[net.politics.theory] Some books to take to the beach this summer

carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (06/17/85)

I'm going to post (in several articles) a list of books that most
net.politics.theorizers will find of interest.  Anyone who reads and
understands a few of these will also understand the difference
between intelligent thought about politics and society on the one
hand and the twaddle-mongering and cliche-barfing that provide most
of the entertainment in our political newsgroups on the other.  No,
I haven't read every page of these books, but in lieu of reviews I
will post brief extracts from some of them by way of recommending
them.

The political classics are self-recommending.  To mention a few:

John Locke, *Second Essay on Civil Government*.  Basic for understanding
American politics.  

A. de Tocqueville, *Democracy in America*.  Ditto.  There is an
abridged edition in paper.

J. S. Mill, *On Liberty*.  The New Testament of classical liberalism.
Ayn Rand described this book as "pernicious," which should be a
sufficient recommendation for anyone.  

Some more recent books:

William Ryan, *Equality*.  Demolishes the ideology of free-market
individualism (i.e. of equality of opportunity or "fair play").
The following is what I consider to be a brief extract from the book:
_________

[Karl] Mannheim's definition of ideology thus has four components:
it is (1) a set of ideas or beliefs (2) that have an "unconscious"
basis, (3) that are distorted by the interests of a particular group,
and (4) that serve the interests of that group in maintaining the
status quo....

...we can readily infer the dominant themes that make up the basic
Fair Play ideology.  The first is the extreme emphasis on the primacy
of the individual....

....The Fair Player views human life as -- almost exclusively -- the
behavior of discrete individuals seeking their own individual ends
and believes that ideally, a good society leaves the individual as
unfettered as possible in this search.  Collectivities, racial or
ethnic or any other kinds of groupings, are seen as being, in a
sense, less "real" than the individual and as having less legitimate
a place in discourse about human affairs....

A second principle that emerges quite vividly is that individuals
differ significantly from one another, that some are better than or
superior to others and can be identified as such....

It can be seen, then, that to Fair Players it ranks as an obvious
truth that what life "really is," is the working out of these
individual differences; they furthermore take for granted that the
individuals who demonstrate superior competence will occupy the
preeminent positions in society and receive the most rewards....

The third [principle] has to do with the SOURCE of these
differences....The emphasis falls on differences in qualities of
mind, motivation, character, and the like -- differences that may be
thought of as being somehow "inside" the person and that, even if
acquired rather than innate, have been internalized so that the
individual, so to speak, carries them around with him....

These three assumptions constitute the core of the Fair Play belief
system.  When he turns his mind to matters of human behavior, the
Fair Player focuses on the nature and the working out of INTERNAL,
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES....

We have three dimensions that provide at least a partial framework
for identifying an ideological position or belief system:

	-- individual versus collective
	-- different versus similar
	-- internal versus external

...The ideas that some persons are worth more than others because
they can perform certain tasks and functions better than others can
and that there should be as little interference as possible with the
individual's seeking and attaining various forms of property form the
bases of the two key explanations of, and moral justifications for,
our present system of inequality.  These ideas would be neither
rational nor ethical if they did not rest on the three basic
assumptions I have been discussing....

This completes the Fair Play ideology.  Rewards are based on
INDIVIDUAL merit; individuals DIFFER in merit; merit is a complex of
worthy INTERNAL characteristics.  Justice is served, according to
this paradigm, when these internal individual differences correspond
to the individual rewards received....Only the morally and socially
valued internal characteristics by which we differentiate individuals
justify the ultimate inequalities of condition that those individuals
experience....  

This...is the basis of [the Fair Player's] moral and pragmatic
objections to the vision of Fair Shares....I will try to show how
these objections are, in fact, based on assumptions of internal
individual differences and how, furthermore, the real world shows
those assumptions to be false and the consequent objections to Fair
Shares to be groundless.

[In a later chapter:]  Our schools, then, are not the great equalizers
they are made out to be....They are, in fact, major social
institutions that serve at once to sustain and cement inequality and
to prepare a relatively docile work force for various levels in the
hierarchy of labor....Above all, schools are ideological instruments,
institutions for teaching by endless example and repetition that
individual human beings are all different and, in particular, that
the major difference is that some are superior and others inferior,
as a consequence of their different internal qualities.  Schools are
places where competition by individuals striving to defeat one
another is exalted, where cooperation by groups to help one another
is condemned, and where reading and writing and arithmetic are merely
the tools of the moment by which we can be taught to play out the
great American game of survival of the fittest.
__________

I'll list some more books later when I get around to it.

Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes