taylor moral

7/28/2019 Taylor Moral

1/15

Charles Taylor's Moral SubjectPhilosophical Papers, Volume 1. Human Agency and Language by Charles Taylor; PhilosophicalPapers, Volume 2: Philosophy and the Human Sciences by Charles TaylorReview by: Michael J. ShapiroPolitical Theory, Vol. 14, No. 2 (May, 1986), pp. 311-324Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/191466 .Accessed: 09/04/2013 17:28

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Sage Publications, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Political Theory.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 201.234.181.53 on Tue, 9 Apr 2013 17:28:19 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sagehttp://www.jstor.org/stable/191466?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/191466?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage


2/15

BOOKS IN REVIEW

CHARLES TAYLOR'S MORAL SUBJECTPHILOSOPHICAL PAPERS, VOLUME 1: HUMAN AGENCYAND LANGUAGEbyCharles aylor. ambridge:ambridgeni-versityress, 985. p.viii 294, 39.50 cloth), 12.95 paper).PHILOSOPHICAL PAPERS, VOLUME2: PHILOSOPHY ANDTHE HUMANSCIENCES byCharles aylor. ambridge:ambridgeUniveristyress, 985. p. 340, 39.50 cloth), 12.95 paper).

Charles aylordifies.t nnothis ault hatmost ractitionersn hehuman ciences emain elativelynaware f thedevastationhetraditionfGermanpeculativehilosophyromant hrougheideg-gerhaswroughtn theepistemologicalonceitswithin hich heyoperate. f,paraphrasingeidegger, enote hatKantchangedhequestion,What s a thing"nto Who sman,"we an ocate he riginof the pistemologicaloncern aylorhas adopted,heplaceof thehumanubjectntheproblemfknowledge. ndwe canlocatehisHeideggerian,ntologicaloncern ith lluminatinghebackgroundconditionswhatHeideggeralled he ground lan")within hichknowingunctions.heseconcerns, hendeployed n the humansciences, ield oth thoroughgoingritiquefnaturalisticpproachesto human onduct nd thesystematicrticulationf an expres-sivist/ermeneuticlternative.ithinhis rientation,aylor mpha-sizesnot nly ow grasp f hentersubjectivend ommon eaningswithin hich umanction akes lace snecessaryor he ecoveryfthemeaningfthat ctionbut also how t allowsus to articulatesuccessfullyhe ssuesof rationality,uman gency, nd variouspoliticaloncepts.Becausemost fTaylor's ssays repartlyonstituteds attacks nthemodel fhuman gency elongingo naturalisticpproaches,heessaysdraw muchof their trengthnd incisivenessrom heirargumentativetyle. uttheres anotherource f strength,his ne

311

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/15

312 POLITICAL THEORY / May1986coming rom inside."There s an unmistakable octrinal imensionoTaylor's writings. longsideCharlesTaylorthe critic fempiricismstandsCharlesTaylorthehermeneuticallyriented oliticalphiloso-pher, nd hoveringnthebackground, irectinghese wo, s CharlesTaylor hemoralist,dvocatingommunitarianismver ocialatomismand the integrityf the human subject against what he sees asimmoralist, ietzsche-inspirediewsof a fragmentedubject.The high degree of intimacy mong these threefiguresgivesPhilosophical Papers its remarkable oherence.All theessays,to agreater r lesserdegree,markTaylor's Humboldtianprojectof at-temptingo unify iscoursesof knowledge nd truthwiththose ofjustice ndgoodness. aylor's rojectsno essthan he onstitutionflegitimate,moral ubject,whichwould serve s a ground fadequacyforapproachesto knowledge n the human sciences.Although heessays span a period of approximately 5 yearsand cover diversesubjects in the philosophyof the social sciences, philosophyofpsychology nd mind,philosophy f language,politicalphilosophy,and problemsof agency nd theself, hey re united n a family fconcerns ndperspectives.ne canappreciate hat,nomatter hat heperiodof particular ssay, he ignature as remainedmore r essthesame.However, t s preciselyhesame commitmentsontributingo thecoherence f hese olumes hat re a major ource f heirweakness.nalmosteverypiece-whetherthemanifest opic is an analysisof aparticular hinker,generalssue uch s theproblem fmeaning, r theanalysisof a concept uch as justice-the textorganizes tself roundone dominantcode: a quasi-ontological, uasi-moral,and quasi-epistemological efenseof Taylor's notion of the subject and theconception f human gencyhederives rom t. n addition, lthoughtheargumentationspiresto an interpretivenalytic nfluenced y aHeideggerian ntology, aylor'sphilosophical iscourse emains ri-marily antian.Thegrammar fknowing orTaylorhas subjectswithconceptualcharacertisticsnvolved n apprehending nd valuingtheworldofthings. hecritiques fenlightenmentationalism hat nhereinthewritingsf heEnglishinguistichilosophersparticularly ustinand Wittgenstein),he Americanpragmatists especially WilliamJames),and the contemporaryontinental radition, nfluenced yNietzsche nd Heidegger's ttackson thehistory fmetaphysics,lloperatewithin hilosophicalgrammars hat challengeTaylor's posi-tions.Although hese renotchallenges o whichTaylor s obtuse-he



