James Madison and Identity Politics

The term “identity politics” has become a dirty phrase in some quarters. At the same time, there are many people who embrace the concept. Though initially the connection may seem a little farfetched, I have of late been thinking about how this phenomenon, in part, stems from the thinking of America’s founders, particularly, James Madison.

First, I think it is important to clearly state what I mean by “identity politics” since the term has different meanings for different people. For the purposes of this post, I am defining the phrase “identity politics” to be the advocacy of political and social agendas that pertain to specific groups, such as African Americans, gays, transgender people, women, etc. In addition, regardless of how folks feel about their motives and intents, I would also include groups that now claim to be advocating for so-called privileged or dominant groups, such as white people or men.

There has always been, as there is now, a backlash against identity politics. While some of this backlash, particularly in today’s social media, is nothing but racism, homophobia, misogyny, etc., there are legitimate arguments against the existence of these movements based upon groups. The somewhat popular cry, “Egalitarianism, not feminism” is but one example that I am very familiar with. There are also folks who do not object to the existence of such advocacy groups in principle, but who are extremely critical of specific aspects of these movements. Furthermore, there are conflicts that have arisen between various movements.

The arguments against identity politics are numerous and popular. Critics point out that such movements divide, instead of unite, people. Often, an argument is presented that it is better to work on good policies and beneficial social change, regardless of the needs of specific groups. Others point out that identity politics has fostered some terrible ideas that are harmful to society or to competing groups.

What does all this have to do with James Madison? Surprisingly, the philosophy and actions of this American founder were intimately related to these issues. Furthermore, as the “father of the American Constitution,” Madison was one of the architects of modern societies that foster such movements.

An integral part of Madison’s social and political belief system revolved around the concept that many diverse belief systems could come together to form strong and meritorious ideological governmental and social systems. Madison argued that these conflicting systems would at times counterbalance and at other times complement one another, leading to a strong society and a strong republic. Ralph Ketcham, a biographer of Madison, wrote in regards to Madison’s view that special interest groups,

“would preserve freedom rather then threaten it, because no one interest would control government; each interest – economic, religious, sectional, or whatever – would be a natural check on the domineering tendencies of others. Madison made a virtue of human diversity and neutralized the selfishness of mankind.”

Madison laid out the details of this philosophy in Federalist Paper Number 51. To this day, this treatise serves as a compelling argument for a society where various factions contend and compete with one another. In it he wrote,

“society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority.”

I would be remiss if I did not point out that Madison did not have in mind the diverse ethnic, gender-based and lifestyle-based groups that exist in the twenty-first century. He was instead confronted with a world where various economic and religious interests competed with one another. Thus, there are differences in regards to the nature of the “interests” that Madison was talking about and some of today’s advocacy. However, the same dynamics as to how these groups advocate for their interests and compete with one another apply now as they did then.

In contrast, many of America’s founders, such as George Washington, felt that the best way for a society to function was to stay away from partisanship. That virtuous people would advocate for what is right without banding into factions. In his farewell address, George Washington declared,

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.

Washington’s view of an America without strong factionalism did not prevail, and Madison’s idea that multiple interest groups competing for influence became a permanent fixture in American society as well as in the societies of democracies.

I would argue that history has shown that Madison was exactly right. All sorts of societal improvements, including those relating to human rights and justice, have thrived because individual interest groups have advocated for their interests while in competition with other interest groups. These groupings allow people to organize around very good ideas and effectively promote change. Often these interest groups are based on race, ethnicity, gender, etc.

There is, of course, a downside. Sometimes, these social justice movements push for ideas and policies that are not beneficial. These groups sometimes advocate for things that are detrimental to society as well as to other groups. Extremists and other forms of excess often drive the agenda of such groups. As someone who follows both social and political issues, I agree that many of these groups, such as feminists, antiracist groups, etc., at times foster some very ill-founded ideas that would be very bad for society. Frankly, some ideas that are coming out of movements that are based on such politics are downright awful and are in fact racist or sexist against other groups. This however, was certainly true of the factions that existed in Madison's time. This is why it is important that competing groups, as well as general conservative critics, exist to keep excesses in check.

