Just Love: Transforming Civic Virtue

5. Saving the Baby from the Bathwater: A Turn to Practice

173 5 Saving the Baby from the Bathwater: A Turn to Practice The standpoint conception of impartiality is so entrenched that it is presumed not only by its philosophical defenders but also by its critics. While the dichotomy between partiality and impartiality is ultimately a false one, it is nonetheless an influential one. Political theory is thus hamstrung between detached, unattainable views of impartiality and rejections of impartiality that leave no standard for critical fair-mindedness in political life. The space for civic virtue is thus eclipsed. A transformed conception of impartiality must leave behind, once and for all, the distorted legacy of the stranger-versus-loved-one cases. It must give up on the notion of a pristine standpoint of impartiality—if even an imagined one—in favor of a more attainable ideal. The baby that it must save from the bathwater is the very notion of political fair-mindedness, which must be articulated anew in a pragmatic way. Instead of trying to define a metaphysical concept of impartiality, we might rather consider who around us seems to be acting with critical fairmindedness and how they are going about it. In this chapter, I explain why a turn to practice seems so promising. Such a turn has resolved conceptual dilemmas that are structurally similar to the dilemma of impartiality: the dilemma of objectivity in science, and the dilemma of love in Christian theology . In the following chapter, I will develop a full account of impartiality as a moral practice. This account articulates a practical conception of political fair-mindedness while avoiding the pitfalls of impartiality-as-standpoint. 174 · Resolving the Dilemma Misery Loves Company Faced with a “can’t live with it; can’t live without it” dilemma regarding its long-standing ideal of impartiality, American political theory finds itself in good company. Both science and Christian theology have recently found themselves in “can’t live with it; can’t live without it” positions regarding cherished ideals. There are striking parallels between dilemmas faced by scientists reevaluating norms of objectivity in science, by theologians reevaluating norms of love in Christian ethics, and by political theorists reevaluating norms of impartiality in the political realm. These parallels reflect historical cross-influences among scientific notions of objectivity, theological conceptions of love, and political conceptions of impartiality . Science and Christian theology have more successfully resolved their dilemmas than has political theory. Thus, their resolutions may suggest a way out of the dilemma of impartiality. The cross-fertilization of these three ideals and their relevance to civic virtue were outlined in chapter 1. While a detailed description of historical relationships between them is beyond the scope of my argument, two points are noteworthy. First, conceptions of “hard” objectivity in science, “strict” impartiality in political theory, and “disinterested” Christian neighbor love attained supremacy at the same point in the Enlightenment . Second, their simultaneous rise is linked to the series of ironies that eclipsed civic virtue. My focus here is on the contemporary dilemma in which each of the terms has become enmeshed. What connects the contemporary dilemmas regarding the parallel ideals of scientific objectivity, Christian love, and political impartiality? How have science and Christianity negotiated the prongs of their dilemmas? What might their negotiations suggest for resolving the dilemma of impartiality in political theory? Figure 5.1 suggests answers to those questions. Looking across the chart, we find that in each case current questioning of the conventional ideal results from a certain form of “idolatry.” I use this term to represent a denial of human finitude that is embedded in each ideal. The idolatry is marked by an excessive rigidity: severe conceptual splits between knowledge and passion, and between subject and object. In each column, the idolatry represents a “sin of pride”: the denial of the scientist, lover, or Saving the Baby from the Bathwater · 175 citizen’s inescapable emotional relationship with that which is studied, loved, or considered. In each case, this sin of pride generates a series of false dichotomies. The idolatry of objectivity in science is faith in pure observation. The idolatry of love in Christian theology is the call for disinterested love that is all-encompassing, completely self-sacrificial, and lacking any desire for reciprocation . The idolatry of impartiality in politics is the conception of an Archimedean Point, a point from which the citizen can (if even imaginatively ) view the political landscape unencumbered by any personal biases. In each...