60 Comments on Help me go the extra mile

Nigel raymeny on Fri, 19th Mar 2010 3:22 pm


Don’t mean to de-motivate you, Matthew, but what you are proposing doesn’t sound remotely like codswallop. Looking forward to reading the book!

mas on Fri, 19th Mar 2010 3:40 pm


will be interesting to follow – I have a voice in my head asking whether enlightenment includes a healthy scepticism with regard to science.

John Craig-Sharples on Fri, 19th Mar 2010 3:44 pm


Matthew – I think you are being a bit hard on yourself but as a regular reader of your blog I’m happy to keep an eye out for posts about C21st englightenment.

Working in local government, the question, why does it take so long to make change happen, is something I’ve often asked. I was reading a Young Foundation report this morning which suggests that the loss of power of the local government sector has been ‘a direct result of a failure to innovate, to find fresh new solutions that provide services through new, cheaper and more effective approaches’.

I’m sure fear of failure is a deterrent for public organisations as much as for us all as individuals but is it also about size? The larger and less agile the organisation, the more hierarchical it tends to become and the greater the challenge of getting commitment to the changes.

Maybe part of the the answer is to focus on very small scale, modest changes that are more attainable at both a personal and organisational level – or is that too defeatist!

Will Davies on Fri, 19th Mar 2010 3:58 pm


It’ll be fascinating to see where you end up.

One thought (with apologies if this is already obvious): had you looked at Immanuel Kant’s ‘An Answer to the Question ‘what is enlightenment”? It’s all here

Michel Foucault then had a stab at the same question, which is of interest because it scotched the standard view that Foucault was somehow anti-Enlightenment, whereas his essay shows things to be more complicated than that. Read it here

Kant’s definition of Enlightenment turns on the famous distinction between ‘public reason’ and ‘private reason’, arguing that the former needed to be free from interference, while the latter needed to be constrained by authority. You could have a great deal of fun trying to remould that very issue, in a time when questions of authority are up in the air thanks to constitutional crises, when the whole notion of reason is being damaged by neuroscience and behaviour studies, and when the division between public and private is utterly muddied by the internet. So there’s something small to get stuck into!!

Will Davies on Fri, 19th Mar 2010 3:59 pm


I should add, the point of Foucault’s essay was to celebrate the 200th anniversary of Kant’s.

Max Hogg on Fri, 19th Mar 2010 4:17 pm


Matthew,

Sounds interesting – and a good ‘bargain’ with your readers – in the ethos of the RSA’s social networks.

Having said that, it’s also quite an unusual request of blog readers – it’ll be interesting to see how it works.

As an initial comment – I’d like to hear more on what you see as the driving force/purpose of 21st century enlightenment. You talk about sustainable citizenship and living in a way that allows us to create the future we want. Building on this I’d like to read at some point over the next few months a clear articulation of the benefits of pursuing 21st century enlightenment. It’s possible to make a negative argument in favour of this (to paraphrase: if we don’t live as sustainable citizens assorted nasty things will happen to us and to society) but I also think it’s vital to make a positive, idealistic argument in favour of 21st century enlightenment.

As a first stab at that positive argument I might suggest something along the following lines:

- 21st century enlightenment is the mechanism by which we can pursue the ideals of liberty and equality in 21st century. Economic liberty (to own property, to consume etc.), whilst very valuable in the past, no longer have much more to offer people in developed countries. Furthermore the pursuit of economic liberty is often to the detriment of both equality and other forms of liberty (particularly psychological). By contrast 21st century enlightenment, through new understandings about human nature, offers us the potential to make another leap towards liberty of a similar magnitude to the original enlightenment. This is by offering all members of society the opportunity to develop our capacities to think critically and reflexively, recognise and keep in check our base desires, and pursue our lives in the way we wish, free from outside interference (whether physical or psychological). For this to occur, our emerging knowledge about human nature needs to be widely understood, hence the importance of Matt Grist’s work to find out whether the public are interested in the ‘social brain’ broadly construed.

- We know some nasty things are likely to happen to us in the 21st century – the impacts of climate change; water shortages; the impacts of biodiversity loss; (the way things are going) a significantly larger financial crisis etc. 21st century enlightenment is one of the means by which we can ensure that these (and other) natural and economic shocks don’t translate into social shocks. In the words of the recent Demos pamphlet on resilience – 21st century enlightenment can make our society less brittle, and more adaptable to these shocks, by fostering stronger communities and more outward-looking, altruistic behaviour.

Max

Tony Dimmer on Fri, 19th Mar 2010 5:39 pm


Thanks Matthew, It looks like there is a lot of research to do to bring the Age of Enlightenment up to date without the certainties that our ancestors claimed for science or any other certainties.Good luck

matthew taylor on Fri, 19th Mar 2010 6:34 pm


It’s only six thirty on firday and already a really encoruaging and useful set of comments. Thanks folks. I’ll read the Foucault and some Todorov on the way to and from West Brom versus Preston.

Livy on Fri, 19th Mar 2010 6:43 pm


“The 21st century enlightenment recognises that human fulfillment must be pursued on the foundations set by human nature and within the finite limits of the natural world. Human efficacy is about understanding and adapting to those limits”

Reminded me of an old Tim Roth movie where he played a virtuoso jazz pianist who spent his life living on a cruise ship, never setting foot on dry land.

