Hi Lila. Please forgive me--I have lots of questions. Perhaps some are statements in the form of questions, but I did want to understand more completely your stance on Nussbaum who has been, to me, a shining light in the multiculturalist dark (along with Appiah). So here goes:

What do you think of chauvinism directed toward chauvinists? Of the exclusion of exclusionists? Would you say that both are fallacious because one would have to be chauvinistic against oneself or exclude oneself? Is it hypocrisy or is this a semantic peculiarity? Isn't any sort of moral judgment essentially a separating out, an othering gesture, so that if one understands chauvinism to be an undesirable quality, one must then be technically somewhat chauvinistic toward those who exhibit chauvinism?

"Luciferians feel that their variegated beliefs - are in fact, not equally respected by an evangelical monotheism of “universalism” and “secularism” that seeks to dominate them through the state." Are the beliefs of people who execute authors and feminists to be respected? Hasn't the most universalist, most secularist state thus far produced the fewest Islamic extremists, despite its large Muslim population? Is it the incursion of big state universalist secularists that are upsetting Muslims abroad or their corrupt and authoritarian leaders who in fact do the best job of restriction the number of belief systems to which they can subscribe? How many American Muslims feel so thoroughly dominated by a state that is officially secular and based on universalist principles of the Enlightenment that they'd prefer to go live in Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Jordan? Is it only economic prosperity they enjoy that keeps them here, or could it also be the freedom to hold their beliefs (and read books) without official rebuke from the state?

Just because history is controversial does it negate the existence of historical fact? It seems to me that it is the belief in the most intensely true fact that makes one so hesitant to allow subjectivity to get it even a tiny bit wrong.

As for democracy and the rule of law not being a good fit, I don't quite understand. So psychological drives plus social injunctions and taboos are also a bad fit? Couldn't you just as easily make the case that a well-implemented interaction between the two is precisely what makes mental and social life possible and optimal. It is the bad fit that paradoxically makes the good, no?

And lastly, it was my understanding that the majority of political theorists agree that the nation-state is in dramatic decline. Hasn't Saskia Sassen (if memory serves) argued that we are witnessing the rise of a new medievalism, a decentralization that places ever more power in the hands of corporate and private feifdoms? Isn't this surge of nationalism in the U.S. and abroad a response/reaction to the disintegrating binding ties of the nation-state?

Religious people believe in things they've never seen and have no evidence for (once there is evidence, it is no longer religion). Shouldn't this call into question their credibility as a practitioner of an evidence-based endeavor such as history?

Sorry to barrage you on your first post (and by a fellow blogger, no less), but you just happened to hit upon so many debates in this article that interest me, I had to ask.

Josh --

Thank you very much for your detailed critique. Much appreciate it. But may I say that I think there some things you're confusing in your language?

1. First - I am NOT opposing any enlightenment principles I can think of. I am FOR the rule of law, individualism, and intellectual critique. I am accusing some ideologues on the left (I don't deny they're on the right too - but,in general, the ones there get a lot more criticism) of not applying those principles to their own unquestioned dogmas - that are not arrived at as rationally as they think. I listed a number of perfectly historical, stone-cold facts that many Marxist historians in India ignore, making them an easy target of right-wing critics...unnecessarily. But, I appreciate other contributions the Marxists have made. By the way - I didn't have time to get into it, but we really have to get away from this enlightenment versus post-structuralist binary. It ain't so. The enlightenment was NOT a simple unitary thing.

2. You write: "How many American Muslims feel so thoroughly dominated by a state that is officially secular and based on universalist principles of the Enlightenment that they'd prefer to go live in Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Jordan?"

Hmmmmm.....Where do I make the argument that anyone one would NOT prefer the intellectual freedoms here? --I don't make it. Strawman?

I AM calling for universalist principles. I AM saying that quotas don't qualify. They're outcome-based group-preferences and anti-individualist

But even on your own terms, I assure you, I know many critics of American government who don't live here precisely because of their beliefs. They've moved elsewhere - to among others, Japan, France, Canada, Mexico, India, Argentina, and in my case, I am trying to return to Asia as well. The standard need not be cutting heads off, I hope. And yes, the libraries here are much bigger, better and more accessible, transportation is better, as are a host of other things. And prosperity makes it all possible. Thank you very much, America. Sincerely. I deeply appreciate the opportunity to work. Never a day goes by when I don't.

3. Democracy and law are not a good fit by nature - that's why we have checks and balances and so on....yes? The constitution as 'longer-view law' (not subject to majoritarian desires) is one way we deal with that -- which is what I write in the piece. A bit different from what you're reading, no? That's why I make the point about accommodation in the last line in that paragraph. Meaning, popular voices (that's the democratic bit) are always calling for the abrogation of law, so it's natural for them to be always straining against the rule of law. Nussbaum acts likes that makes for an insuperable crisis. I say it's natural and can be accommodated.

