7/3/2014 Michael Sandel – The Art of Theory Interview : the art of theory – a quarterly journal of political philosophy

http://archive.today/OYh7t#selection-65.76-65.295 1/7

Saved from http://www.artoftheory.com/12-questions-with-michael-sandel/no other snapshots from this url

search 2 Jan 2013 00:58:09

All snapshots from host www.artoftheory.com

Linked from jewiki.net » Michael Sandelmarefa.org » مایكل ساندلde.wikipedia.org » Michael Sandelen.wikipedia.org » Michael J. Sandel

download .zip report abuse PIN THIS PAGE: otherText Image

Michael Sandel – The Art of Theory InterviewMichael J. Sandel is the Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Professor of

Government at Harvard University, and is one of the most influential

political theorists of our time. Jonathan Bruno and Jason Swadley sat

down with him recently in Cambridge with 12 questions on the craft of

political philosophy.

Art of Theory: What brought you to study political theory?

Michael Sandel: I began with an interest in politics. I was a political

junkie as a kid, and still am. But it wasn’t until graduate school that I

became interested in political philosophy as such. That’s where I first read

Kant, and Kant I found terribly challenging and intriguing. I began

graduate school in 1975. John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice had come out

four years earlier, so I read that for the first time in graduate school.

In fact, the first winter vacation in graduate school at Oxford—they had

these six-week breaks between terms—I went with some friends to the

south of Spain and took along a bunch of books and sat and read them:

Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, Rawls’ A Theory of Justice, Nozick’s

Anarchy, State and Utopia, and Hannah Arendt’s The Human Condition.

Somehow Spain, which was a little less cold and damp than Oxford, was

more conducive to reading.

Art of Theory: Describe your arrival at Harvard in 1980.

Sandel: Political theory had a strong tradition here, represented by the

then-senior figures, who were Judith Shklar, Harvey Mansfield, and

Michael Walzer, and in the philosophy department John Rawls and Robert

Nozick were teaching. And so there was great ferment, great interest in

political theory and political philosophy.

I was introduced to Rawls through Judith Shklar, who was a friend of his.

She told him my dissertation was largely about his book and that I was

coming to be an Assistant Professor in political theory in the Government

Department. And shortly after I arrived the phone rang in my office and

the voice at the other end said, “This is John Rawls; R-A-W-L-S…” as if I

might not recognize the name. [Laughter] He was inviting me to lunch;

that’s when I first met him. He was very kind and generous. Nozick and I

also spoke on occasion and were on friendly terms.

Art of Theory: You mentioned your dissertation, which became

Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. The so-called “liberal-

communitarian” debate became a staple in philosophy courses all over the

world. How do you see that debate today?

Sandel: I think there are two versions of the debate, one of which has

stalled and is not so interesting, and another that is more interesting and

continues to animate discussion. The stalled, uninteresting version sees the

debate being between those who place more weight on individual rights

and those who place more weight on community, as if it’s a matter of

competing values.

7/3/2014 Michael Sandel – The Art of Theory Interview : the art of theory – a quarterly journal of political philosophy

http://archive.today/OYh7t#selection-65.76-65.295 2/7

That’s not a very interesting version of the debate, though that’s the way

many people cast it, as if the critics of Kantian/Rawlsian Liberalism were

against rights, or favored defining rights simply by whatever values

prevailed in a given community at a given time.

I think that was the misunderstanding of what the critique was about, and

it led to a very narrow and uninteresting debate about rights vs.

community. I think that’s lost its steam and rightly so.

But the other strand of the debate that was always of greater interest to me

was the broader question of political philosophy, which is this: is it possible

to define and to defend rights without presupposing any particular

conception of the good life?

So the debate about the priority of the right over the good can be

understood in these two ways: at the level of rights vs. communities (the

uninteresting way, to my mind) or at the level of how rights are defended,

how justice is defined, and whether it’s possible to do so in a way that

avoids taking sides among competing conceptions of the good life.

That second version is the more important debate, and the term

“communitarian” doesn’t quite capture it because it isn’t a matter of

whether you’re for or against rights or community. It’s a matter of how

theories of justice are argued and whether those arguments can be

detached from contested moral and spiritual conceptions, conceptions of

the best way to live.

That strand of the debate is alive and well, and very much at stake in our

public life, and has led to a lot of interesting work within political theory.

