut everthelessorallyubstantiveonceptionf ocialfairness.ut hen ecannotnvoket sthe ivotf supposedlybjectiveornoncontroversialefencef hisonceptionf ocietygainsthose homightuestiontsvalue r ven ejecttsbasic ermsutright;orhen ewouldithere rguingn circletakingor rantedne entralart fwhatis supposedobe nquestion)rhewould eforcedoreach eyondhelimitsf he urelyoliticalodefend is onceptionf ocietyincludingits onceptionfwhatsreasonable)spartf comprehensiveonceptionofhuman ell-being.Itseems,hen,hat awls anonly ive nappearancef mpersonalityand efinitivenessohis onceptionf he oliticalealm; isvision fhowany egitimateoliticalheory ust onducttselfertainlyssues n aconceptionf he oliticalelationshipssclearlyefinedn heirxtentndrange,ut nly ecause epresentscontroversialonceptionf heimitsof he urelyoliticalsif twere eyondeasonableisagreement.akingupa fixedositionnsuch n ssue snot, f ourse, orallyrrationallyincompetent,ut y resentinghematters f twerempersonallyixednadvance,awls voids he bligationobear he ersonalesponsibilityhat



23/23

192 POLITICAL THEORY/Apnl1997goeswith hemakingf hat ecision,nd ts onsequentixingfthe imitsof thepolitical ommunity.romCavell'spoint fview,Rawls'sconstanttendency o contractualizeumanmoral ndpolitical elationshipserereachests potheosis.

NOTES1. Perfectionism,olitics nd theSocial Contract: awlsandCavell on Morality nd

Politics, ournalfPolitical hilosophy,no. 3 (September994).2. MountednS. Cavell,Conditionsandsome ndUnhandsomeChicago:UniversityfChicagoPress, 990).3. In ThePhilosophical eview 4 (1955): 3-32.

StephenMulhall saformierrizeFellowofAllSoulsCollege,Oxford,nd scurrentlyreader nphilosophytEssexUniversity.ispublicationsnclude iberals ndCom-munitarians2ded.,Blackwell,996), tanley avell 1994), ndHeideggernd BeingandTime 1996).

Date post:	04-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	swagato-sarkar
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

Promising, Consent, and Citizenship: Rawls and Cavell on Morality and Politics

Documents