“Take piano. Keys begin, keys end. You know there are 88 of them. Nobody can tell you any different. They are not infinite. You’re infinite… And on those keys, the music that you can make… is infinite. I like that. That I can live by… “

At the end of the movie he refused to leave the ship, saying the real world was so vast and complex that it was the equivalent of God’s piano; he didn’t know how to play on an infinite number of keys.

Hilary Sutcliffe on Fri, 19th Mar 2010 7:02 pm


Something about it is self-indulgent codswallop but I can’t put my finger on what, however it is an excellent elephant task strategy and a very good idea to draft collaboratively, and I am looking forward to it! Congrats to the lady who said it and you for hiring such a great person!

Funnily enough it is an area that we are looking at from our own angle too (matterforall.org) in looking at how do we make new technologies work for us all, and avoid, as Robert Winston says in his new book Bad Ideas ‘the dangers human societies face from our inventiveness’.

Science in the Age of Enlightenment as far as my small amount of knowledge indicates, as well as the development of the great academies, saw the increase in the popularisation of science and the increased interest of the public. The 21st Century Enlightenment will have science and technology at its heart, with astonishing developments in medicine, materials and among other things, perhaps on of the ways of helping us get out of the mess we have got ourselves into climate wise. It is also very much a manifestation of us striving to reach our potential.

Similarly there is a step change happening in the public’s involvement with science though structured national debates, input to the direction of research – perhaps an important manifestation of sustainable citizenship? (In fact I am seeing Sam Mclean about this aspect of Citizen Power on Tuesday morning).

If you are looking at Enlightenment you can’t ignore the contribution and issues raise by science. Happy to help!

Hey how about a series of joint debates on this issue with the Royal Society? Matter would be very happy to facilitate these and help work up the subject matter? I am sure you know James Wilsdon well, it would be fun, though I am sure you have done it already, I have been out of touch with the RSA of late.

Stanley Parker on Fri, 19th Mar 2010 7:41 pm


I support this brave initiative of yours, Matthew. I agree entirely with your statement about rational choice being affected by, for example, emotional intelligence. I trust you’ll develop this

I also support Hilary Sutcliffe’s suggestions about joint lectures with the Royal Society. RSA is often at its most successful when working with a partner

TimHood on Sat, 20th Mar 2010 3:22 am


….’human fulfilment must be pursued on the foundations set by human nature and within the finite limits of the natural world’ -this really works. The first two sections of the book sorted already (keep the second one nice and short though- no likes a sustainability bore!)

The implication is that there’s been a great leap forward in understanding. How are we going to lead our lives and organise, now that we have that understanding?

Human inventiveness-both social and technological- is changing the context in which we live our lives several times over the period of a generation (personally my head is spinning and I’m increasingly beset with an absurd 70′s nostalgia). Would a 21st enlightenment embrace this reinvention or try to find some constants, I wonder? Not being religious, pretty much the only constant I can find in my life is Cadbury’s confectionary.

This sounds a very exciting project and I think you are the right person to do it Matthew, both in terms of your RSA role and personally. But why not make it easier on yourself and do part anthology- with plenty of forewords- and part personal manifesto in a concluding chapter? That might be what you really want to do anyway, right? Bring together your vast array of knowledge of research and put your own stamp on it? Nothing wrong with that at all….

Brenton Holmes on Sat, 20th Mar 2010 3:25 am


Matthew
Good luck. Sympathise with your struggles. On the civic republican side of things, I think Quentin Skinner and Phillip Pettit have a lot to say that is helpful. (e.g. start with essays by Skinner “On Justice, the Common Good and the Priority of Liberty’ in C Mouffe (ed) Dimensions of Radical Democracy: Pluralism, Citizenship, Community Verso 1992) and Pettit “Deliberative Democracy, the Discursive Dilemma and Republican Theory” in Fishkin&Laslett 2003). Also like the work of Stein Ringen who brings a very pragmatic perspective to bear on things and is very thorough .
Cheers
Brenton

Steve Green on Sat, 20th Mar 2010 9:38 am


A three or four month deadline seems adequate for the task! Simples!

There is one direction you may need to consider. The writers and thinkers of the original Age were European, addressing their contemporary challenges. Most of the subsequent commentators,including those referenced in previous posts from Kant to Demos, are also European. So the question to bear in mind is “how universal”? UK-only? European-only? Global?

A good self test would be ask yourself “how would this proposition work in Cairo/Shanghai/Mumbai/Nairobi/Hanoi etc.” A role for RSA-International.

Nick on Sat, 20th Mar 2010 10:45 am


Matthew,

I’m extremely pro ‘live drafting’ and am very glad you’re choosing to do it.

A couple questions which I’m sure will be answered as the process goes through but just to show what instinctively jumped out at me. They’re based on my very sketchy knowledge of the original enlightenment so the assumptions may be plain wrong, in which case apologies.

1) The original enlightenment was in many ways a direct challenge to most of the powerful institutions of its time; Do you anticipate a 21st century enlightenment would similarly challenge current hierarchies and institutions or do you expect it to be something they will gladly adopt for the advantages they bring.

2) As the aim of the new enlightenment focus on citizenship and collective action, do you think it will require engagement by a far wider slice of society than the original enlightenment?

Looking forward to it.

carl allen on Sat, 20th Mar 2010 9:37 pm


So what things are different in the 21 century from other centuries is a start.