Art of Theory: Tell us about your “Justice” course, which is an institution

at Harvard now and has been seen by millions on PBS and online.

Sandel: I taught “Justice” for the first time the first year I came here in

1980 and initially it was a bit more focused on contemporary thinkers.

Since then I’ve incorporated more of the classical thinkers, but it always

involved moving back and forth between philosophical texts and

contemporary issues, legal and political issues that raise philosophical

questions.

I was drawn to that style of teaching because, when I started teaching, it

was fresh in my mind what it was like to be a student. I think that is the

heart of good teaching, having or summoning that memory.

I was not taken with political theory when I was an undergraduate. I

found it abstract, distant, remote, and difficult just looking at the texts. I

wasn’t quite up to it then. So, when I began to teach I had vividly in my

mind this question: What would have kept my attention as a student? This

was what was behind the design of the course.

The first year I think there were 100 students, then maybe 300 the second

year, then 400, and then it leveled off around 800 to 1000.

Art of Theory: Now that you’ve reached an even wider audience through

the public television series and the Internet, what have you learned about

the relationship of the political theorist to the wider world? What

responsibilities go along with that?

Sandel: I’ve always been drawn to political theory and political philosophy

as a way of informing politics and the debates that go on in public life; I’ve

always wanted to connect philosophical ideas with the public life we live

and the arguments we have. This experiment was a way of pushing that

idea further. We decided to make it available on public television and free

online around the globe, and see what would happen.

And it’s been a fascinating experiment. I’ve been especially intrigued to see

7/3/2014 Michael Sandel – The Art of Theory Interview : the art of theory – a quarterly journal of political philosophy

http://archive.today/OYh7t#selection-65.76-65.295 3/7

And it’s been a fascinating experiment. I’ve been especially intrigued to see

the reception in other parts of the world, and I was wondering to what

degree they come at these questions from different cultural perspectives.

What struck me, as I’ve done some traveling in connection since the book

has been out, is that there seems to be an enormous interest in other parts

of the world and, in particular, East Asia, in Western political theory and in

this way of arguing about political theory and public questions. What

interests me now is to explore these themes across cultures, and to explore

the similarities and the differences.

I’ve been struck at the level of interest and even hunger for engagement

with these questions. I think there’s a sense in many societies that public

life and public discourse are impoverished, that they don’t often address the

big questions of justice and rights and the common good that lie just

beneath the surface of our political debate. There’s a great hunger

everywhere for more direct engagement with these big questions in public.

Art of Theory: What have you learned pedagogically, in “Justice” and

other courses you’ve taught, that professors new to the classroom should

know?

Sandel: It’s very hard to hold students’ attention for 50 minutes.

Especially on challenging material like political theory.

It’s certainly beyond what I could do to hold student’s attention if I read

from a text. So, being able to lecture, to put across material without a text,

is very important. There are small numbers of people who can read from a

written text and hold the attention of students, but they are very few and

I’m not among them.

I think the first thing is to learn the material well enough so that you could

put it across without having to read any of it. And then having some kind

of opportunity for students to argue back, not only to ask questions but to

respond to the texts or to the professor’s view.

I think that adds a tremendous amount. It mobilizes students’ own

imaginations and argumentative powers. And if the questions are good and

the challenges are strong then other students learn by listening to that

exchange.

Art of Theory: What features of our political life most puzzle you?

Sandel: I would say the largely arid terms of political discourse, the

thinness of public discourse in the world’s leading democracies. That’s the

single most striking and worrisome thing.

It’s partly the tendency, over the past three decades, of economics to crowd

out politics. This has been an age of market triumphalism. We’ve come to

the assumption that markets are the primary instruments for achieving the

public good. I think that is a mistaken notion and people are now

beginning to question that.

It also has led to political discourse being preoccupied with technocratic,

managerial, economic concerns. The broader public questions and ethical

questions have been crowded to the side.

I think that this has been reinforced by a certain idea of toleration, a well-

intentioned idea of toleration that says, “Given the disagreements we have

on moral and spiritual questions, we should try to conduct our political

debate without reference to them.” I think that’s also contributed to an

emptying out of substantive moral discourse in politics, an emptiness

people are eager to fill.

