Skepticism Individuality And Freedom

In his unconventional reading of the political philosophy of Thomas Hobbes, Flathman (political science, Johns Hopkins U.) suggests a liberal reading of Hobbes that is skeptical of ethical and metaphysical arguments that claim to know God or God's moral requirements. This leads to a view that the preferred political order is one in which disagreement and disturbance are to be privileged over an imposed homogeneity or uniformity. The foregoing suggests that we cannot do well without government, but we should chasten our expectations for government to provide the conditions necessary for the pursuit of our individual happiness. Annotation copyrighted by Book News, Inc., Portland, OR

First Published in 2003. Routledge is an imprint of Taylor & Francis, an informa company.

Richard E. Flathman is a ground-breaking theorist of key political concepts, a fierce defender of individuality, a close and original reader of Hobbes and an advocate of a willful conception of liberalism. In this volume P E Digeser draws together some of his key works. The collection is framed by an introduction and an interview with Flathman, where he reflects on his contributions. By thinking through and with Wittgenstein’s later philosophy of language, his work clarifies and refines terms that are central to politics and to the tradition of political thought. His work also seeks to cure certain persistent muddles and confusions in our political concepts as well as create and defend a space for the opaque and opalescent features of ourselves. Flathman advances a liberalism that is more open to and celebratory of the idiosyncratic as well as to voices not ordinarily associated with the liberal tradition. The editor has focused on her work in three key areas: The first part focuses on Flathman as a theorist of meaning and presents excepts from his analyses of quality, authority, and rights; The second part focuses on his contributions to understanding the meaning and value of freedom; The final part presents selections that illustrate his conception of liberalism and individuality. Helping to highlight how the innovations in Flathman's thought have shaped the field of political theory, this collection will be of interest to students and scholars.

In 1835, Alexis de Tocqueville predicted a "...species of oppression...[with] which democratic nations are menaced...unlike anything which ever before existed in the world..." It was a despotism that "...would be more extensive and...would degrade men without tormenting them." It would be a force that "...compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, til each...is reduced to be nothing better than a flock of timid...animals, of which the government is the shepherd." Tocqueville was predicting socialism in America, a new form of oppression that did not exist in his time. He could not name it at the time because the word socialism had not yet appeared in the English language and Karl Marx had not yet published his Communist Manifesto. America has become a socialist state and Socialism in America is about what socialism is doing to America today. Socialism is an oppression that has caused America to discard the rule of law, forsake justice, limit freedom, attenuate individuality, create dependence, degrade social norms, attack sources of wealth, and divide the culture. This form of despotic totalitarianism has irreversibly commenced the destruction of American culture and nation. Socialism in America offers the reader the perspective of how and why this is happening. It explains the history of socialism, and in particular the history of socialism in America. It discusses the roles of socialism's foremost vectors, which are primarily the unions and Democratic Party. It critically dissects the philosophy of socialism itself and examines other countries' struggles to survive under the heavy socialist boot. Every freedom-loving American should read Socialism in America.

Americans valorize resistance to conformity. "Be yourself!" "Don't just follow the crowd!" Such injunctions pervade contemporary American culture. We praise individuals such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Steve Jobs who chart their own course in life and do something new. Yet surprisingly, recent research in social psychology has shown that, in practice, Americans are averse and at times, even hostile to individuals who express traits associated with non-conformity, such as individuality, free judgment, and creativity. This disjunction between our public rhetoric and practice raises fundamental questions: Why is non-conformity valuable? Is it always valuable-or does it pose dangers as well as promise benefits for democratic societies? What is the relationship between non-conformity as an individual ideal and democracy as a form of collective self-rule? Contesting Conformity provides a new interpretive lens to the writings of Alexis de Tocqueville, John Stuart Mill, and Friedrich Nietzsche to investigate non-conformity and its relationship to modern democracy. While there are important differences among them, all three thinkers worry that certain aspects of democracy--namely, the power of public opinion, the tyranny of social majorities, and the commitment to moral equality--encourage conformity, thus suppressing dissent, individuality, and creativity. Taken together, Tocqueville, Mill, and Nietzsche show us that to the extent that we are committed to democracy, we must find ways to foster non-conformity, but we must do so within certain moral and political constraints. Drawing new insight from their work, Jennie Ikuta argues that non-conformity is an intractable issue for democracy. While non-conformity is often important for cultivating a just polity, non-conformity can also undermine democracy. In other words, democracy needs non-conformity, but not in an unconditional way. This book examines this intractable relationship, and offers resources for navigating the relationship in contemporary democracies in ways that promote justice and freedom.