Space and time: transport for all manner of things and activities is really quick but there are recent walls to geographical movement e.g. immigration, trade regulations, restricting net access.

Most information is no longer discrete but connected and blurred to most users because space and time has been shrunk by technology.

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs still applies i.e. Barclay’s Bob Diamond and his ilk are still on the first rung of need.

The wealthy and highly educated are either too lazy or still do not believe they can eliminate poverty, and the inequality gap is not the issue.

But I rather doubt enlightenment has changed.

Duncan Lawie on Sun, 21st Mar 2010 8:38 am


250 words so far – but the last paragraph is buzzword bingo.

Do we wish to simply accept human nature? If we had a real understanding of its foundations, can we not then begin to work with transforming it? (Or is that wandering into extropian territory?)

Betapolitics on Sun, 21st Mar 2010 9:58 am


Hello Matthew

I like the idea of testing your thesis as you go along. We are very rarely completely right at the beginning of a creation process. The iterative approach should help you to hone your ideas using all our feedback.

Here are my initial thoughts:
· It is good that you are giving a lot of attention to human nature. Technology is neutral. Facebook is not evil; it is a neutral communication tool which improves the way in which we interact, whether we have good or bad intentions.
· The type of citizenship you are talking about is linked to the unwritten rules that bind cultures. Can these rules work if they are written down?
· Human nature is not consistent. It has a higher chance of being consistent within a certain culture but the world, and even British society, contains many different cultures which impact on a person’s human nature.
· Certain people/groups have a violent reaction to change, enlightenment, and advancement. They are very happy trying to keep the status quo.

Im looking forward to seeing where you go next.

Nick

David Wilcox on Sun, 21st Mar 2010 12:12 pm


Sustainable citizenship, and the RSA’s new mission of 21st century enlightenment, will only succeed if citizens can understand what that means. My old news editor used to say “if you can’t take the story home and tell it to your wife (partner, friend, whatever) it isn’t a story”.
How about using the RSA Peterborough project on citizen power as the sounding board, as well as this blog? There’s a local launch event in May that might be good for a dry run.
RSA could then take the idea “the central quest of the 21st century enlightenment is for the ways of thinking, the forms of action and the types of institutions that will foster sustainable citizenship” and add “for example, in places like Peterborough ….”
The test would then be whether the citizens attending could go home and say “These RSA ideas on sustainable citizenship make a lot of sense … what we need to do is …”
Or even better, mix ideas about citizenship generated on the ground in Peterborough, and elsewhere, with the draft evolving. Citizen-based co-creation, to answer any further charges of elitist wonkery

Sam McLean on Sun, 21st Mar 2010 12:45 pm


This is exciting stuff. A few comments:

Central to any talk of the Enlightenment is the commitment to and belief in progress both scientific and moral. Any account of twenty first century enlightenment should outline what human progress means today.

I would strongly recommend the work of Jonathan Israel, particularly his thinking on the ‘radical Enlightenment’ which he traces back to Spinoza.

I fully recommend the two essays Will suggests. The later Foucault became obsessed with Kant’s question, ‘what are we today?’ But the response Foucault offers is a very different one to Kant. For Foucault enlightenment is not to be understood as an epoch but a ‘critical attitude’ directed towards overcoming limits presented to us as ‘necessary, obligatory and transcendental’. The recognition of limits is an important precondition of this but not the goal. If interested I would also strongly recommend another Foucault essay, ‘What is Critique?’

This way of understanding enlightenment has important implications for what you are beginning to outline. It is important to recognise the limits of human nature and the natural world. But it does seem to assume a more fixed or static view of human nature than I would personally agree with. The cognitive sciences are exciting in my view partly because they show human biology to be remarkably dynamic. Partly for this reason I would like to know more about what you mean by the limits of human nature.

The vision you develop of the political and social world would be exciting and thought provoking. I would strongly recommend reading Hannah Arendt. She provides a strong and convincing defence of civic republicanism, which I find attractive. Will send you some links. I have also discovered over the last few years via Richard Rorty the incredible work of John Dewey, the great American pragmatist. His work on social co-operation and civic action provides a genuinely radical alternative to both liberal political philosophy, civic republicanism, and theories of deliberative democracy (i.e. Habermas and Rawls). There is a very good article by Axel Honneth which I’ll send you.

We both obviously agree on what you say about sustainable citizenship. One of the key questions to address is how we cultivate sustainable forms of social and civic action. This will be vital if we are to meet the challenges facing society and public services today. In particular, how do we change the default position of people and move from an ‘opt in’ model of citizenship (i.e. ‘as a citizen I have the choice to participate) to an ‘opt out’ model (i.e. ‘as a citizen I should and have to participate’). Poorly stated but you know what I mean! This will certainly require both strong political leadership and real commitment to giving power to people and communities. Any solutions would be most welcome!

Sam McLean on Sun, 21st Mar 2010 12:46 pm


Hi David – excellent!

