The Influence of Ludwig Wittgenstein in Political Theory By Johannis Auri Bin Abdul Aziz A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Mark Bevir, Chair Professor Shannon Stimson Professor Hans Sluga Spring 2014 Abstract The Influence of Ludwig Wittgenstein in Political Theory by Johannis Auri Bin Abdul Aziz Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science University of California, Berkeley Professor Mark Bevir, Chair This dissertation is inspired by the small but growing number of political and social theorists whose works have been highly influenced by the later philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein. These authors developed their theories at least in part by taking Wittgenstein’s thought to have normative implications on methodological and substantive issues in political and social theory. The aim of this dissertation is to narrate and analyse the influence of Wittgenstein in political theory as a contribution to the intellectual history of twentieth century political thought. To that end, Hanna Pitkin’s “Wittgenstein and Justice” and James Tully’s “Public Philosophy in a New Key” present an exemplary (in both senses of the word) pair of works that allow us to compare contrasting approaches to using Wittgenstein’s ideas and methods. The dissertation begins with an introductory chapter that sets out the main problem: Ludwig Wittgenstein’s influence in political theory is fairly under-narrated and under-analysed, especially in a dissertation-length project. The purpose of this chapter is to give a brief historical overview of this identified gap in the literature. The second chapter provides a brief introduction to the concepts and methods of Wittgenstein’s later work, as well as an explanation of some of his basic philosophical commitments since the “Tractatus-Logico Philosophicus”. The third chapter is an exposition and analysis of Hanna Pitkin’s social thought in Wittgenstein and Justice. I show how Pitkin built her social theory by taking Peter Winch’s and J. L. Austin’s methodological work to complement and expand the fundamental ontological and epistemological precepts she draws from Wittgenstein’s later philosophy. The fourth chapter is an exposition and analysis of Pitkin’s political thought in “Wittgenstein and Justice”. I show how she built her political theory by taking Wittgenstein’s ontology to flesh out and expand the fundamental political values she draws from Kant and Arendt. The dissertation continues with James Tully. The fifth chapter is an exposition and analysis of James Tully’s social thought in “Public Philosophy in a New Key”. I show how the social theory of James Tully is primarily inspired by the post-structuralist works of Michel Foucault and the later philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein. The sixth chapter is an exposition and analysis of James Tully’s political thought in “Public Philosophy in a New Key”. I show how Tully’s belief that the role of public philosophy is to address public affairs cashes out in i) 1 critical surveys of practices and languages that set the context of practical social and political problems and their proposed solutions, and ii) historical or genealogical surveys that place those languages and practices in their larger contexts in order to see how forms of subjectivity are shaped by historically specific trends in thought and action. I end the dissertation with a concluding chapter that compares my findings about Pitkin and Tully under the light of Wittgenstein’s anti-theoretical commitments and his beliefs regarding the second-order nature of philosophy. I argue that Pitkin, in sailing too close the modernist wind, takes a narrower view of the political than Wittgenstein’s social ontology might suggest. And therefore, Tully’s work, by being more resolutely anti-theoretical and anti-foundational, is more consonant with Wittgenstein’s ethos. My final evaluation of Pitkin’s and Tully’s Wittgensteinian political theories will highlight the strengths and weaknesses of their diverging approaches, while holding on to the caveat that we need not agree with everything Wittgenstein has laid out in order to find something useful from him that can help in our work. 2 To my late father i Contents 1 Introduction: The Man, The Philosopher, and His Influence 1 2 Wittgenstein’s ‘Pictures’ 20 3 The Social Thought of Hanna Pitkin 37 4 The Political Thought of Hanna Pitkin 56 5 The Social Thought of James Tully 78 6 The Political Thought of James Tully 96 7 Conclusion 114 References 130 Bibliography 132 ii CHAPTER 1 Introduction The Man, The Philosopher, and His Influence I. Philosophy and Politics The relationship between philosophy and political theory is an intimate one. Plato, Hobbes, Kant and Mill are only some of the many practitioners who have made great contributions to the canon of both disciplines. Yet, of course, given that political philosophy is the great intersection of the two broad disciplines, it would have been enough for Plato to have written The Republic alone and for Mill to have only written On Liberty for them to be considered both great philosophers and great political theorists. As political philosophers, their influence in political theory comes from the inside. The story of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s influence in political theory however, is a little more complicated. Apart from some limited writings on ethics and cultural interpretation, Wittgenstein never wrote directly about politics. Whatever influence political theorists have claimed to have come from him, it did not come from any substantive ideas of his about politics; Wittgenstein never wrote about justice, equality, war or any other classically political subject. Hence, it is of no surprise that while he is often described as a philosopher of language or logic or psychology or mind, he was never regarded as a political philosopher. Even his personal life seemed to have largely been led with political apathy, in stark contrast to his mentor, Bertrand Russell, who was a political activist in the public eye. Ludwig Wittgenstein’s influence in political theory therefore requires some explanation and in this and the chapters to follow, I will attempt to give just such an explanation. We begin in this chapter with a brief historical survey of Wittgenstein the man, the philosopher, and the source of inspiration for a small but slowly increasing number of political theorists. Wittgenstein and Philosophy Ludwig Josef Johann Wittgenstein was born to Karl and Leopoldine Wittgenstein in Vienna on 26 April 1889. Blessed