Advocating for a vague notion of “equality” or “egalitarianism” rarely, if ever, has yielded results. The absence of interest groups means a lot less organization. Without such organization, change is nearly impossible. Furthermore, there are honest disagreements as to what is beneficial and just. If all that there was were millions of individuals expressing their views on equality and justice, with no coherent unifying themes, change would be nearly impossible, as would the coherent criticism of bad ideas.

American examples of the benefit of these groupings abound. The abolition of slavery, the end of Jim Crow, equality for women and marriage equality are just some examples of social progress driven by these groups.  In my opinion, history has shown that, in the long run, the best ideas win out in free societies. I like the term ‘marketplace of Ideas”.The proliferation of interest groups, as well as groups organized to counter these groups, are what makes up the marketplace.

Madison is often called the Father of the American Constitution. Indeed, he had more influence in the composition of the final document than anyone else. In its balance of powers and elected representation, he helped create a government in which such a society that is characterized by competing groups will thrive.

Madison seemed to understand this formula so well. Though he would likely be baffled and astonished by today’s debates on social issues, he was, ironically, one of the architects of the system of discourse and debate that characterizes so much of our modern society. I would argue that the great social progress that Western Society has experienced over the past 150 years has been the result of this competition between interests that Madison both created and foresaw.

4 Years Old!

Babbling Books is four years old today! When I started out, I had only a vague idea of where this blog would go.  Four years later, I find myself very satisfied with the direction that my site has taken. I am also very happy about the fact that I am interacting with all sorts of bright and interesting bookish people.

Thus, my first order of business, as I have done on past anniversaries, is to express appreciation the wonderful blogging community with whom I regularly interact. I have met so many interesting and intelligent fellow bloggers. I must thank all of those who have commented on Babbling Books over the years.

 Contemplating the past four years, I am struck by how much about blogging has improved the way that I think. I touch upon all sorts of social, political, scientific and other subjects in my posts. I have always thought a lot about these subjects and have held lots of opinions on them.  Putting my thoughts about these topics into words has done so much to refine my outlook. Writing about these matters has made me think even more deeply about them. Thinking in such detail has helped me to understand the nuances and complexities that I otherwise might have missed. It has also made me more likely to contemplate competing ideas. As an added bonus, I now have a permanent and ongoing record of my thoughts on these various subjects.

As 2016 begins, I am looking forward to another year of sharing my thoughts on engaging books and concepts. I am also looking forward to more fruitful interactions with the bookish folk of the Internet.

Happy reading everyone!

Tess of the D'Urbervilles by Thomas Hardy

This post contains major spoilers.

Thomas Hardy’s Tess of the D'Urbervilles is the story of the book’s namesake. Tess is a young peasant girl who comes from a family that is intellectually and emotionally less advanced than her. As a result of their somewhat silly pretensions of nobility, Tess sets out in the world, at their encouragement, to seek out her fortune.

Early on, she is raped by the abusive and narcissistic Alec d’Urberville, and the rape results in a pregnancy. Hardy seems to have understood the psychology of sexual assault survivors very well. Tess’s subsequent reaction to the assault plays out very realistically. She does not reveal the nonconsensual nature of the incident to others. Though not entirely rejected by society, Tess is an object of shame due to the pregnancy.  When her young infant dies, she once again sets out into the world.

She meets and falls in love with the seemingly honorable Angel Clare. However, shortly after they marry, Angel discovers some of the details of Tess’s past. He subsequently shows himself to be priggish, hypocritical and cold. Despite the fact that he himself engaged in past indiscretions, he more or less abandons Tess.