Such emptiness often provokes a backlash, so that narrow, intolerant and

sometimes fundamentalist voices fill that void and have a persuasive force

they wouldn’t otherwise have, if public discourse included open and direct

engagement with rival moral views and moral conceptions.

7/3/2014 Michael Sandel – The Art of Theory Interview : the art of theory – a quarterly journal of political philosophy

http://archive.today/OYh7t#selection-65.76-65.295 4/7

engagement with rival moral views and moral conceptions.

Art of Theory: What remedies could be offered for that problem of thin

political discourse?

Sandel: There are remedies at two levels.

At the level of political theory (and this is what I’ve tried to do in some of

my work), we need to challenge the premise that a pluralist society, or a

society based on mutual respect, must avoid or set aside substantive moral

and spiritual questions or questions of the good life.

Also at the level of political theory, I think there needs to be a challenge to

economistic visions of democracy.

At the level of political practice, I think we have to find ways of

encouraging and nurturing the ability of citizens to engage more directly

and in a morally robust public discourse. That requires a civic education

that the political parties are not providing and that the media is not

providing.

I also think educational institutions can be sites for civic education.

Colleges and universities have a responsibility to provide students with an

opportunity to develop their skills in public discourse and in moral and

political argument.

Art of Theory: You’ve defended the place of religion in that discourse.

Why?

Sandel: Well, I’m in favor of a more faith-friendly form of public

discourse and public reason than is advanced by some versions of liberal

political theory.

So, for example, one account of public reason that’s prominent is advanced

by Rawls in one way and by Habermas in another. Both, despite their

disagreements, share the idea that public reason should not depend on

trying to persuade our fellow citizens of our preferred conception of the

good life. I think that’s too narrow an account of public reason, because it

requires people to leave their spiritual convictions or their secular,

substantive moral convictions, at the door when they enter the public

square.

I think that’s a mistake. I would favor a more expansive idea of public

reason that welcomes all comers. That doesn’t mean that everyone can or

will carry the day. But I’m not in favor of excluding arguments that may

draw on faith traditions, for those who want to bring them to bear in

politics.

There’s a tendency to think that this invites dogma into politics; that’s one

of the reasons people think we should leave religious reasons outside of

public discourse. I agree that dogmatic assertions typically are not valuable

contributions to democratic discourse, but I don’t think religious

communities have a monopoly of dogmatic assertions. There are plenty of

dogmatic claims that are brought to bear by people coming from secular

traditions.

So I’m in favor of reasoned public discourse, but I wouldn’t rule out in

advance reasons that may reflect faith traditions or other substantive

conceptions of the good life.

We can’t know what types of arguments can be accepted until we try.

This may be the main point of disagreement I have with Rawls and

Habermas. We can’t stipulate in advance those reasons which could, in

principle, be accepted or agreed to by everyone. We can’t specify criteria for

possible acceptance by everyone without delving into some of the

substantive moral disagreements. I would not use that requirement to

7/3/2014 Michael Sandel – The Art of Theory Interview : the art of theory – a quarterly journal of political philosophy

http://archive.today/OYh7t#selection-65.76-65.295 5/7

substantive moral disagreements. I would not use that requirement to

prevent certain kinds of reasons or arguments from being brought to bear

in politics.

Art of Theory: Tell us a little bit about your work process.

Sandel: At the moment I’m working on a book project that I’ve been

working on for a long time, with many detours, on the moral limits of

markets.

I have developed and tried out the broad philosophical ideas in teaching

and in papers, but at the same time I want to relate the question of

markets to actual examples of contested commodification. I have gathered

from newspapers and other sources over many years intriguing examples

of contested commodification today.

So the process by which I work includes working-out philosophical ideas in

discussion with students and colleagues, and gathering concrete

illustrations to connect the themes and to illustrate them. I have great file

boxes full of clippings and examples. Bouncing philosophical ideas against

a novel controversy can prompt important questions.

Art of Theory: Do you do you find yourself returning to canonical

thinkers, whether ancient or modern, in the course of your work?

Sandel: All the time. I’m constantly finding that the contemporary

debates raise philosophical questions that go all the way back to Plato and

Aristotle, and that’s part of the fun of doing political theory: being attuned

to the arguments that take place around the world, reading newspapers

alongside old books.

Art of Theory: What does excellent political theory look like to you? What

sets it apart from the merely mediocre?