4. I don't say that people who kill others or brutalize them shouldn't be held accountable. I make that point clearly in the line about religious fanatics. But I do say that one shouldn't draw any untenable connection between fundamentalism (and even exceptionalism) and violence. I know perfect egalitarians who seem always prepared to kill to push their beliefs on others and know many fundamentalists who are quiet and law-abiding. I even know people who think themselves better than others (a number of cultures do, whether they say so explicitly or not, in one way or other), but don't act to oppress others. And I know racially tolerant societies which none the less find ways to wage unjust wars. I think there's no necessary connection. I believe Jesus was pretty fundamentalist in his beliefs. He took the voices in his head quite literally. I don't think he was aggressive to anyone though.

4. I don't negate historical fact. I negate - with examples- Nussbaum's history because she doesn't know or doesn't include salient facts. It's not any Marxism in the account she gives that I object to; it's the lack of history. I have read accurate presentations of facts in the writing of many religiously inclined historians whose views inform but don't distort facts. I don't see why one couldn't read, say, Christopher Dawson or Eric Voegelin and find it useful even if one wasn't a Christian believer. One might find it at least as useful as some Marxist or Whig or any other history. I believe I used the term "not much more" useful - which should say something. So yes, of course, if we can't find a common basis for discussing history, it wouldn't be useful. But I think we could broaden that "common basis". That doesn't mean I endorse teaching "Muslim physics" (the hard sciences, you'll admit are not the social-sciences) - it means how come I can't really study Austrian economics in any major university in the US?

Yes - theorizing about the decline of the nation state and then arguing for global bureaucracies that are then controlled largely by the intellectual outlook (I don't necessarily disagree with all of it either) of certain elites increases the power of the state (meaning government at any level except the local), because those elites are held accountable finally through their own state mechanisms in many ways - i.e. you have a UN sanction, but to give it force you need the backing of government powers from various countries, which naturally have their own agendas hidden behind it. By 'state' here I mean both the 'nation state' and government power in general.

I come from a right libertarian anarchist perspective (closer to the Independent Institute, not Cato), which finds the same problem with unchecked corporate power. It feeds off of and reinforces the state. I am anti-state. Not just the nation-state. Not fond of the idea of world government either.

6. Marxists believe in a lot of things they've never seen, I assure you.

7. I sympathize with the view that we are in for a new feudalism (see the article by Martin Hutchinson I have on my blog)- intermingled (via power politics) with some version of quasi-civilizational-trading blocs. That might not be bad - as I say - if it pays attention to local communities and doesn't force itself on people with a religious conscience (say, about abortion) -- that’s something only decentralization could bring about. But the new trans-national governance will be bad if it counter-poses itself to corporate power as yet another face of the globalist regime.

8. I hope I am making myself clear because I think confused language (intentional or unintentional) is a huge part of the problem. Which is that fundamentalism per se can't be conflated with chauvinism and chauvinism (I'm better than you)or exclusiveness (I want to be on my own) isn't always or necessarily violent. I actually tend to think a bit of separatism, when cultures are very different, might be a good thing if it doesn't carry any oppressive connotation. For instance, I sympathize with European nations who want immigrants from Islamic countries to assimilate in some ways. Criticism of burqas sounds right to me (for security reasons primarily, but I haven’t really thought this out - just citing an example of a trade-off) but eliminating head-scarves..sounds NOT right. But I'm not prepared to talk about politics and countries I haven't studied closely.

9. Too quick, too great, social changes in multiethnic empires - like India - invariably create these strains. To ignore the backlash against those changes,which were initiated by the state, and to read violence as a problem solely arising out of some essentialist understanding of fundamentalism as evil is sorely mistaken.

10. I admire Martha Nussbaum. She has ethical concerns and a willingness to get her hands dirty, which I respect. She just doesn't know her history here and is seeing what she does know through very tendentious glasses.

11. I don't know how you could read anything I wrote as a defense of the governments of Syria, Jordan and so on. That’s part of the problem. Unless we are well grounded in historical facts, theoretical juxtaposition of dissimilar things under the rubric of "fundamentalism" is misleading. Islamic fundamentalism is not Christian fundamentalism is not Jewish fundamentalism is not Hindu fundamentalism. They have similarities and differences. Popular unrest in different countries arises for different reasons. Empires are not the same. Caliphates are not the same. I might believe they all need to be rolled back, but might use different approaches and analyses for each. Let’s tackle the problems pragmatically, locally. One of my points is that Nussbaum’s approach to history isn't particular enough in that way. We need less argument and more supporting evidence. Her account (as previewed) doesn't quite cut it as is.