4/15

BOOKS IN REVIEW 313

often xplicitlyecognizesis philosophicalntagonists-theext sgovernedy grammar,hetoric,ndnarrativetructurehat ecapit-ulates nlightenmenthinkingnd remainsnsensitiveo thekinds fpressurehat ssue romlternativehilosophicalocabularies. oreimportant,aylor's ailure o problematizeis ownphilosophicaldiscourseids nd bets hemoralizingosturehat irectshe oncernsineach ssay.Althoughaylor ffershe eader nattractiveribe,nasmuchsthemoral tance e takes s articulatedn theform fphilosophicaldiscourseddressedofamilarroblemsn he uman ciencesindeed,Taylor's ersionfphilosophicaliscourseontains hese roblems),onehasthe ense hat ach opichasbeen ppropriatedo serve s anextentionf moral uest.HadTaylor'sssays emainedcatteredntheir riginalocationsndiverseournals,his ense f ppropriationwould robablyotbeevoked. ut venwithinndividualssays,hephilosophicaliscourserowshinttimes,nd tbecomes ifficultoignore hemoralizingampantnthe ext. orexample,n"Legiti-mation risis?" aylor evelops ismoral genda ormodernman,"whom e thinks ust iveupto an dealoffulfillingaturen himselfratherhangivingn to "impulse."hisagenda, e argues, evelopsfromn earliereligiousdeal,which e eems oendorse,n deal hathesays

requries hatwe ive ur ife n a certainpirit, discernmenthich equireshatwefightree f hepresumptiousllusions hat infulman sprone o.We haveto eadourordinaryife,while eeing urneeds nd desiresna certainight,sGod-given,and hencefreebothfrom he aura ofidolatry nd theobsessive nvolvementflibertinism.hesanctifiedrdinaryife s a spiritual ondition,nvolving isciplineanddiscernment.nusing he hingsf hisworld,t salso assertinghe upremacyof the pirit.'What s this ut traditionalhristianthiceavened ith ome ftheanguagefGermanpeculativehilosophy?ndTaylor'sonstrualof themodern elfdoesnot depart ignificantlyrom hisversion.

Although e valorizesn autonomousubject hat s free romheillusionserpetratedy acred ersionsf he aturalrdernd man's"place in it, he recapitulateshristianity'soralsubject reating"autonomy"s resistanceo mpulsenddesire.Well ndgood, aylorwantsotell s howwe hould ive.But heres mystificationere, orthe ase snotmade san unambiguouslythical rgument.n some fthe ssays aylor resentshis ubject ot s a pious ommitmentr



5/15

314 POLITICAL THEORY / May 1986moral mperativeutas a fixed oint, n inescapable ntologyfthesubject,which an provide ground orudging he worth fexplanatoryasks. his roblem ith aylor'subjectnd hemodel fhuman gencyhatssues romtwill ome pagainwhenturnowhatI amcalling aylor's ietzscheroblem.However,t thispoint t is importanto notethatwhat omesthroughsTaylor'smoralmotivesre nly art f he ext. he nalyticpartsontainigorousnd ttimeslegantritiquesfboth aturalismin thehuman ciencesnd individualistatomistic)ccounts f theperson-societyelationship,ccountshat,ccordingoTaylor,erivefrom aturalism's odel f hehumanubject.hese ritiquesmergefrom hemoreHeideggerianideofTaylor's roject,n attemptodisclosehe ackgroundfmeaningsndpracticesithin hich now-ingtakesplace.Thus,Taylor orsakesraditionalpistemologyorontology,nd n sodoing vercomeshe imitsnherentntraditionalepistemologicalocabularies.or xample,nwhatsarguablyhe estessayn the wovolumes,InterpretationndtheSciences fMan,"Taylornotes hat herealities hatnaturalisticpproacheseektodiscernannot eseparatedutfromheanguage ith hich societyconstituteshat eality.his nsighterves s animpetusorTaylor'sconsistentndcogent ositionhatonecannot nderstandumanaction utside fthe ontext fthemeaningshat reconstitutivefkinds faction s well s agency. nd,moremportant,ere nd nanotherssay,NeutralitynPoliticalcience," aylorhows ow hebackgroundntersubjectivend ommonmeaningsrenotmerelyatato be treated ithurveyesearchechniquesut, ather,omethingprovidingroundsor xplanation.Now there re problemswithTaylor's osition ere.One canquestion istendencyodescribe societys somethingontainingsingle,ntersubjectiveeaning atternnstead f as a fermentfdifferent,ompetingnes,many f which ail o find heirway, orreasons f ack of sufficientower ehindhem,nto heprevailingdiscourses f self ndagency.And one can question is Schutziantendencyo insisthatnoexplanationfhuman onducts adequateunlesst ccords ithhe elf-understandingsf he agents"nvolvedn2theconduct. But thetext s ambiguous ith espect o these wotendencies,ndwhatever ay ethe ssues necan raise n regardoTaylor'srivilegingf subject hoseonsciousnessintentions,lans,andpurposes,sopposed obackgroundfpractices,tc.) onstitutes



6/15

BOOKSINREVIEW 315the ource fmeanings,alue, ndexperience,aylor'sritiquef hetraditional,aturalistccount fexplanations telling. e showsconvincinglyow naturalisticocial cienceskeptwithinertainimitsby its categorical rinciples, hich re rooted n thetraditionalepistemologyf mpiricism."3erhaps ismost nstructivensight,orwhichhe is justly elebrated,lows rom is demonstrationftheideationalimits fempiricism.e shows,n"NeutralitynPoliticalScience," owthe mpiricistrameworkfexplanationontainsnimplicitvalue lope.'9nfailingoaccommodatelternativeodelsfwants,eeds,nddemands,therhan hosemmanentn he revailingpoliticaliscourse,hichtregardssneutral,t onstrainshe angefimaginableolutionso social ndpoliticalroblems.Closely elatedohis ritiquef mpiricismnthe ocial ciencessTaylor'sttackn tomisticccountsf he erson-societyelationship.Theseaccounts,which upport arious pproacheso rationality,distributiveustice,ndfreedom,est n a view fhuman ature hatnaturalisticallynclinedhinkersave reatedsunproblematic.aylordeftlyroblematizeshis iew,nd n o doing ringsut rich iversityofpositionsnthehistoryfpoliticalhoughtonnectedodifferentimages f"man" ndsociety. isdiscussionsxposebiases n tradi-tional ormulationsndbroaden heplane n which arious oliticalissues anbe conceived.n general, aylor isplays philosophicalsophistication,oliticalensitivity,nd, otnsignificantly,n dmirablehumanitarianoncernwith hosewhoserelativelyoorer hares fpublicgoodsareeithergnored r ustified ithinheunreflectivedoctrinesf ndividualism.Given he evelofphilosophicalruditionnd practical oliticalinsightnhis ssays,t s urprisingow ftenaylorets ismoralizingcodeovermasteris nalyticne.Althoughe tries oconceive fhismoral otionf he umanubjectsa"philosophicalnthropology,"tis difficultoconstrueis laim hat umans ave n nnateense f"higherood,"which akes he ormfChristianelf-denialnmany fhis xamples,s anythingut baldattemptoestablishsynthetic,ethical priorihatwillvindicateismore pplied rgumentsboutagency.hese rguments,oreover,onsistentlyisguise oralnjunc-tions sepistemologicalrguments.t eemshat ssoon sTaylor urnshis ttentionway rom aturalismrempiricismoward ietzscheanpositions-whichall intoquestionnotonlyempiricismut alsophenomenologicalnd hermeneuticositions rganizedround n