David Wilcox on Sun, 21st Mar 2010 1:12 pm


Hi Sam – I think there’s a twin-track approach emerging here: philosophical (Matthew’s ideas, and the scope for linking with the thinking you reference), and practical (what citizens understand and will do). You say:
“One of the key questions to address is how we cultivate sustainable forms of social and civic action. This will be vital if we are to meet the challenges facing society and public services today. In particular, how do we change the default position of people and move from an ‘opt in’ model of citizenship (i.e. ‘as a citizen I have the choice to participate) to an ‘opt out’ model (i.e. ‘as a citizen I should and have to participate’).”
I don’t think you can often change people’s default positions through pamphlets – important though they may be to provide an overall rationale.
You may be able to help people change for themselves … but that means working with them in terms they they will understand on issues important to them.
As you say “real commitment to giving power to people and communities”.
I think there are a lot of Fellows – and critical friends – who would be interested in helping work through the relationships between the philosophical and practical, and contribute on ways to engage with citizens in Peterborough and elsewhere.
How about moving this discussion across to the Fellowship site – linked with Matthew’s emerging posts – so there is an easy-to-find standing space for both philosophical discussion and ideas on practical action? Or the Citizen Power site?

David Wilcox on Sun, 21st Mar 2010 1:19 pm


Hi Sam – I put a couple of links in a reply so it is in moderation. Basically, saying how about taking up the interesting philosophical and practical linkages on the Fellowship and/or Citizen Power sites to get wider engagement. With continuing links here of course.

Livy on Sun, 21st Mar 2010 7:25 pm


Not to be a killjoy about it, but…

Doing it this way will take you longer. Much longer. It’s a bit like the problem faced by early cartographers before the days of satellite technology and computers. The bigger the map the more detailed it had to be, and even when complete; unavoidable errors and inconsistencies meant the scale wasn’t large enough to accommodate the desired level of accuracy. They kept increasing the scale and employing extra help only to chase their own shadows, almost like running half a race, then running half the remainder, then running half of what remained after that, etc…

The race never ends. It never can if you’re attempting to identify hidden determinants of human behaviour, something that would have the same explanatory and predictive power for society as Newtonian physics has for the natural world. If that’s what we’re running, then 21st century enlightenment must involve some admission of its own frailties as well as the theoretical, often problematic assumptions that inspire the voices of our better angels. It’s all too tempting to believe what was once within our reach is now within our grasp – and certainly that’s the right sentiment. But it’s often the smallest steps within a tighter framework that produce the most insightful and practical results.

For example, your colleague asked what you would be prepared to do in order to go the extra mile. Commit the RSA to using open source software; run all your work computers and servers on Linux platforms if you don’t already. Personally I’d recommend Ubuntu, it’s a bit like making the switch to Diet Coke. You’ll never go back. The name comes from a term in African Bantu languages, roughly translated; ‘I am what I am because of who we all are’. Flakey, I know. But it makes more sense once you grasp the concept of freedom in the way software and information is distributed, and the ethos that drives a lot of developers to produce their work for free is humbling. Since 2007 the French Parliament’s desktops have been running it, apparently providing substantial savings to the taxpayer and I think it’s also the default OS in Brazilian primary schools, used by roughly 50 million students.

As for the ‘live drafting’ angle, I fear your map may never be big enough. You might be better off setting aside three whole Sundays and do nothing else, just burn through it. It’s not self-indulgent codswallop at all. But a psychological fear of failure is. Could be youth and inexperience talking here, but I’ve never understood why something being difficult could be a good enough reason not to do it.

Is anybody else troubled by the increasingly widespread and arbitrary use of ‘human nature’ in everything we read these days?

Livy

Katy T on Sun, 21st Mar 2010 9:53 pm


Glad you have returned to this Matthew.
Have been trying to become a better citizen and go the extra mile myself however so often come up against ‘short termism’ in my thinking which deters action.
Is there another way of thinking that is so readily compatible with being a global economic factor of production, flitting around the world from one short-term contract or tenure to the next whilst being buffeted by the short-term cyclical movements of Government and The Markets.

Can we be sustainable citizens, engaged and committed without any physical attachments?

Love the light that Foucault shines with such brilliance on the transitory nature of our thought systems.

Hope you make progress with this huge endeavour. No enticement is needed to help such a worthy pursuit – sorry can’t help but imagine cheesy wine puns.

isle of man mansions on Sun, 21st Mar 2010 10:41 pm


It is a good concept. Maybe this enlightenment is more forced on people, by reality rather than intellectual processes.

Brenton Holmes on Mon, 22nd Mar 2010 4:32 am


Matthew

Meant to include in my list of relevant reads the work of Bo Rothstein, especially ‘Social Traps and the Problem of Trust’ (Cambridge Uni Press) . He has some good insights into social capital, esp. w.r.t. capacity for dialogue between citizens.

Brenton

Just had another thought … you probably don’t have time to read a lot of extra stuff, so why don’t you just start writing and the rest of us will suggest relevant bits and pieces as the occasion arises. This is also more consistent with a ‘joint drafting’ approach. Cheers.

James Horn on Mon, 22nd Mar 2010 8:31 am


Haven’t got much to add on the above comments, only to say that I’ll be watching and feeding back in the coming months…

Actually, I do have a one challenge – try and avoid too much RSA Jargon – I’ve noticed some of the recent RSA stuff almost gets weighed down and codified by too many buzzwords – I don’t mean it needs to be simple, just jargon-filtered…

David Wilcox on Mon, 22nd Mar 2010 9:23 am


Brenton rote:
Just had another thought … you probably don’t have time to read a lot of extra stuff, so why don’t you just start writing and the rest of us will suggest relevant bits and pieces as the occasion arises. This is also more consistent with a ‘joint drafting’ approach.
Agree. Sounds like a wiki could be useful. Build a sustainable citizenship resource as you go.