Once again, Tess strikes out into the world to endure great hardships. Alec appears and, in stalker-like fashion, begins to infiltrate Tess’s life again. Things end badly when she eventually kills him. Though she briefly reunites with a repentant Angel, the book ends with Tess’s execution.

It bears noting that the behavior of the male characters in this book is extraordinarily bad. Tess’s father is an irresponsible drunk. Alec is an abuser and rapist. Angel, who seems to initially behave decently, is perhaps the most frustrating character of all. He leaves Tess in a spate of childish hypocrisy, despite the fact that his own past included a sexual indiscretion. Hardy clearly did not have a positive image of his male cotemporaries.

 In this work, Hardy seems to be attempting to describe his take on the state of human society. It is a complex view. The author appears to be depicting something of a duel level Universe.  He first illustrates the absolute failure of multiple bastions of society. The failures of manhood, Christianity and modernity, and the prevailing economic and moral systems, are among the factors that conspire to make life impossible for Tess and ultimately lead to her destruction.

Underneath this pernicious structure of society, something else seems to be going on. The book is full of hints about something older appearing out of society’s past. The narrative is full of references to a pagan past and to a spiritual connection to the natural world. Furthermore, there are numerous references to the fact that society’s disapproval of Tess is based on something unnatural and contrary to the old ways.

“Walking among the sleeping birds in the hedges, watching the skipping rabbits on a moonlit warren, or standing under a pheasant-laden bough, she looked upon herself as a figure of Guilt intruding into the haunts of Innocence. But all the while she was making a distinction where there was no difference. Feeling herself in antagonism, she was quite in accord. She had been made to break an accepted social law, but no law known to the to the environment in which she fancied herself such an anomaly."

There is so much to this primeval connection contained in this book. For instance, fertility is referenced over and over again, often in relation to Tess herself. Furthermore, Alec seems to represent the dark, satanic forces inherent in the Universe. The text contains a mixture of Christian and pagan symbolism when it comes to his character.  At one point, he appears near a bonfire,

 “The fire flared up, and she beheld the face of d'Urberville. “

 Later, he even compares himself to the devil as he is speaking to Tess,

"A jester might say this is just like Paradise.  You are Eve, and I am the old Other One come to tempt you in the disguise of an inferior animal. “

The work is filled with references to society’s failures, as well as to this dark, non-Christian foundation. The feminine underpinnings of this Universe seem to be one of the only positive and bright spots in an otherwise dark Cosmos.

These ancient, naturalistic connections seem to reach their height when, in one of the final passages in the book, Tess lays upon an altar at the legendary site of Stonehenge.

Many of these allusions to the pagan underpinnings of the world in this work remind me of similar connections made in Charlotte Brontë’s “Jane Eyre.” However, in Bronte’s work, these ancient and feminine roots seemed to be somewhat triumphant in the end. In the case of Hardy’s novel, however, they are utterly destroyed by a malicious society. This is indeed a pessimistic worldview presented in this novel.

 This novel is bleak. While it is not without hope, and at times portrays the best of humanity, it often illustrates the worst. Despite its pessimism, it is populated with brilliantly crafted characters, and the writing is top notch. I have only scratched the surface in regards to its philosophical musings. I highly recommend this one for readers who are not afraid to look at the darkness inherent in reality.

Meditations by Marcus Aurelius

I accessed  several translations of this work during my recent reading of it. I read the Gregory Hays Translation from cover to cover. The below quotes are from that translation.

Meditations by Marcus Aurelius is a work that has been renowned for centuries. The book consists of the philosophical musings of the famous Roman emperor.

I am no expert on ancient philosophy. However, several sources, including Gregory Hays’s introduction to his translation, indicate that Aurelius draw from the ideas of multiple schools of philosophy, but borrowed primarily from the Stoic school when creating this work.

The philosophy in this work is not complex. Most of the text is a straightforward and insightful exposition of Aurelius’s version of the Stoic thought system.