Sandel: Excellent political theory is determined by how interesting the

question is.

I have found, over the years, in looking at Ph.D. dissertations that the

single best predictor of what will be an excellent dissertation is the question

it addresses. In political theory, more than in other academic subjects, the

quality and interest of the work depends on the ability to identify an

interesting and important question.

If you get it wrong then you can be very smart and conscientious and

logical and a great researcher but it won’t be terribly interesting or even

worthwhile. The single most important consideration is finding and

choosing the right question, or the right set of questions.

If you put dissertations aside and look at the history of political thought

and the lasting texts, they are the works that have taken on big, interesting,

important questions; that’s what sets apart good, or even great political

theory, from merely ordinary work.

After the question is chosen I am a methodological pluralist—a radical

methodological pluralist—to the point where I don’t even think we could

lay down any meaningful criteria for the right research method.

Now this may be different in other parts of political science (I doubt it), but

choosing the right questions matters far more than the methodology. I

think there’s a tendency today in political science generally, maybe to a

lesser degree in political theory, for people to get it backwards: to let the

choice of method determine the subject. I do think that has it radically

wrong, and a lot of political science goes astray that way.

Art of Theory: How optimistic are you about the future of political theory

as a field of study?

7/3/2014 Michael Sandel – The Art of Theory Interview : the art of theory – a quarterly journal of political philosophy

http://archive.today/OYh7t#selection-65.76-65.295 6/7

Really enjoyed the interview, thanks.

It’s funny: following the first couple of broadcasts of Sandel’s

Justice lectures here in the UK I recieved a phone call from

my mother who had stumbled accross them somewhat

inadvertently. She told me that it was the first time in her life

(!) that she had really sat down and questioned what fairness

actually means, what justice actually involves, and asked if

she could ‘borrow one of those books I’m always reading’.

Consequently, when she visited recently she took home a copy

of Barry’s Why Social Justice Matters (she wanted something

a little practical).

Though obviously this is but one example, it strikes me that

political theory is a subject that many would enjoy if only it

were more accessible. As Sandel comments, economics

pushing politics to the side somewhat reproduces itself in the

interests of both students and the general public, and perhaps

results in a general tendency to dismiss normative questions as

a bit of a waste of time: “there’s real problems to be solved!”,

and that’s a great shame.

posted by Tom Aindow on 03.31.11 a t 7 :2 4 a m

Thank you very much for this interview, it reminded me that

I need to get back to Dr. Sandel’s videos.

posted by Max Lockie on 04.09.11 a t 1 1 :3 8 pm

Comments

Sandel: I think there have always been, at least for the last forty years or

so, attempts by some political scientists to claim that political inquiry could

be put on so scientific and rigorous a footing that there would be no more

need for political theory. But those attempts haven’t succeeded even

remotely, and I don’t expect that they will.

I think the attempt to make political inquiry over in the image of the

sciences is bound to fail. So I’m confident about the future of political

theory as an academic subject, and what strengthens that confidence, apart

from the intellectual conviction that normative questions persist and will

persist, is that students persist.

Students of politics, whether undergraduates or graduate students, are

drawn to the subject (for the most part) not because they’re intrigued and

passionate about this or that method, but because they’re intrigued or

troubled or worried or passionate about some political question or other:

about how countries get along or fail to get along, about questions of war

and peace, or globalization, or the role of markets, or about equality and

inequality, or about what makes for successful democracies, or what

enables people of different cultures and ethnic backgrounds to get along or

find themselves in conflict.

It’s impossible to address any of these questions without taking up big

themes in political theory. What keeps universities and academic

communities full of energy and curiosity and ferment and inquiry is the

passion that students have for actual political questions. That means that,

for them, political theory is indispensable.

7/3/2014 Michael Sandel – The Art of Theory Interview : the art of theory – a quarterly journal of political philosophy

http://archive.today/OYh7t#selection-65.76-65.295 7/7

Search

Except where noted, al l materials freely distribu ted u nder the Creative Commons A ttribu tion 3.0

l icense.

posted by Max Lockie on 04.09.11 a t 1 1 :3 8 pm

Post Comment

FULL NA ME: please, only s igned com m ents

INSTITUTIONA L EMA IL: required for verifying identity, not published

HOMEPA GE: optional

COMMENT:

« Previous Post Next Post »

Leave a Comment