Lost in Translation
The The Notorious ŒV offers a bland suggestion that the left remains sympathetic to keeping The Unlearned Lessons Of the Twentieth Century yet unlearned. Having finished the class (except for a final paper which I plan to write this weekend) now I have the chance to return to reading Chantal Delsol’s two books that have been translated into English (the first linked above). The second, which actually was published first, is titled Icarus Fallen: The Search for Meaning in a Uncertain World. In the forward by the series editor, an surprising fact is asserted. The secular left and liberalism has had a little known assault which has been highly successful in the debate between left and right in the field of translation. They have managed to give the impression that outside of the Anglo-American world leftist thinkers are the dominant default. In turn, the Continent has been assailed in the main by liberal authors from the Americas, badly skewing our impressions of the status of the other. He gives a list of about a dozen or so French, South American, Italian, and German conservative thinkers and writers, each heard in their language but not translated. Chantal Delsol is another of these individuals. The editor notes the obvious, that one would have considered a distinguished influential woman political scientist/political philosopher (and in a field in which women are not just a little rare) would be a thing that feminists would celebrate. Yet, because her political philosophy is not left leaning … wham. No translations. No celebrations. No recognition (except perhaps a tacit nod to hypocrisy).
Ms Delsol is writing about the failed aspirations of the majority in the last century. She terms our age late modernity to strike a chord with late antiquity. For the last two centuries the progressive vision has been to stamp out poverty, injustice, war, disease and arrive at a radiant future. Even today, the left wing in American thinks that, yes, if only we pass this next reform (healthcare) then there will be no people dying for lack of care in America. There are two results to that sort of thinking. First, since, even if that passes, people will still be dying, injustice, poverty and disease will remain … yet another major reform will be critically required. And second eventually many will become disillusioned. Ms Delsol begins her book with an image of an Icarus who actually manages to survive. And asks, “he falls back into the labyrinth, where he finds himself horribly bruised but still alive. And let us try to imagine what goes on in his life after having thought himself capable of attaining the sun, the supreme good. How will he get over his disappointment?”
There are some who think that the mistakes of the past century to solve those problems were technical. That Icarus just “didn’t” get it right, like the hopey/changey Obamanoids who think that just if “smart people” get to make the right “wonky” decisions then the sun will be attained. Asymmetrical information problems are not the least of their errors. The problems go deeper. Others are less optimistic, instead having an existential crises. Having rejected the foundational beliefs of the prior age and embarking on ambitious projects to save the world, finding that it is not a tenable project, leaves many in the late modernity grasping for alternatives.
In the upcoming weeks, one of the recurring themes will be to raise and discuss the points and arguments raised by Ms Delsol in her two books noted above, starting with Icarus Fallen. I’d encourage you to get them from a library and skim or read them yourselves (of failing that, tip me a few dimes and buy it with the provided links). It would at the very least enliven the discussion.
Filed under: Culture • Government • Mark O.
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
Even today, the left wing in American thinks that, yes, if only we pass this next reform (healthcare) then there will be no people dying for lack of care in America.
I think you misunderstand at least some (I suspect most) on the progressive side of things, as it relates to social needs.
No one I know thinks that medical reform will end poverty or dying or injustice in the US, any more than anyone I know of thinks that the war on poverty would end poverty or that welfare reform would end welfare problems, etc, etc.
There are and have been problems in our nation – in any nation – related to poverty and need. These problems are humanitarian problems at one level, but they’re practical and fiscal problems at another level.
It costs us (society) money and opportunity to have an under- and uneducated workforce. It costs us money and opportunity to have a less healthy populace. It costs us to have a polluted landscape, a energy system dependent on a finite resource, to have high unemployment, etc, etc, etc.
All these things contribute to a less successful US. What many of us like to see is an increase in more responsible investment in the commonwealth and a decrease in less responsible investment. As conservatives rightly note, we have a limited genius to fully understand the implications of our policies, but progressives understand that not being fully sure of what will result from our actions is no excuse to ignore the real problems that we know are happening in absence of any action.
Trying to micromanage society with a million little policies is probably not ideal, but certainly the laissez faire approach is not a smart way to manage society, either. As always, a balance is what is required.
And striving for that balance, many think (I am not wholly persuaded myself) that tinkering with health care is needed. Maybe so. I don’t think what we’re currently doing is perfect any more than I expect that whatever policies Obama et al are advocating will be perfect.
I suppose there ARE “true believers” in every camp who think “IF ONLY they’ll implement MY party’s policies, poverty will end, families will be happy and life will be good…” but I suspect that most adults recognize it’s a balancing act with no perfect answers, certainly that is true in my circle of so-called progressives.