to have been born into one of the richest families in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, his vast family home was at the centre of artistic and cultural life in Vienna at the time. Johannes Brahms, Gustav Mahler, Josef Labor, Richard Strauss and others were often seen visiting the family’s salons. The youngest of nine children, Ludwig Wittgenstein showed much of the same promise for music from an early age as many of his older siblings. His interests however, soon came to be focused on engineering rather than music – a choice that followed in his industrialist father’s footsteps. But, having failed in his provincial Realschule (secondary school) to obtain sufficient qualifications for university in 1906, Wittgenstein was sent to a technical college in Berlin-Charlottenburg. It took only three terms before Wittgenstein decided he would be happier learning aeronautical engineering in England and so he left in the summer of 1908 to fly experimental kites at the Upper Atmosphere Research Station in Derbyshire. Later that year, he would enrol as an aeronautical engineering student at the University of Manchester. 1 Wittgenstein’s interest in aeronautical engineering was genuine, but insufficient to hold his intellectual attention for too long. As he studied engineering, he became more interested in mathematics and as he studied mathematics, he became more interested in its foundations and the philosophers who studied them. He began to read Russell and Frege and it was the latter, incidentally, who advised him to study under the former. In 1912, Wittgenstein registered as a student at Cambridge. He would spend only five terms there before building himself a hut in Norway in order to philosophise in solitude. There, he began writing the first lines of what was later to become his first book, the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus1 – the only monograph with which he was sufficiently satisfied to publish in his lifetime. The Tractatus though, had to largely be written during Wittgenstein’s military service for Austria during the Great War. It was finally published in 1921 in German and in 1922 in English, but having (erroneously) thought that he had literally solved all the problems of philosophy with it, Wittgenstein decided against returning to a university setting and began a career as a teacher in the small Austrian village of Trattenbach, not far from Vienna. This career would last only six years. By most accounts, Wittgenstein was an overly strict schoolteacher who was not good with young children, on whom he would mete out harsh corporal punishment. By 1926, Wittgenstein had resigned to pre- empt official sanction and returned to Vienna. It was not too long before the pull of philosophy was too much for Wittgenstein to resist. While he had been in continual contact with F. P. Ramsey after the war in order for the latter to translate the Tractatus, it was the invitation by Moritz Schlick at Vienna University to speak to the members of the Vienna Circle which finally drew him back to work in philosophy. While never a member himself, Wittgenstein’s Tractatus was much admired by this group, who saw it as consonant with or as supporting their logical positivism. He would meet the members only occasionally, but this contact encouraged him to return to Cambridge in 1929, where after the award of his doctorate in 1930 Wittgenstein would begin his career in academia proper. This period was a very productive one for Wittgenstein, and his work showed a gradual shift, interrupted by the Second World War, from the formalist, mathematical style of the Tractatus to the piecemeal, anthropological flavour of the Philosophical Investigations2 which he wrote in 1947. Nevertheless, none of these works written after the Tractatus were published before his death in 1951. These short biographical notes might already suggest that Wittgenstein had a rather unusual personality. He was serious about philosophy, but so serious that he could not fully abide by the letter of the professional requirements of his university. He looked upon these administrative rules as nothing but obstacles to unrestricted philosophising. He was also so fastidious about his work that he found it hard to finalise manuscripts for publication before his death. He seemed to have liked the idea of teaching, but did not like adhering to a proper syllabus, often lecturing on his latest though incompletely formed and certainly untested ideas. He attracted a small loyal following at the same time as he alienated other people. His strange manners, which often bordered on the rude, were tolerated by his colleagues and his students in view of his perceived high intelligence. He was regarded by some as no less than a genius and it is this image of Wittgenstein as the flawed genius that gives us the popular impression we still 1 Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, translated by D.F. Pears and B.F. McGuinness, (London and New York: Humanities Press, 1961). 2 Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Philsophical Investigations (3rd ed.), translated by G.E.M. Anscombe, (Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 1973). 2 have of him today. In fact, so strong was this image of the unapologetic genius and so pithy the manner in which he wrote that some of his critics have attributed the persistence of his ideas to a sort of cult of personality. To put it in his own terms, it seemed to some that Wittgenstein scholars have been so bewitched by the strength of his personality and his brilliant image that they would deny the latest developments in philosophy simply for being contrary to Wittgenstein. Some might even agree with A. C. Grayling when he argued that the continuity of Wittgenstein’s influence in philosophy has only been possible through loyalty and the induction of new disciples in what Grayling has called, “a kind of apostolic succession”3. Whether the above accusation about succession is true is beyond the scope of this dissertation, but it does seem reasonable to agree with Wittgenstein’s critics in that his relatively modest influence in philosophy does not square with the high reputation and name recognition. Firstly, though it can be said that his Tractatus was of some influence on the Vienna Circle, this was neither very significant nor very long lasting. The members of the Vienna Circle shared Wittgenstein’s aim of expelling the speculative metaphysics of the traditional problems in philosophy and like the early Wittgenstein they favoured an empirical positivism that could be soundly