The author lays out certain basic precepts for a fulfilling life. First, he urges that one view and assess the world as rationally and unbiased as possible. Next, he consoles the reader not to allow painful events, life’s troubles or malicious people, to push one’s mind into the realm of negative emotions such as anger, resentment or sadness. He urges the reader to act and think rationally and ethically, no matter what external events bring. The reader is advised to control what he or she can control and not worry unduly about that which he or she cannot.  The author explains that a godlike force is guiding the Universe and all events are leading to a universal form of good. Thus, it makes no sense to lament or complain about so called “bad things.”

He writes,

“Joy for humans lies in human actions. Human actions: kindness to others, contempt for the senses, the interrogation of appearances, observation of nature and of events in nature. “

There is a sense of fatalism inherent this work. Aurelius repeatedly reminds us that everyone must die,

“Augustus’s court: his wife, his daughter, his grandsons, his stepsons, his sister, Agrippa, the relatives, servants, friends, Areius, Maecenas, the doctors, the sacrificial  priests … the whole court, dead. “

Since death is inevitable and a natural part of change, Aurelius argues that it only makes sense to peacefully accept the end of life.

One question that arises when reading this work for me: does it really rise to the level of greatness in line with the acclaim that it has received over the centuries?  As I alluded to above, my understanding is that the philosophical elements within this work are not original. In his introduction to the his translation, Gregory Hays writes

“it contains little or nothing that is original. It suggests not a mind recording new perceptions or experimenting with new arguments, but one obsessively repeating and reframing ideas long familiar but imperfectly absorbed. “

At times, the writing seems to be profound. At other times, it seems almost to be string of platitudes.

Can what is essentially a summary of a certain philosophic school be considered essential or a great work?

At the very least, due to its influence, this is an important historical and cultural book. Furthermore, the writing is always interesting. More so, it is often a joy to read.

There is something else that began to dawn upon me as I read this work. It seems extraordinarily modern. Marcus Aurelius’ advocacy of finding an inner calm, of keeping one’s mind, as well as one’s values, separate from the outside world, as well as many other insights at times sound like something out a modern self-help book, but perhaps the greatest self-help book ever written. At least in regards to how he presents his message, it seems that the ancient emperor still has something to say that is very relevant to our modern times.

 Yet, despite the above-mentioned virtues, the question still remains. Does this work stand up well to the works of philosophers such as Plato, Aristotle, Rousseau, et al? Due to its lack of originality and lack of complexity, it would be a hard sell to contend that Aurelius reaches the level of history’s great thinkers. Yet, this is still a very valuable tome. Though perhaps not all that novel, it is an eloquent exposition of stoic and related beliefs. Furthermore, if one is inclined to accept any part of this belief system, this book serves as a great motivator and a guide to self-improvement. Though I reject most of the metaphysics contained here, particularly the part about every event in the Universe leading to good, I find value in this work as a blueprint in finding an inner and outer calm not affected by external events. Thus, while perhaps a bit overrated over time, this work is well worth the read.

The Dispossessed by Ursula K. Le Guin : On Gender Issues

My general thoughts on this work are here.

Because of its thoughtful and detailed look at so many aspects of humanity, an enormous amount of commentary has been written about this book. In an attempt to say something different, I choose to write a few words about just one of several important themes. Furthermore, I am going to focus on a subtheme of this theme.

One very prominent area of exploration in this book is gender and the role of women in society. There is so much on this subject covered within this novel that it would be difficult to focus even on this one area in a single blog post. Thus, I will concentrate on one subtheme within the broader theme of gender. That is, the effects that women’s roles have upon men.

Le Guin depicts the society on Anarres as having achieved full gender equality. Furthermore, no one on Anarres is sexually objectified in any way. But it goes beyond that. Interests in beauty and fashion standards are nonexistent. Much of what we would describe as “feminine” in our modern society is eschewed. There is no debate or controversy about this among men or women. It is simply how Anarres is.