7/15

316 POLITICAL THEORY / May1986interpretationfthesubject-hisHeideggerianntologyisappearsandheoperateslmost xclusivelyithin Kantian,pistemologicalvocabulary.Nowheresthis roblemmore pparenthan n hisessay nFou-cault,nwhich ereproachesoucault or ailing,sheputs t, oofferus a "good we can affirm."5he essay,"Foucault on FreedomandTruth,"sbyfar hemostymptomaticith espectoTaylor'smoral-izing endency anifestedhroughoutisPhilosophicalapers; ndthis endencyonnects ith more eneral roblem,hat have alledabove hisNietzscheroblem. herefore,lthoughhere remanyinterestinghallengeshroughoutisPhilosophicalapers,t sthis neI shall ddressn theremainderfthis eview,otbecause wish oencounterim nhisweakestroundut ecauseheres ahigh egreeof mbivalenceoward ietzschen he ssays. hey isplayhe epth fintellect,nd evel f elf-awareness,ecessaryor reconsiderationfbias hat ompromisestherwisereditableontributionsnthe hilos-ophy f hehuman ciences.

Charles aylor nows hat ehas Nietzscheroblem.hathe endsto invokeNietzsche's ame at thoseprecisemoments hentheNietzschean iewchallenges is own testifieso hisphilosophicalastutenessngeneralnd he elf-consciousay e rafts is rgumentsin particular. ietzsche's ame s invoked or hefirstime ntheintroductionplaced tthe eginningfboth olumes),nwhichaylorannounces hat eunderstandssthe oherencefhisproject.irst einauguratesne fhismajor hemes,hatwhat e allsnaturalismn hehuman ciencess reductivensofars itpromotes model fman spart fnaturend gnoreshe elf-understandingsfwhat ayloralls"humangents." egoeson toassert hat cientificiscourseannotaccommodate self-reflectiveubject nd s thus nappropriates amodel or nderstandingn thehumanciences.One anquestion aylor'scceptancef naturalisticnderstandingof thehuman ubject s appropriateo the physicalciences, orknowledgeof'anythings knowledgefor s," equiringhathe us"be construedn some way. Indeed t's hard to promoteuch adecontextualizediew f sciencef nykindwhile ivingna worldthathasreceived usserl'sThe Origin f Geometry"among therthings).utwhateverhemeritsfTaylor'srgumentor istinguishingthehumanciences, hat ccupiesme tthis oints his rgumenthatscientificiscoursegnoreshatfact hathumans xist n a "setofbackgroundistinctionsfworth."6



8/15

BOOKS IN REVIEW 317Taylor'sextsambiguousnthe pistemologicalmplicationsf his

view f he elf. nonehand, eexplicitlyllows hat thereanbe noabsolute nderstandingfwhatwe re spersons."7ut hewayhat eposes he roblem oves im n he irectionf rguingor nabsolutegroundingor nowledge,ased nhis onstrualf heubject.hefirstdifficultys hisposing f theproblemn Kantiananguage, sking"what"we are as personsratherhan, or xample, owdo varioushistoricalges stablishonceptionsf he elf). econd, y hewayheinvokesunderstanding,"e ocates he ubjectn traditionalpistem-ological roblematic,ne that arries heassumptionhat heres afoundationalubject e annotpprehends t rulyswhenwerelyna scientificiscoursehat spires oneutrality.e then oesontosuggesthat, lthoughehasnotbeen ble thus ar o makehiscaseconvincingly,evertheless person houldbe regardeds a self-reflectinggent.Taylor's vocationfNietzsche'same n he ntroductionsdone oshowthat, lthoughhe Nietzscheaniewpoints supportivef anantinaturalistosture,t saphilosophyhatsonly impressionisticallyarguedor"nd underdemonstrated,"nd tfailso definehe otalityofour ives s agents."8 ereTaylor ails o engage Nietzsche hoseargumentsredirectedsmuch oward is ype fpositionstheyretoward raditionalaturalism.irst f all, Nietzsche oesnotargueimpressionistically.is views re ituatedystematicallyndcompre-hensivelynthehistoryfphilosophyas attentiveeaders uchasHeideggernd Deleuze have shown).However, ne can be misled.Nietzsche'sanguages not ikeTaylor's.t s poetic nd phoristicutnotarbitrarilyo. Thestylisticimensionf Nietzsche'siscoursesdesignedo howwhatt ays: hatmeaningndvalue re mposedn herhetoricallay f anguage.Asfor aylor'slaim hatNietzsche'sositionsunderdemonstrated,this ogicalfigurefspeech s inapposite,orwhat s at issue s aNietzscheanntology,hichsatoddswith aylor's. ntologiesrenotdirectly emonstrable;hey repragmaticallystablished,ortheyreside t thebeginningatherhan he ndofphilosophicalrgumentsandgive ise odifferenthilosophicalocabularies.laboratingn hispoint,Richard orty as putthematter sefully:Vocabulariesetdiscardedfterooking ad ncomparison ith ther ocabularies,otas a result f an appeal to overarching etavocabulariesn whichcriteria orvocabularyhoice an be formulated."9hereas aylorpresupposes n ontology f order nd a notionof discourse s