Laura on Mon, 22nd Mar 2010 11:05 am


If I may, in the words of the inimitable Scroobius Pip, his new song sums this up rather nicely:
Imagine a song that really reached out and touched kids
and not in a Daily Mail way, innocence corrupted
but in a way where criticism remained constructive
and wasn’t too politicised, and children weren’t instructed
to behave in a way that was unrealistic
or made out the way they live was somehow sick and twisted
but simply pointed out reasons to get it together
not shouting “get a job”, but just saying
get better

Listen on myspace: http://www.myspace.com/lesacvspip
The song is called ‘Get Better’. I love it.

carl allen on Mon, 22nd Mar 2010 11:06 am


Best point so far in the comments … start writing.

So maybe your actual talk on the day need not follow the usual format? Perhaps it’s just question time and complete the document in real time?

Michael on Mon, 22nd Mar 2010 4:31 pm


Two short comments and links:

Did you see the long essay by historian Tony Judt in the Saturday Guardian, which seems pertinent to your enlightenment project. The title is “A manifesto for a new politics”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/mar/20/tony-judt-manifesto-for-a-new-politics

James Horn’s comments on jargon above. The problem here is that, as a philosopher would say – “it all depends on what you mean by jargon.”
There was a terrific article on this by the economist John Kay in the FT – short, entertaining and illuminating in my opinion. One line extract:

“There is an important distinction to be drawn between jargon which is a shorthand which professionals use to communicate with each other, and jargon which charlatans use to disguise the vacuity of what they are saying from the wider public.”

Read it all here – great title too:

http://www.johnkay.com/1998/03/02/in-defence-of-endogenous-growth-theory/

matthew taylor on Mon, 22nd Mar 2010 7:24 pm


This is such a fantastic set of comments. I am really grateful. But it demands that I give some time to my next set of thoughts and today has so far involved chairing two events, having three external meetings, being a guest on Daily Poltics, and i still have a an after dinner speech to go. So, I’m really hoping to post a proper reply tomorrow. Thanks again everyone

Ian Leslie on Mon, 22nd Mar 2010 7:56 pm


Matthew – do take time to watch Bill Clinton on 21st century citizenship ( a speech he gave last month): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_UTMFQRiOo

He’s as informed, creative and wide-ranging as ever. Great stimulus.

DaveG on Mon, 22nd Mar 2010 11:19 pm


Matthew,

Excellent project, will read and follow with interest.

To me, the 250 words gave alot of the preparatory material that will be useful for a longer treatment, but not as much on the content as I would have liked. But then thats a tricky thing- my own efforts would be/are much the poorer.

Certainly, plumbing the humanist tradition, including modern ones seems a good place to start.

I agree about the need for collective solutions and citizenship, but for me your 1st pass had a little too much of the societal drivers and needs, and not enough personal development/Maslow-type content.

Can I make a request that one post tackles your views on transhumanism?!

Patricia on Tue, 23rd Mar 2010 1:50 am


How about focusing on the transition between the 18th and the 21st century enlightenment – a sense of continuity but also a feeling of rupture? This seems like a good way of binding together in a tight narrative the three aspects you highlighted: the 18th century ‘freeing’ of human rational potential, the subsequent realisation of the ‘limitations’ of human constitution and the model for citizenship politics you have in mind.

So, the thesis would be something like this:

The 21st century enlightenment is about completing the incomplete – and perhaps somewhat derailed – project of Enlightenment (in terms of bringing about its goal) but also about revising its terms (correcting the initial presuppositions of how this goal is to be achieved).

The argument could go like this:

The goal of Enlightenment is emancipation (here defined as ‘the unlimited and universal participation of all in the consensual generation of the principles governing public life’). This goal was to be achieved through the rationalization of the organization of social relations (understood in terms of overthrowing of the externally imposed and uncritically adopted authority and subjecting claims to the test of rational scrutiny on the assumption of the universalistic foundations of morality and law).

This all sounds great but what occurs in practice is a pathology of the process of social rationalization. What happens is that rationality (the system) and the intuitive knowledge of everyday (lifeworld) come apart; the growing autonomy of the subsystems of purposive-rational action steered by the media of money and power has further devastating effects on our life. So, what happens in practice is something difficult to express concisely in a non- philosophical jargon at 1:50 am… To cut a long story short, we do not get to be emancipated (a proper account of what happens is to be found in Habermas). This, of course, raises the question of whether we should stick to the project of Enlightenment or abandon it.

The point of this is that using this framework would allow you:

a) To present the 21st century enlightenment with its holistic picture of human psychology in terms of overcoming of the 18th century rational bias.
b) To define the model of sustainable citizenship in terms of reuniting the system and lifeworld.
c) To articulate clear points of continuity and rapture between the old and the new enlightenment while retaining the overarching goal – the reason why the project of enlightenment should not be surrendered
d) To start thinking about this ‘assignment’ in terms of an exciting opportunity of a heroic rescue …

Hilary Sutcliffe on Tue, 23rd Mar 2010 7:09 am


Can we have an understandable version for the ordinary folks too!? I’m afraid some of your commentators are well over my head!

Joe Nutt on Tue, 23rd Mar 2010 11:51 am


Matthew,
Not at all impressed by the “civic republicanism” phrase… but then I have just finished my new book on Milton and am thoroughly sick of finding historical parallels!

On those siren calls from the techno-zealots about wikis etc, I would be very, very wary…and can’t recommend Lee Seigal’s “Against the Machine” strongly enough to explain why.

Daniel Vennard on Tue, 23rd Mar 2010 12:55 pm


Brilliant idea. Can’t wait to read it as you go. Dan

Livy on Tue, 23rd Mar 2010 3:59 pm


Joe..

Lee Seigal? You must be kidding. This is the guy who used a pseudonym to post on his own blog, defending himself against other commentators by praising his own razor sharp wit and intelligence. So intelligent that he got busted for it….and then suspended from the New Republic…

Oh yeah, and as for his views on Jon Stewart and Malcolm Gladwell… sheer bitterness.

In a rare moment of attempted maturity I’m resisting the urge to make a sarcy comment about wikipedia editing.

Laurie on Tue, 23rd Mar 2010 4:42 pm


the concept is right but the languague is too high flown. if the 21st century enlightenment is about the people, then make the effort to use clear language that everyone can readily understand. good ideas should be expressed simply.

Patricia on Tue, 23rd Mar 2010 4:55 pm


Hilary, I take your comment applies to my post. The idea would be to show how the 21st century enlightenment recognises, and ultimately attempts to fix, those things that have gone badly in the tradition originated in the 18th century. The problem with the 18th century enlightenment is that the idea of rational liberation and control was taken too far. On the individual level, it led to an assumption that humans are purely rational and hence, the dimension of the sensuous/affective/subconscious can be eliminated or ignored in thinking about the best way of structuring their interactions. On the global scale, the relentless pursuit of rationalization in certain areas such as the sciences – but also the market economy and the administrative state – had also pretty bad consequences. Firstly – simplifying a fair bit, sorry – rational reasoning was equated with instrumental reasoning. This allows to get problems solved efficiently but prevents people from asking why they have to be solved in the first place/ what’s the value of solving them. Secondly, this persistent rationalization process applied only to these certain areas and left other areas totally unaffected – most importantly, it had no impact on how people went about their daily business. That is to say, people’s ordinary life became increasingly detached from the rationalized domains they could no longer understand such for instance as the organization of the state. One consequence of this process is something called the legitimation crisis – a situation where people can no longer identify or relate to the governing structures and the political class they elect… a hot topic these days… but I better stop here. So, the idea is that the 21 century enlightenment tries to fix these things while – and because of – retaining the goal of emancipation originally set by the 18th century enlightenment. I hope this makes more sense…

21st century enlightenment – the work begins | Matthew Taylor's blog on Tue, 23rd Mar 2010 5:26 pm


[...] Thanks again to all those who gave me comments, encouragement and suggested reading for the 21st century enlightenment (21ce) project. I am starting to realise how daunting this is going to be. Not only will it require me to carve out more of my time (so I’ll be rejecting even more kind speech requests), but I will need to try to write posts which show development in my thinking while also, as far as possible, make sense as individual posts (I can’t expect new readers to go back over all the previous material). [...]

Joe Nutt on Wed, 24th Mar 2010 11:28 am


Livy,
I can’t see how Seigal’s use of technology to pursue a spat with his colleagues/employer undermines the argument in his book in the least…it just exemplifies it. And as I was trying to tentatively warn Matthew, illustrates the dangers of listening to the “siren calls from the techno-zealots” when it comes to writing.

21st century enlightenment – stalled? | Matthew Taylor's blog on Mon, 29th Mar 2010 12:49 pm


[...] can’t say I wasn’t warned. When I announced ten days ago that I would use my blog to explore the idea of a 21st century enlightenment, some readers said I [...]

oldandrew on Fri, 2nd Apr 2010 4:26 pm


It’s interesting that somebody mentioned Hannah Arendt.

In “Human Conduct” Arendt identified the start of the modern worldview with: the discovery of the new world; the work of Gallileo, and the Reformation; rather than with the Enlightenment.

I can’t help feeling that by describing the Enlightenment as “releasing [human potential] from the bounds of religious superstition [and] tradition” you are missing the effects of the Reformation as a much greater disconinuity in British history. The Enlightenment wasn’t when Britain abandoned its religion or tradition; it was when it was decided that new rational ones could be made up.

This was far from obviously a good thing, and the worst dogmatic political ideologies of the modern era have their roots in Enlightenment thought, and in particular, the idea that the world and humanity can be made anew on rational, scientific principles. Why should we have a new Enlightenment when it is far from clear we have recovered from the damage done by the previous one?

Stanley Parker on Fri, 2nd Apr 2010 8:22 pm


I am far from convinced by “oldandrew’s” thesis that the worst of current dogmatic political ideologies are rooted in the Enlightenment; perhaps he may wish to develop this thesis in detail; or perhaps he has already done so elsewhere, in which case I would appreciate a reference for my personal enlightenment

oldandrew on Fri, 2nd Apr 2010 10:03 pm


I could try, but you’d probably be better off reading the work of Michael Oakeshott or John Gray.

The Enlightenment is responsible for the idea that the state can change human nature and start all social insititutions anew. This is the root of laissez-faire capitalism, communism and fascism.

Livy on Fri, 2nd Apr 2010 10:52 pm


Stanly, was just about to ask the same thing. I’m not completely sure I got what he meant either but Andrew reminded me of something John Gray wrote, that humanism still falls foul to an illusion of salvation – albeit through science rather than faith.

