In an interesting article on Commonweal, Terry Eagleton has a wonderful summation of Richard Rorty’s view of Western Civilization:
Rorty’s kind of argument allows you to acknowledge that Western civilization is indeed a “culture” in the sense of being local and contingent-even as you claim its values are the ones to promote. This means behaving as though your values have all the force of universal ones, while at the same time insulating them from any thoroughgoing critique. They are immune to such critique because you do not claim any rational foundation for them; yours, after all, is just one culture among others. In a bold move, you can abandon a rational defense of your way of life for a culturalist one, even though the price of doing so is leaving it perilously ungrounded. “Culture” and “civilization” here felicitously coincide. The West is most certainly civilized; but since its civility descends to it from its contingent cultural history, there is no need to provide rational grounds for it.
Rorty wrote:
We pragmatists are not arguing that modern Europe has any superior insight into eternal ahistorical realities. We do not claim any superior rationality. We claim only an experimental success: we have come up with a way of bringing people into some degree of comity, and of increasing human happiness, which looks more promising than any other way which has been proposed so far. (Philosophy and Social Hope, p. 273)
According to Rorty, there is no “proof” that our Western civilization is right while others are wrong. There is no proof because there is no Foundation. There is no hard, solid standard by which to judge the matter. There is no good versus evil, only good versus better. And Western Civilization is better. Why? The only explanation Rorty can give is pragmatic historicism; It is the mightiest, it must be best; it is the latest, and hence the greatest. But here then Rorty exposes a standard that ultimately threatens Western Civilization. Surprise: time has not stopped.
Rorty was a strong advocate of the public/private social dualism that has long been the mark of Western civilization. For Rorty, this was the necessary compromise for a great civilization, but to other civilizations, it is hypocrisy. Are Westerners happy? What we appear to be is insatiable. Is that a sign of happiness? And so the question arises? Is the dualism the source of your unhappiness? Shouldn’t and cannot public and private life be integrated? Is there a different, better way to achieve pluralism?
Must globalization imply the head to head competition of civilizations? Can we not anticipate a transference of values and methods in both directions? The West will incorporate insights from others cultures, while at the same time others will be learning from the West. They will have insight into what the West does well and not very well. Should we be surprised if others adapt better than the West, offering their citizenry a more well-rounded happiness, and then ascending in world influence and power?
If this were to happen, then they would be better than the West. They would be the latest and the greatest. Should Rorty really be surprised or disappointed if the West does not come out on top? Would Rorty have considered this better? Or would he have bemoaned the the passing of the era of Western civilization?
Eagleton on Rorty
In an interesting article on Commonweal, Terry Eagleton has a wonderful summation of Richard Rorty’s view of Western Civilization:
Rorty wrote:
According to Rorty, there is no “proof” that our Western civilization is right while others are wrong. There is no proof because there is no Foundation. There is no hard, solid standard by which to judge the matter. There is no good versus evil, only good versus better. And Western Civilization is better. Why? The only explanation Rorty can give is pragmatic historicism; It is the mightiest, it must be best; it is the latest, and hence the greatest. But here then Rorty exposes a standard that ultimately threatens Western Civilization. Surprise: time has not stopped.
Rorty was a strong advocate of the public/private social dualism that has long been the mark of Western civilization. For Rorty, this was the necessary compromise for a great civilization, but to other civilizations, it is hypocrisy. Are Westerners happy? What we appear to be is insatiable. Is that a sign of happiness? And so the question arises? Is the dualism the source of your unhappiness? Shouldn’t and cannot public and private life be integrated? Is there a different, better way to achieve pluralism?
Must globalization imply the head to head competition of civilizations? Can we not anticipate a transference of values and methods in both directions? The West will incorporate insights from others cultures, while at the same time others will be learning from the West. They will have insight into what the West does well and not very well. Should we be surprised if others adapt better than the West, offering their citizenry a more well-rounded happiness, and then ascending in world influence and power?
If this were to happen, then they would be better than the West. They would be the latest and the greatest. Should Rorty really be surprised or disappointed if the West does not come out on top? Would Rorty have considered this better? Or would he have bemoaned the the passing of the era of Western civilization?