Afbeelding auteur
7 Werken 51 Leden 3 Besprekingen

Over de Auteur

Aurelian Craiutu is Professor of Political Science at Indiana University, Bloomington. He is author and editor of several books on French political thought, most recently A Virtue for Courageous Minds: Moderation in French Political Thought, 1748-1830.

Werken van Aurelian Craiutu

Tagged

Algemene kennis

Geslacht
male
Nationaliteit
Romania (birth)
Land (voor op de kaart)
USA

Leden

Besprekingen

Why Not Moderation?: Letters to Young Radicals by Aurelian Craiutu is an uneven and unimaginatively set-up "debate/discussion" in letter form between left and right strawmen positioned to be easy foils for the points the author wants to make.

I have many broad areas of agreement with what he is trying to say here but also some very definitive disagreements. Many things are conflated in one part of the book then treated as separate in another. Are we talking about moderation as a position? Why is moderation so often used almost interchangeably with compromise? For instance, I am now and will always be a leftist. I also know that for any kind of democracy to work there has to be give and take, some compromise. That doesn't mean I take a stand for moderation, it means I argue my "radical" viewpoint and work with "radicals" with other perspectives to find agreeable compromises. To set up as a given the idea that there are two positions in opposition and therefore a moderate position is somewhere between them is asinine. Yes, we are a de facto two party system so, at least on the national level, most things come down to those two parties. I prefer to work to eliminate the two-party system rather than "moderately" just accept it and create my little faux philosophical position based on it as a given.

I am probably not being completely fair in my assessment because I find the author's attempts at manipulation offensive and his authorial voice both smug and self-righteous. Rather than explain his ideas, he spends the first part of the book trying to make it sound like any disagreement with his position comes from some mistaken and radical position, whether from the left or the right. We just don't get it or aren't smart enough to accept what he says because, you know, men (almost exclusively men) from ancient times until a century or more ago had good, for their time, ideas, and Craiutu is making it simple enough for us mere mortals to grasp.

It is based on many very good thinkers, but ideas are meant to be taken and developed as time goes on, not taken as static and the current world made to fit. It is like the people who apply the constitution based on what the founding fathers thought because their ideas about a world with slavery, no universal suffrage, etc should be taken as gospel, not used as a starting point from which to evolve. Craiutu has failed to evolve and uses cheap debate team tactics to set up his fake debate.

Middle rating because there are good ideas in the book (usually in quotes of others, not in the author's own thought) and because there will be others who won't find his authorial voice to be like nails on a chalkboard. That said, I won't recommend it to anyone I know, there are plenty of books that actually work on the important issues, not use the issues to pat himself on the back for being so radically moderate.

Reviewed from a copy made available by the publisher via NetGalley.
… (meer)
½
 
Gemarkeerd
pomo58 | Jul 6, 2023 |
This book explores moderation as a political philosophy by looking at the positions and careers of five moderates. Although the premise is sound, the writing was tedious and repetitive enough that I did not find it compelling. One of the challenges was that the author assumed more familiarity with the politics of Cold War Europe than I possed. Perhaps those who were educated in Europe are familiar with the ins and outs of Cold War politics in all of France, Britain, Italy, and Poland to not need any introduction. I, however, could have used a little more scaffolding. Another challenge with the text was how Craiutu never quite settled on whether each chapter should be a mini-biography focused on the influence of moderation on the careers of the subjects or whether each chapter should be an exploration of facets of moderation illustrated through the careers of individuals. Thus, neither purpose was served particularly well.

That said, it was so refreshing to see moderation explored as a political philosophy I rate the book moderately well as a whole. The prologue, first chapter, and epilogue are worth reading. The rest is only worth skimming.

Since moderation is often seen as tepid or indecisive, it's worth spending some time laying out what Craiutu sees as the content of the intellectual tradition of moderation. At its heart, moderation rejects ideological thinking in favor of a more nuanced (critiques might say more equivocating) view of the world. Rather than being timid, it often requires being a non-conformist. "The argument offered in this book is that moderation, in its many faces, is a fighting and bold creed grounded in a complex and eclectic conception of the world. ... Because it rejects ideological thinking, moderation implies a good dose of courage, non-conformism, flexibility, and discernment ... Finally, as a tolerant and civil virtue related to temperance and opposed to violence, moderation respects the spontaneity of life and the pluralism of the world and can protect us against pride, one-sidedness, intolerance, and fanaticism in our moral and political commitments."