9/15

318 POLITICAL THEORY / May1986somethingo be attunedwith nd thusexpressivef thatorder,Nietzscheffersnontologyfdisordernd a notion fdiscoursesconstitutiveatherhan xpressivefmeaningndvalue.Accordingly,Nietzschenterpretsveryorm fmeaningwhetherhat f he ubject,ofnature,rotherwise)s an impositionf anorder. aylor, ntheother and,sengagedn nattempto stablishhe ltimatealidityfa principleforder,he ruthf he ubject.Nietzsche'sWill o Powersnothingess han systematicreatiseagainstuch hypostatizingf he ubject'sonsciousnesssanauthor-itative,ntologicalategory.sheputt, Thesubject'isot omethinggiven,t ssomethingdded nd nventedndprojectedehindwhattheres."'0This blunder"foverestimatingonsciousness,ccordingtoNietzsche,smotivatedythe amemoral uestresponsibleorinventingsubject ith soul."William ames,ddressingimselfoTaylor-likeositions hatprivilegeonsciousness, adethesameobservation:Thosewho till lingo t consciousness]re lingingoamere cho, he aint umoreft ehindy he isappearingsoul'uponthe irofphilosophy."'2Theburden fNietzsche'sndJames'srgumentssnot o ubstituteanotherormf ruth or he earch or he ruthf he ubject ut oshowhowthe ommitmentosuch questfor foundationalruthamountsoan arrestf nquiry yconvertinghilosophicalnalysisinto form f heology.ndeed, aylor'sasefor ismodel f he elfsneitheremonstratedorwell rgued; t s smugglednto formffacticity.t imes e tates hat he elfis" omethingngagedn trongevaluationndthat trongvaluationsessentialobeing uman. totherimesheanguagehanges,ndTaylorpeaks f he elfhaving"higher-orderalues hat rovideroundsorhoices. In themiddle fthis hiftingocabularyftheself, aylor akesNietzscheo task,arguinghat heNietzscheanositionnvalue sthathe elfs nvolvedin situationf adicalhoice, hich,e nfers, eanshatNietzschesadvocatingneutralosition ith espectovalues.If his sthe ase, t sdifficultoplace llofNietzsche'siscussionfthe higheralues"hat repervertedynihilismut,moremportant,Taylor ails ograspNietzsche'steadfastrammarf he elf, hichsvery ifferentromheKantiannspiredrammarhat aylormploys.Taylor ecognizes,n onehand, hatNietzscheoesnotsharehisposition;ut, n he ther,e riesodealwith ietzscheithinis wnphilosophicaliscoursei.e.,withinn enlightenmenthilosophicalrhetoric).his snot he lace o laborate ietzsche'sotion f gency.



10/15

BOOKSIN REVIEW 319Sufficet osay hat orNietzsche,alue s mposednthe iscoursesfaction. headdition f choosingelf sa redundancyepresentingmoralizingmpulse.orNietzsche,he elf oesnothavevalues; heconstructionf uch self-as-a-moral-agents a kind fvaluing.14Working ithin isgrammarf gency, aylor ives s rules orhesubject'sthicalesponsibility.ndeed,t s this otion fresponsibilitythat ppears o be an inextricablelementfTaylor's rammarfagency.t sthereforeot urprisinghat aylor eers ver is houlderat hismostmplacablehilosophicalnemy, ietzsche,s hespeaks fhowwhat ehas alled second rder alues"ngageurthe ubject's)responsibility:

