tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1960833106176005080.post2154178463290654067..comments2010-12-30T22:16:40.877-08:00Comments on A Little Knowledge: In Praise of Rousseau and MarxDavid Meskillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09044097307265066419noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1960833106176005080.post-59825696056964013232009-10-06T04:11:18.530-07:002009-10-06T04:11:18.530-07:00Paul and Daniel,
Very interesting comments. Paul,...Paul and Daniel,<br /><br />Very interesting comments. Paul, I think you're spot on about the subtle, but quite powerful, effects of technology in shaping generations. I hadn't really thought enough about that. The connection between positive freedom and not watching TV is just what you imply: if watching TV, texting etc. are addictions, then breaking free is an example of self-governance.<br />Daniel, very good question - almost wickedly good, given my predilection for Smith. My best answer would be that the very qualities I don't appreciate in R and M - the single-mindedness, the lack of subtlety - are, in this case, actually strengths. Their call for a different way of living are so crystal-clear that they allow one to think differently even in the midst of an external-stimulation blizzard such as we are now experiencing. Smith is so balanced and subtle that I don't think - or at least I wonder whether - he can serve as effectively in this rallying function. But I'll ponder the question some more.<br />I also wanted to add a thought to the end of my post, re: private vs. public solutions. My emphasis here on the private, and rejection of grand public solutions, doesn't mean I'm indifferent to or oppose any kind of broader policy. But it should steer clear of the pitfalls of massive social engineering. At least two kinds of acceptable interventions come to mind. 1) Local rules. For example, I would have no problem if a (my!) university banned cell phones (the ban would have to have teeth, though, as I've discovered in my classroom) or somehow disabled them. This would be a local entity's decision and presumably not all colleges would follow suit. The students could still choose to attend a college that allowed texting, etc, if it was so important to them. 2) Nudge - or libertarian paternalism. This is an idea launched by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein, a behavioral economist and innovative legal scholar and now advisor to Obama, respectively. (Their book is titled Nudge; I think this movement of libertarian paternalism will be very important.) This involves broader interventions than the first tack, indeed it involves government policy. But rather than dictating outcomes it tries to use our knowledge of people's innate tendencies to shape effective policies, while still preserving ultimate liberty. For example, it matters tremendously whether saving for a 401 or 403K plan is opt-in or opt-out. In each case, about 90% of people will simply stick with the default - an instance of general human inertia. So government's choice of the default can have a dramatic effect on the outcome, while still allowing people, ultimately, to choose their own way.<br />I'd be particularly interested to hear my leftist friends' thoughts on this question of private vs. public solutions, and also on libertarian paternalism.David Meskillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09044097307265066419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1960833106176005080.post-40537124124200915052009-10-06T03:07:40.970-07:002009-10-06T03:07:40.970-07:00Thanks for this, David. Very interesting. I wish w...Thanks for this, David. Very interesting. I wish we could sit around the table at Grendels and talk. <br /><br />In the spirit of the Grendels table, here's a question. What in Rousseau or Marx gives you something you would not find in Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments? I'm talking specifically about what has helped you to confront this world of gadgets, of incessant television and texting. What do Marx or Rossueau give you beyond Smith in terms of the importance of living in oneself and not in the opinion of others--at least if you seek wisdom and virtue (as opposed to wealth and greatness).Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00285278827284415116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1960833106176005080.post-38546988680463365422009-10-05T21:22:18.504-07:002009-10-05T21:22:18.504-07:00David, I'm confused. How are you defining pos...David, I'm confused. How are you defining positive freedom? My sense of the term is either individual or collective self-governance or self-realization. The link between positive freedom and not watching TV is not clear to me here. <br /><br />I hear you re: students and texting. Being on what I call "the front lines of social problems" as a teacher (like a cop, or social worker, except they see much darker shades of similar social problems) has led me to think that the link between technology and generational change is under-appreciated. <br /><br />Too often, generations are defined in terms of big events (e.g., the Great Depression and WWII for the "Greatest Generation," the Vietnam War and counter-culture for the Boomers) yet the Millenials born about 1980 to 2000 are defined much less in terms of big events than technology, especially the internet and the cell phone. Yet what a profound effect, at least from the point of view of this teacher. <br /><br />My initial sense: Americans live in a largely un-if not anti-intellectual culture, but the advent of cell phones and the internet is intellectually stunting at least as much as these technologies are socially and politically empowering. I hope some social scientist is measuring the amount of time young people spend texting and "surfing" the internet, and the content of that texting and surfing (if we can capture such without getting sued). My guess is that little of that texting and surfing leads to learning much other than how smashed Joey got last weekend, or consuming the latest porn or Hollywood gossip.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com