I think Hindus (I don't even want to get into her claim about Hindu identity...she is partly correct and partly quite mistaken) feel encircled with some justification given recent history and demographics.

Massacring a crowd in Gujarat - no matter where you stand - is absolutely wrong. And the central government should have intervened much more than it did. I say that too. Please note my paragraph about equality under the law and respect for individuals.

But ignoring the role of the state in helping to create such situations is simply inaccurate.

We expect better from Ms. Nussbaum.

I remain, as always,
a devoted student of the enlightenment

Lucifer

I find support in Pete Singer's criticism of Nussbaum (in another context). He points out that her approach is "value-laden," as I suggested, and not neutral as she presents it. The Roman Catholics are more consistent.

Here's the end bit:

"In short, Nussbaum’s use of terms like “flourishing” should set off the sensors we philosophers have erected on the boundary between facts and values. Nussbaum owes us, therefore, an account of which capabilities she thinks important and good, and why. Without such an account, the capabilities approach cannot be considered an independent approach to ethics."

Couldn't have said it better, Mr. Singer.

www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/20021113.htm - 18k

L.

Ms. Nussbaum ( I don't want to keep reminding whatever dump gave her a PhD of their low standards) exhibits the standards of integrity of the University of Chicago with her ghoulish gloating over the burning alive of 58 innocents traveling in a sleeper coach S-6 of the Sabarmati Express at Godhra, Gujarat, at around 7AM on February 27, 2002. According to Nussbaum, these people were all "Hindu activists" because the train was going from Ayodhya, a city that contains a place that is as holy to Hindus as Jerusalem is to Jews. Never mind that many of the 58 were CHILDREN; at least some were Muslim including the wife of the Station Master of Godhra, who had just got in at the station. Never mind that on Indian Railways, reservations for sleepers are made months in advance, and the destination was Ahmedabad, a cosmopolitan city of several million. As the train pulled out from the station and gathered speed, someone pulled the emergency chain 3 times, forcing the train to stop, in about a mile. A mob of a few thousand gathered there, (estimates at the time counted 4000) stopped the train, threw stones to dissuade anyone from getting out, locked and barred the doors of the coach (sleepers have barred windows on Indian Railways) and then threw in a number of cans of gasoline or kerosene and then some burning rags, and prevented anyone including the firefighters from coming to the rescue, and watched as 58 people burned to death (some managed to escape from the other side of the train before the fire and smoke prevented any other survivors).

Nussbaum, who sneers at Indians who work on fiber optics, shows HER level of science (not to mention honesty) by claiming that this was some sort of accident, or maybe suicide, or maybe it was "justified" because someone on the train had a disagreement with a tea vendor at a station several miles down the line.

Note that this was a winter morning - it gets cold in Gujarat. It was 7AM, hardly the time for drunks to gather. The train was an express, averaging some 70 mph. So according to Nussbaumlogic, the news of the argument at some station flashed to Godhra, where several thousand Islamic types immediately decided on "action", went and bought some 100 gallons of gasoline at a gas station, rushed to the station, positioned themselves a mile outside, got someone to the station to buy a ticket on the express, got him/her in, had the chain pulled 3 times, the person escaped, and the festivities began.

Of course, might one ask why, say, if you were a passenger on a train, you and your 6-month-old baby deserve to be burned to death "because" someone on a train of 600 had an argument about a cup of tea 300 miles away? Aha! University of Chicago Law Professor Nussbaum "justifies" that in true U. Chicago Law School logic: The train carried some HINDOOS!

If this is not racist, bigoted, terrorist-supporting, utterly ghoulish dishonesty by this sickening parody of a human that is employed by the University of Chicago Law School, then I don't know what is.

And this is the SHINING LIGHT OF LIBERALISM??? Wow!

Had this incident happened in the United States of America (as similar ones may have occurred in the days when the West was being settled), the reaction would be very predictable: Godhra would have been sealed off, and carpet-bombed by B-52s, and the survivors hauled off for "interrogation".

In India, instead, the Authorities tried investigating. People lost their minds at this atrocity, enough to go start a horrible round of "retaliation" against equally innocent citizens.

But who is really to blame for the horrors of Gujarat 2002? The "Islamic" terrorists, and their lying apologists like Martha Nussbaum who sneered at the victims as their relatives tried to deal with their gried.

Nussbaum should be banned from all public fora - she is a blatantly dishonest, terrorist hate inciter. I for one am boycotting anything to do with the University of Chicago, which employs others as well, who make money selling pornographic abuse against Hindus - do you know of a name "Wendy Doniger"?

Thank you.