How rewe ounderstandhis esponsibility?n nfluentialtrandf houghtnthemodern orld aswantedounderstandt n ermsf hoice. heNietzscheantermvalue", uggestedy ur evaluation",arrieshis dea hat urvaluesreour reations,hatheyltimatelyeposenour spousinghem. ut osay hatthey ltimatelyeposenour spousinghemstosay hat heyssue ltimatelyfrom radical hoicehat sa choicewhichs notgroundedn ny easons."Althoughheresnot pacehere opresentdetailedxpositionfNietzsche'senealogyfMorals rthe ther exts hatwould llow stosituate is rgumentnhis ritiquef hehistoryfmetaphysicsngeneralndTaylor'snlightenmenthinkingnparticular,t hould enoted t a minimumhat aylor's ietzschef espousal"nd radicalchoice" s unrecognizablehencomparedo the textual ersion.Nietzscheeverharacterizedalues ssomethingn ndividualhooses

arbitrarily.ather, ietzsche'senealogicalnalysis, hichhows owvalue sput nto hings,asto beunderstood ithinwhollyifferentphilosophicalrammarrom hatwithin hich aylor perates.The"we" nNietzsche'sdea that we putvalue nto hings"s ahistorical/discursivewe."He isreferringot o ndividualsngagednespousalanguage ames r opersonsacedwith articularhoices utto the self-descriptions,enotations,nd othergrammaticalndrhetoricalorms ithinhich umansave hemselvesnd heir orld.Nietzschesthus peakingotofpersonallyelectedocutions utofsuch hingss "our" rammar,hicheparatessfrom hatwe scribeas objects,nd"our"figures fspeech e.g.,metaphors), hich,nNietzsche'serms,makequivalences."ietzsche'snalysis,hen,oesnotmplyhatwe"(in aylor'srammaticalense) espouse"alues. tisquite he everse. eput alue ntohingsvenwhen edo not ngagein an explicit spousal.This s becausediscourses not a neutral,



11/15

320 POLITICAL THEORY / May 1986

transparentediumf ommunication.iscoursetselfuts aluentothings,nd because s individualpeakers/writerse inherithosediscourses,we" unction ithinpreconstitutediscursivepace.Thus, nsofars he autonomizesaluationaliscoursendhypos-tatizes he ubject, aylor's nunciationfhispositions subjectoNietzsche'senealogicalritique. nd atmanyevels, aylorknowsthis.Hisproblemsthat efails ocome oterms ith ietzsche,or eoperates ithinnenlightenmentraditionhat eeks vermore larityabout he ubjectnd ies llof ts iscursiveractices,he thicalswellasthe pistemological,o tsnarrativef truthxistingutsidef hosepractices,oward hich e aremoving.YetTaylor's ositions notunequivocal.here sevidencehatheseesthe shadowsmadebyvarious orms fillumination.or thisreason, is ssay nFoucault, hichxemplifiesisNietzscheroblem,is one of themostnterestingnthe ollection.aylorsengaged yFoucault's istoricalnalyses. eunderstandshe ubstancefmanyfthe Foucauldiannsights nd provides ogent ummaries f thestructurefFoucault'srguments.ut, s sthe asewith isglossesntheNietzscheexts, aylor ails o come o terms ith oucault ndendsupreproachingimwithin differentiscursivepacefor eing"incoherent."oucaultndTaylorwriteifferently,nd he ifferencespeaks o differentrenasofcoherence.n applying Nietzscheanontologyfdisordernhisvarious istoricalnvestigations,oucaultwritesn a way hat vokes sense fdiscomfortith owordinarydiscursiveractices ring hingsntolanguage.n contrastwithFoucault's isturbingigures fspeech ndunsettlingrammaticalconstructionssTaylor'smore acifyingtyle, hichvokes sense fattunementetweeniscoursendthemodels fhuman ature hatTaylorees smorallyregnantacts.To understandhisTaylor-Foucaultivergence, e shouldpayattentionsTaylorpeaks f he realities"hat echides oucault orignoring.ne ofthese realities"s a Hegelian arrative,hich orTaylornecessarilymposes tselfponhuman istory.ccordingoTaylor, e reprogressingurtherlong he ath fknowingurselves.Hespeaks f steps oward ruth"s wediscover hatwe re ndwhatreallymattersous, nd tates,ummingpwhats n he resents farasthis arrativesconcerned,

Itseems lear tome that here s a reality ere.We havebecome ertain hings nWesternCivilization.Our humanitarianism,ur notions of freedom-both