This is contrasted with the various societies on Urras, the other planet examined in this work, where women are extremely oppressed. Even in the more advanced nations that seem to be on the level of those of twentieth century Earth in terms of technology, women hold absolutely no economic or political power and very few rights. In addition, they are universally objectified.

Vea is an upper class woman that Shevek, the main character of this book, befriends during his stay on Urras.

At one point, he describes her,

"Shoes, clothes, cosmetics, jewels, gestures, everything about her asserted provocation. She was so elaborately and ostentatiously a female body that she seemed scarcely to be a human being. She incarnated all the sexuality…repressed into their dreams, their novels and poetry, their endless paintings of female nudes, their music, their architecture with its curves and domes, their candies, their baths, their mattresses.”

I think that that the comment “she seemed scarcely to be a human being” is significant as it illustrates what Le Guin’s views are pertaining on what she believes are the dehumanizing effects of the sexual objectification.

Yet this novel is not simplistic and does highlight other views. Vea’s comments about the society on egalitarian Anarres, as she is talking to Shevek, provides an interesting counterpoint,

"I’ll tell you something, though. If you took one of your ‘sisters’ up there…and gave her a chance to take off her boots, and have an oil bath and a depilation, and put on a pair of pretty sandals, and a belly jewel, and perfume, she’d love it. And you’d love it too! Oh, you would! But you won’t, you poor things with your theories. All brothers and sisters and no fun!”

Based in the text, it seems that Le Guin is depicting the Odonian (Odonians are what the inhabitants of Anarres call themselves. See my first post on this book. ) attitudes concerning gender to be superior to those of our modern Western society. With that, this novel is full of nuanced ideas, and it is illustrated that these are complex issues.

Things get interesting when the men of Anarres encounter the women of Urras. The males of Anarres are depicted as completely progressive when it comes to attitudes on gender. This view seems to be universal even with young men.

Yet when boys on Anarres view videos of slave women on Urras, they become very sexually stimulated. Furthermore, when Shevek, an otherwise sympathetic protagonist, begins to interact with Vea, he is intoxicated by her sensuality and losses control. He commits what can only be described as a sexual assault.

So what is Le Guin saying here? I think that it is safe to assume that the society on Anarres, where the vast majority women do not participate in activities to enhance their attractiveness, is meant to be viewed positively. In the world depicted in this book, both men and women seem to function in balanced and healthy ways when it comes to sexuality and gender relations. Yet, exposure to women who do place value and effort upon physical attractiveness leads to some awful behavior on the part of men who are not otherwise sexist or misogynist in any way.

Le Guin seems not to be condemning men here. However, I think that she is saying that there is an innate tendency for men to objectify women. She is tying to illustrate that this tendency is harmful to both men and women.

Le Guin seems to be saying that a society where people, particularly women, do not bother at all to be sexually attractive is a preferable society to our own. Or, perhaps the author is just throwing the idea out as food for thought.

My opinion is that the issue of some people wanting to be attractive to the opposite sex is an extremely complex one. Likewise, the issue of some people being attracted to certain traits in other people, and how this attraction affects them, is similarly complex. Some aspects of human society clearly objectify people, usually women. Where healthy sensuality ends and objectification begins is a major source of the complexity. I think that a society where women, and men for that matter, take virtually zero care in their physical appearance in regards to attracting others sexually runs counter to our biology and is not desirable. With that, there still is objectification of women in society that is demeaning and that is not conducive to a healthy society.

Thus, while I do not agree with Le Guin entirely here, these are really important concepts that delve deeply into the core of humanity. These concepts are examined in a thoughtful and enlightening way within the pages of this work.

I have only scratched the surface above. This book has a lot more going on in terms of gender. Furthermore, gender is only one of the many aspects of society examined in this work. As I mentioned in the first part of my commentary, this novel takes an intriguing look at economics, violence, war, poverty and a host of other things. It is a treasure trove of ruminations about so many aspects of the human condition.