To understand moderation as a perspective, it's worth breaking down its key aspects. Moderates can hold a variety of opinions; moderates are not, as some would have it, inherently conservative. Their similarity tends to come more from the ways they look at the world than the conclusions they draw about it.

Avoiding extremes: Moderates generally reject absolutes. Ideologies that claim to have an ultimate answer are looked upon with suspicion. They do not reject change. Rather, prudent, incremental change is generally prefered to sweeping change. When they do hold extreme opinions they tend to hold them tentatively rather than dogmatically. This does not mean that they reject the idea of known truths. Rather, they do not apply the certainty of truth to things that are controversial or unsettled.

Keeping dialogue open: Moderates often keep open dialogue with those they disagree with. Because of their willingness to listen to views they do not hold, they may appear to get along better with their ideological opponents than with their ideological allies, especially when those allies are leaning toward extremes.

Avoiding dualism (dividing the world into forces of good and evil): Moderates do not deny that there are some positions or ideologies which are evil. However, they generally try to see what is valuable in the perspectives they generally disagree with and what is flawed in the perspectives they generally agree with.

Advocating an ethics of means rather than absolute ends: Moderates generally reject plans that sacrifice ethical considerations in the short term to achieve some greater good in the end.

Trimming: Moderates seek to keep the ship of state on an even keel. They aim for balance through small, frequent adjustments rather than visible and dramatic corrections. Balance often requires leaning against the dominant ideology or amplifying ideas that do not have much visibility. Thus, they may appear as nonconformists. Because trimmers are prone to changing sides as one side or another goes to extremes, they may not be seen as fully trustworthy by either side.

Valuing pluralism: Since moderates generally reject ideologies and see value in many different (and often conflicting) perspectives, they tend to deeply appreciate the value of diverse ideas. Since we rarely have the foresight to know which ideas are right, pluralism is one of the primary tools for avoiding the damage caused by extreme ideologies.

Upholding civility: This dedication to pluralism requires an emphasis on civility in the face of disagreement. Civility is not merely a matter of polite behavior. "Civility presupposes that while we are all free to pursue our private ends, we are also called to abide by the requirements of the common good loosely defined. ... It is a certain style of thinking and action that makes us regard our antagonists as reasonable opponents with whom, our differences notwithstanding, we can argue about the best ways of pursuing both individual and common projects and interests, rather than implacable enemies who must be eliminated from the public sphere."
… (meer)
 
Gemarkeerd
eri_kars | Jul 10, 2022 |
An interesting but fairly technical attempt to rescue from "obscurity" a brand of political philosophy that was prominent in France from 1814 to 1848: the "elitist liberalism" of the so-called Doctrinaires. Craiutu, in chapters that function like separate essays, breaks down various aspects of the Doctrinaires' theories, from their view of universal suffrage (very skeptical) to their opinion on social equality (much more optimistic) to their thoughts on freedom of the press (supportive with some caveats) or the origins of political authority (too complicated to summarize here). The star of the book is the most prominent of the Doctrinaires, François Guizot, who would later get a chance to put his philosophy into action as France's prime minister, at least until he botched things so bad he was driven into exile by a revolution.

The book is interesting and provocative, but only to a specialist audience, those already interested in political theory or 19th Century French history or both. Though the Doctrinaires are largely forgotten, some of the ideological currents they tapped into seem to have heirs, but Craiutu's work (which praises the Doctrinaires from a certain distance) is a tough introduction to the topic for a lay reader. I hope, however, to be able to produce a popularized version for an upcoming episode of my French history podcast, The Siècle.
… (meer)
 
Gemarkeerd
dhmontgomery | Dec 13, 2020 |

Statistieken

Werken
7
Leden
51
Populariteit
#311,767
Waardering
½ 3.3
Besprekingen
3
ISBNs
19
Talen
1

Tabellen & Grafieken