Well sure, but…what’s the alternative? Most New Age, spiritualist and anti-science thinking is based on a principle of starting with a conclusion and retrospectively observing only evidence that fits the narrative. It’s basically a guaranteed recipe for confirming any belief system, and explains why the kind of people who watch Living TV are prepared to cough up serious amounts of cash to charlatans masquerading as psychic mediums.

Science, by contrast, operates cumulatively and by constantly trying to disprove itself. That’s the difference.

Thing is, most of us would be more than happy to concede that we don’t necessarily progress as a species or advance social change in tandem with the rapid developments of science and knowledge. We now have innumerable examples of humanity’s tendency to abuse and exploit knowledge for unpleasant ends; to the point where that knowledge necessitates an advanced system of controls as technology runs ahead of our morality. Even people like Sam Harris agree with this.

Not sure post-modernism and the way society has sleep-walked into it can be the answer. A distrust of science has unfortunately produced a fetish for all truth being relative, and it’s that sort of extreme relativism that’s often used as an effective method for spreading dangerous, unfounded ideology by disregarding the value of evidence. Some even become parodies of themselves by disguising a message through deliberately obscure language, as if exhaustingly impenetrable wording was necessary proof of superior thought.

oldandrew on Sat, 3rd Apr 2010 12:17 am


“I’m not completely sure I got what he meant either but Andrew reminded me of something John Gray wrote, that humanism still falls foul to an illusion of salvation – albeit through science rather than faith. Well sure, but…what’s the alternative?”

The alternative is to consider moral questions as something science cannot answer, rather than trying to turn everything in life to an engineering problem which can be solved by building the right machinery.

Sam on Tue, 6th Apr 2010 3:02 pm


Thanks Oldandrew – very perceptive and provocative! Agree, Michael Oakeshott and John Gray are both good starting points for a perspective that is more critical of the ‘Enlightenment’ legacy. Also read Adorno and Horkheimer’s ‘Dialectic of Enlightenment’ or Z. Bauman’s brilliant book ‘Modernity and the Holocaust’ who come at it from a different political perspective.

Libby – I like reading your comments. Passionate and assertive; great. But I disagree with many of the presuppositions of your last post.

1. We don’t have a choice between an almost ideological commitment to science and reason of the Enlightenment and New Age mysticism. I would consider myself a powerful advocate of science but I would also advocate what Kant and Heidegger simply called ‘thought’, i.e. a reflective, critical form of thinking and engaging in the world guided by the principle and need to ‘understand’ as opposed to simply ‘know’ something. Sometimes I think that as a whole we know so much but understand so little. This is not New Age mysticism but neither is it what Popper called the critical rationalism of science.

2. A superficial choice between science and mysticism is to engage in what Foucault rightly called the ‘blackmail of the Enlightenment’, in which any attempt to challenge or question central assumptions of the Enlightenment (e.g. moral progress) are treated as demonstrations of irrationalism, as if a rational critique of reason were not possible. Not only is it possible (happy to give practical examples), it embodies one of the most valuable characteristics of what we might call the Enlightenment (i.e. a healthy critical attitude towards authority).

3. Let’s not create straw men. I disagree with the hyperbolic pessimism of Gray but he’s clearly not anti-science and neither are the vast majority of the thinkers critical of parts of the Enlightenment legacy I know of. The question he like oldandrew raises, which is important, is the fundamental difference between moral and scientific progress.

4. The way you present scientific method seems to me idealistic. Do you really think all scientists operate is such a way? Even Popper didn’t really think this – he considered it an ideal way of operating. Scientists are no doubt driven, like all of us, by the desire for status and cultural, social and intellectual norms etc. Read Kuhn or Feyerabend. My point is not to criticise science. The point is to demystify science. Science is great but scienticism is dangerous because it turns everything into an object to be regulated and controlled.

5. What is the post-modern you talk of and who are its exponents? First, do we really live in a society where relativism is the norm. We lock up more people than any other EU country. Second, the proposed decline in absolute or objective values – if indeed this is true which I question – are not causally related to views towards science. I would have said people are on average less not more sceptical towards science than in previous periods in history. Third, I actually think the idea of the post-modern in philosophy is a myth that should be treated with great suspicion. Whenever I see the term in secondary literature I usually put the book or article down. It’s usually a sure sign that the person is going to butcher some of the greatest works of critical thought produced in the past half century.

I do, however, have a lot of sympathy for what you say about impenetrable language. Though complex ideas often do require complex language.

oldandrew on Wed, 7th Apr 2010 8:31 am


“I disagree with the hyperbolic pessimism of Gray ”

Gray’s idea is that people will continue to be pretty much like people always have been. Is that really pessimism? Is moral progress seen as so inevitable that it is seen as pessimistic not to believe in it? Shouldn’t we use “pessimism” to describe the belief that things will get worse, not the belief they will stay the same?

Sam on Wed, 7th Apr 2010 8:58 am


Good question. I would retract the word ‘hyperbolic’! But I would maintain that Gray is a pessimist. Can you really finish Straw Dogs or Black Mass and not conclude this?

It is not a question of time (i.e. things getting better or worse). Gray is not necessarily a pessimist because he questions the idea and possibility of moral progress. But his neo-Schopenhauerian understanding of human nature – which heavily influences his politics and thinking – most certainly is pessimistic.

oldandrew on Wed, 7th Apr 2010 9:55 am


“But I would maintain that Gray is a pessimist. Can you really finish Straw Dogs or Black Mass and not conclude this?”

Yes.

Rejecting fantasies about human nature is no more pessimistic than rejecting fantasies about inevitable moral progress. In fact they are quite closely related, with denial of the observable facts of human nature a recurring theme in the utopian imagination.

I’m with G.K.Chesterton on this:

“Modern masters of science are much impressed with the need of beginning all inquiry with a fact. The ancient masters of religion were quite equally impressed with that necessity. They began with the fact of sin–a fact as practical as potatoes. Whether or no man could be washed in miraculous waters, there was no doubt at any rate that he wanted washing. But certain religious leaders in London, not mere materialists, have begun in our day not to deny the highly disputable water, but to deny the indisputable dirt. Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved. Some followers of the Reverend R. J. Campbell, in their almost too fastidious spirituality, admit divine sinlessness, which they cannot see even in their dreams. But they essentially deny human sin, which they can see in the street. The strongest saints and the strongest sceptics alike took positive evil as the starting-point of their argument. If it be true (as it certainly is) that a man can feel exquisite happiness in skinning a cat, then the religious philosopher can only draw one of two deductions. He must either deny the existence of God, as all atheists do; or he must deny the present union between God and man, as all Christians do. The new theologians seem to think it a highly rationalistic solution to deny the cat.”

Livy on Thu, 8th Apr 2010 11:00 pm


Sam,

Obliged

Not only am I mistaken for a woman yet again but I’m now called the wrong girl’s name…breaking my heart here Sammy…

Oh how I love the English language. ‘Passionate and assertive’: the same could be said of the Daily Express. But then again, I’m honoured you found my comments passionately ridiculous enough to warrant a 5 point rebuttal.

I’ll do my best here but to be honest I don’t fancy my chances. If you found anything I’ve said overly contentious or based on presuppositions then I’m not sure a comment entry will allow me the scope to assure you that what I’ve said about science really isn’t as far out as the typically strident nature of my remarks may suggest. I also doubt we really differ on some of the points where you gather I’ve taken a contrary view, like part three of your response. I agreed with Gray in the sense that our technological progress and ethical values don’t always walk hand in hand, and his image of the the Taliban leader ordering terrorist attacks on a mobile phone is a powerful reminder that scientific advances don’t bring us any closer to a utopian harmony.

I suppose what I meant by the weakness of post-modernism is the “My truth is not your truth” attitude that has filtered down from academia and become so culturally widespread. Our ‘meanings’ and ‘truths’ are seen as mere by-products of our own value-systems, and to suggest one belief or interpretation is any better or more valid than another is treated by some commentators as either laughably antiquated or even symbolic rape.

Combined with the increasing popularity of alternative medicine, paranormal beliefs, theocratic bullying, astrology, psychic mediums – you name it – scientific knowledge is often distrusted, regarded as yet another example of subjective and personal inclination. But this lazy attitude rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature scientific method.

Imagine there were four cards in front of you, all with a number on one side and a letter on the other.

X____Y____1____2

Consider the following hypothesis, which may or may not be true: if there is an X on one side of the card, there is a 1 on the other.

Which cards do we need to flip over in order to see if that statement is true?

Most test subjects respond to this experiment by answering either ‘X’ or ‘X and 1′.

It’s obvious to test X to see if there is a 1. If we turn it over and there isn’t, then the hypothesis is false. But there is no need to turn over the 1 card; many will make the incorrect assumption that because the theory states an X card has a 1 on the other side, then the inverse is also true and a 1 card will necessarily flip to reveal an X. Not so.

We also need to flip over the 2 card as there might be an X on the back of it, in which case the hypothesis is false. So the right answer is X and 2. Very few people choose 2 because they tend to limit their search to evidence which confirms rather than disproves what they’ve been told.

Sam on Sun, 11th Apr 2010 4:16 pm


Livy (not Libby) – what an idiot I am!

Not sure I can mend that heart of yours but I certainly would not compare your thoughtful comments to the Daily Express! We would have to add in ‘stupid’ for a start.

Understand your position a little more. But remain convinced!

All the best

Sam

In pursuit of happiness at Interactive Knowhow on Fri, 18th Jun 2010 12:33 pm


[...] writing his lecture (now available as a pamphlet). Its core idea of 21st Century Enlightenment was first discussed in a blog post a few months ago. Since then the essay text has been debated and challenged, pulled apart and added to, not only on [...]

Sha.... on Sat, 10th Jul 2010 5:05 pm


Give yourself a knock…..
Having lived in the charmed world you do most of my life, I suppose I could forgive you for your self indulgent codswallop………However,the past 2 years have given me enlightenment !!!!Life is tough,is getting tougher and I’de kiss a frog if I thouhgt your kind of drivle would help……
But congratulatoins anyway,I always take my hat off to a member of the human race who can float through life on a fluffy pink cloud,spouting nonsense ,
you’re not really helping anyone but yourself,and that’s fine,just get real….

Sam on Mon, 12th Jul 2010 9:29 am


Sha – dissent is good. The real problem is that you offer absolutely no alternative or anything constructive to argue with. This makes your post rather redundant.

Max Hogg on Mon, 12th Jul 2010 7:47 pm


Matthew you cursed yourself! Remember at your lecture you said you had the most polite blog followers…

Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!