12/15

BOOKS INREVIEW 321personalndependencendcollectiveelf-rule-haveelpedo definepoliticalidentitye hare; newhichsdeeplyootedn ourmore asic eeminglynfra-politicalnderstandingfwhatt s to be an ndividual,f he ersons a beingwithinner"epth-all hese eatureshicheemoustoberock-bottom,lmostbiologicalropertiesfhumaneings."6Taylor is not a naive realist, nd at thispointhis text shifts tsepistemologicalmood as he recognizes hat the realitieshe has justmentioned reculture-dependentnd that these lements fidentityarecontested." utheabsorbshisnotion f he ealityf he ubjectnto

a narrativef he dvance f he ruth,llowing nly hat ertain losses"haveoccurredwithin general rend owardncreasing nlightenment.The complaint aylor odges againstFoucault sthatFoucault fails oacknowledgehisncreasingtruth" f he ubjectwe haveenjoyed,ndthatonlyby doing o could he situatehis historicalnalysesnsuch awaythat heywouldtellus about thedifferenceetween oodand evil.And failure o bearwitness o thegood, according o Taylor, s anacceptance fwhathehas beencallingNietzschean eutrality.This Christiannotionof bearingwitness hatTaylor demandsofFoucault connects withhis above noted tendency o autonomizevaluational discourse.Foucault's Nietzscheanform of genealogicalanalysis s no morea "neutrality"han s Nietzsche's. t is a differentinterpretationf he elationshipetween alueand discourse. oucaultunderstands iscursive ormations n the basis of the valuationalresources heydeliver,not their epresentationalerisimilitudea lapositivism)rthe xtent owhich hey aithfullyxpress eeper ruths f

the subject (Taylor's hermeneutic ersion). Indeed, his historicalinvestigationsreanalyses fhowthese truths" avebeen onstructed.To havehimrelinquish hisbybearingwitness o the kindof"good"Taylor nvokeswould be tohave him bandon hisentire roject.A comprehensiveccountofTaylor'sfailure o come totermswithFoucaulthasalready eensuppliedbyWilliamConnolly n anessay nthis ournal."7The burdenof Connolly'sremarks,most of whichendorse, s thatTaylor'sperspective ould close questions hat Fou-cault'sanalysisopensup. Operatingwithin notion ofdiscourse sexpressiveof what is fundamentalo beinghuman, Taylor wouldendorse he self ridentity e have been ent theone describedn theabove quotation),whereasFoucaultinquires ntohow we have beengiven this self. Foucault makes possible thiskind of question byinterrogatinghe limitsof thediscourseswithinwhich we theorizeidentities,nd hisstyle fwriting as theeffect fchallengingheway



13/15

322 POLITICAL THEORY / May 1986that uch self sordinarilycripted.ncontrast,aylor ses neof heprevailingiscoursesf he elfthe nlightenmentersion).Lacking pace oexplore urtherheTaylor/oucaultssue, willclosebynotinghat think llthe cholarlynd ntellectualequisitesneeded o come o terms ith oucaultandNietzsche)representnTaylor'shilosophicalapers.And,n he ast nalysis,oucault'sndTaylor'srojectsre imilarnsofars both re ryingopromoteomeform ffreedomn thefaceofacademicallyeinforced,ubjugatingmodes f houghthat ail oprovideccess or varietyfpersonsoparticipaten forminghediscourseshatcreate heir tandingncollectiveelations.WhatTaylormust ecognizes thathe swritingithin Kantianvocabularynd s hus erpetuatinghe problems"hat anthelpedoinvent. oucault swritingithinNietzscheanocabulary,ndwhatwehaveheresnot implywo ncommensurateystemsf hought.heNietzschean ode s a critiquefthe Kantianmode.Foucaulthasallowed hatKant'sposition has not been withouttsimport reffectivenessuringheast wo enturies,",18ut, atherhanakingheKantian iscursiveractices canonical, e asks a differentind fquestion,ot heKantianneofwhatwearebut hemore istoricallysensitiveuestion f what t is thathasdirecteduchquestionsndifferentistorialges.Thus,whereasaylormploysKantianmodeofproblematization,oucaulthas investigatedmodes fproblem-atization." e asks, How areweconstituteds moralubjectsfourown ctions," hereasaylor ses discoursehat elps einventhatprocessf onstitution.'9Payingttentionothe rammarf his oucaultuestions crucialtoanappreciationfhow tworks. hisgrammar,hich laces hesubject s an object fknowledgeroduction,vokes sense f thehistoricalrocessfmpositionfwhat aylorakes safacticity.hisopens ppreciselyhe ind f uestionhat aylor ouldike oaccess,one aboutthepolitical mplicationsfdifferent odes fpoliticalphilosophy.twould hereforeehoove aylorostop ooking ver isshouldertNietzschend onsiderhe ains or iskind fhermeneuticanalysis hatcould result rom critical onfrontationith hegenealogicalerspective.mongtherhings,enealogyan ell aylorbothwhere ismoralizingf he ubject ascome romndwhat indsofsilencest nvokes. oucault,fter ietzsche,s showing owoneencountersertain ead ends when nefails o use a genealogicalimaginationnd herebyails odiscoverhat heworldwehave s one