grounded in logic. Like the early Wittgenstein, they believed that the truths of ethics and religion cannot be given meaningful expression in language, but the truths of empirical science can be reliably expressed. But unlike the early Wittgenstein, who never intended to do away with ethics and religion altogether, the members of the Vienna Circle tended to dismiss the role of ethics and religion once they believed they had established that neither had a place in empirical discourse. While the members of the Vienna Circle looked upon the Tractatus as a parallel expression of their logical positivism, their own work was developed independently and generally avoided the ultimately transcendental direction of the Tractatus. It should also be noted that while logical positivism was an influential school in academic philosophy in the 1920’s and 1930’s and its general point of view has survived in some subfields of philosophy like formal logic, logical positivism as a school has had few committed adherents in philosophy departments beyond the Second World War. Secondly, while there are a number of prominent names in Wittgensteinian studies today, especially in the study of the Investigations, their number is relatively small and their ability to convince non-Wittgensteinians rather limited. For example, in the philosophies of psychology and mind, Wittgenstein is noted for his anti-scientism and anti- mentalism, however, these points of view are by no means the position of the majority of scholars. But perhaps, the most unpopular idea from the later philosophy of Wittgenstein is his anti-theoretical conception of philosophy as ‘mere’ therapy. Most contemporary philosophers do not accept Wittgenstein’s claim that all philosophical problems are a result of linguistic confusions and that they could subsequently be solved by dissolution rather than by finding a solution. Most philosophers today are hard at work at building intricate theories to suss out elegant answers to philosophy’s traditional problems. Wittgenstein and Political Studies From the above notes on his life and the reception of work, it is doubly puzzling why someone like Wittgenstein would have a somewhat significant influence in political theory. Firstly, while Wittgenstein felt a sense of duty to involve himself in the two world wars, he otherwise spent little time concerning himself with the politics of the day. Secondly, his status in 3 Grayling, A. C.. Wittgenstein: A Very Short Introduction, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), pg.129. 3 his own discipline is quite uncertain. While his name is widely recognised in philosophy, his followers today would not amount to much more than a niche in academic philosophy as a whole. Nevertheless, Wittgenstein’s influence in social and political studies is still notable. Firstly, if we give some credit to Wittgenstein for influencing logical positivism, then we might also give him some small amount of credit for the rise of the behaviouralist movement. The behaviouralists in the political and social sciences were inspired by logical positivism’s assertion of the epistemic priority of empirical statements. This was used to justify dismissing the worth of value judgments in hope of making the social sciences more scientific. More importantly, even while there are very few pure behaviouralists left in the social sciences a more general form of positivism has had a much wider and deeper impact on political science and other social sciences since WWII. Secondly and quite ironically, the later philosophy of Wittgenstein, in asserting the intersubjectivity and conventionality of meaning, was picked up by some social and political theorists as justifying a contextualist and/or historicist approach to social and political studies. While their number might still be relatively small, they straddle a relatively wide swath of the subdivisions of political theory. Normative political philosophy, philosophy of history and philosophy of social science stand out as three significant subfields where contextualist Wittgensteinians have made notable contributions. Further afield, the influence of the later philosophy of Wittgenstein can also be seen in other social sciences such as anthropology4 and literary theory5. Despite the indirect influence of the Tractatus on contemporary empirical political science, this dissertation will focus primarily on the direct influence of Wittgenstein’s later philosophy in political theory – more specifically, in the subfield of normative political philosophy. It is there where Wittgenstein’s influence in political studies is the most concentrated. Nonetheless, his impact is similar in other political theory subfields such as the philosophy of social science and the philosophy of history. In general, Wittgensteinian political theorists representing various subfields have developed their work at least in part by taking Wittgenstein’s thought to have normative implications on methodological and substantive issues in political theory. Normative implications which have not only given a distinctive Wittgensteinian perspectival flavour to this school but help usher in a linguistic turn in political theory. How this could be, is a fair question given what we have just discussed regarding Wittgenstein’s predilection for solitude and his almost exclusive relationship with more basic philosophical questions such as those on language and knowledge. As we shall see in Part II below, the most common answer is that various political theorists have taken Wittgenstein’s later writings about language as presenting a novel holist social ontology upon which they could justify their political ontologies and whatever normative methodological or moral principles they develop out of them. That Wittgenstein’s view of language in his later works has been taken as presenting a social ontology seems quite natural because his method of investigation is at base an anthropological one. Owing this shift from the strictly analytical view of his early period to conversations with his Cambridge colleague, Piero Sraffa6, Wittgenstein’s later approach looked upon language as a distinctive part of the natural history of human beings as a form of life, that is to say, as a particular species of embodied beings embedded in a particular physical world. The 4 See Geertz, Clifford. The Interpretation of Cultures, (New York: Basic Books, 1973). 5 See Gibson, John and Wolfgang Huemer (eds). The Literary Wittgenstein, (New York: Routledge, 2004). 6 Monk, Ray. The Duty of Genius, (Harmondsworth, Penguin Books, 1991), pg. 260. 4