04.03.2014 Views

Beyond Struggle and Power: Heidegger's Secret ... - Interpretation

Beyond Struggle and Power: Heidegger's Secret ... - Interpretation

Beyond Struggle and Power: Heidegger's Secret ... - Interpretation

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Book Review: Public Vision, Private Lives<br />

4 9<br />

Mark S. Cladis, Public Vision, Private Lives: Rousseau, Religion, <strong>and</strong> 21st-<br />

Century Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003, 298 pp., $65<br />

hardcover, $29 paperback.<br />

S TEPHEN<br />

E IDE<br />

BOSTON COLLEGE<br />

eidest@bc.edu<br />

I.<br />

In his book Public Vision, Private Lives: Rousseau, Religion,<br />

<strong>and</strong> 21st-Century Democracy, Mark Cladis brings Rousseau to bear on the<br />

debate about private goods vs. public goods in contemporary political theory.<br />

The two sides in this debate—communitarians <strong>and</strong> liberals—agree about the<br />

impoverished state of modern life, but disagree about what side of it is more<br />

impoverished, private or public. Communitarians view modern life as desperately<br />

individualistic, lacking any appreciation for such public goods as<br />

citizenship <strong>and</strong> common culture. Liberals think conformism is the problem,<br />

<strong>and</strong> that what is needed is more respect for diversity <strong>and</strong> individual rights.<br />

Cladis believes Rousseau has a unique contribution to make to this debate<br />

because he recognized the usefulness of communitarian means for liberal ends.<br />

In order to ensure respect for diversity <strong>and</strong> individuality, institutions <strong>and</strong> formal<br />

declarations of rights are not enough. A “shared democratic culture” (197)<br />

is required, which for Rousseau meant a civic religion. Cladis believes secular<br />

liberals in particular (who are inclined to confine religion to the private sphere)<br />

have a great deal to learn from Rousseau’s teaching on civic religion. Religion,<br />

in Rousseau’s telling, can serve to moderate the conflict between public <strong>and</strong><br />

private. Not only does it enrich <strong>and</strong> cultivate our interior private lives, but, as<br />

“common moral belief,” it achieves the ends of liberalism more effectively than<br />

fear or self-interest (6–7, 193–97). But this does not mean Rousseau thinks an<br />

ultimate resolution to the conflict between public <strong>and</strong> private is possible, or<br />

even desirable. What the “characteristically unsystematic” (xii, 9) Rousseau<br />

has to teach twenty-first-century democracy above all is that a “fully human”<br />

©2007 <strong>Interpretation</strong>, Inc.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!