14/15

BOOKS INREVIEW 323thathas beenmade n particular ays, t particularosts, s theprevailingiscursiveracticesdministerilences. he answer othisrecognitions not the selectionr definitionfparticularinds fsubjects,strategyhatust ubstitutesneformf rrestf nquiryoranother.he lternativeoTaylor'sdiscovery"f hemoralubjectsnotradical hoice ut he ontinuationf nquiry ithin notion fdiscoursehat ocusesn ts onstitutiveatherhanmerelyxpressivefunctions.schewingaluational spousals, oucaulthas said ofgenealogy,Genealogys gray,meticulousndpatientlyocumen-tary."20 -Michael J.ShapiroUniversityfHawaii

NOTES1. Taylor, Legitimation risis?"Vol. II, 265.2. Taylor's nsistence n the oncordance etween nactor's elf-understandingndexplanations f his or her conduct s expressedn severalplaces.Characteristicfthisposition shisclaim n"How Is MechanismConceivable" Vol. I, 117)that theory illhave tobe"rich nough" oincorporate istinctionshat mark he ntentional orld fhuman gents nd which re essential ounderstandingheir ehavior."3. Taylor, Interpretationnd the SciencesofMan," Vol. II, 52.4. Taylor, NeutralitynPoliticalScience,"Vol. II, 75.5. Taylor, Foucault on Freedom ndTruth,"Vol. II, 152.6. Thispositions made n the ntroduction,here aylor'suse oftheverb tobe"giveshischaracterizationn air offacticity.7. Taylor, Introduction,".8. Taylor, Introduction,".9. Richard Rorty, Pragmatism nd LiteraryTheory II: Philosophy WithoutPrinciples," riticalnquiry 1 March 1985),463.10. FriedrichNietzsche,The Willto Power,trans.byWalterKaufman nd R. J.HollingdaleNewYork:Vintage, 968),267.11. Nietzsche,Will o Power,285-286.

12. WilliamJames,Does Consciousness xist,"nEssays nRadicalEmpiricism,d.by RalphBartonPerry NewYork:Dutton,1971), .13. These shifts an be tracked rom he ntroductionhrough heessay, What sHumanAgency," ol. I, 15-44.14. See FriedrichNietzsche,TheGenealogy f Morals,trans.byFrancis Golffing(NewYork:Doubleday, 1956).15. Taylor, What s HumanAgency," 9.16. Taylor, Foucault on Freedom ndTruth," 81.



15/15

324 POLITICAL THEORY / May 1986

17. WilliamConnolly,"Taylor, Foucault, and Otherness,"Political Theory13(August1985),365-376.18. MichelFoucault,"What Is Enlightenment"ans.byCatherine orter,n TheFoucaultReader ed. byPaul Rabinow New York:Pantheon, 984),50.19. Foucault, What s Enlightenment,"9.20. MichelFoucault,"Nietzsche,Genealogy,History,"rans.byDonald BouchardandSherry imon nLanguage,Counter-Memory,ractice d. by D. Bouchard Ithaca:CornellUniversityress,1977),139.

THE CONTENT OF SOCIAL EXPLANATION by Susan James.Cambridge: ambridgeUniversityress,1984.Pp. viii+ 192,$37.50.Theprincipal ubject f thisbook is therole of the ubject-that s,the ndividual,nderstood s anagent apableofmore r essrationallydirecting is or heractionson the basis ofbeliefs nd values-in theexplanationof social phenomena. t approachesthis question byframingt interms f theargument etweenmethodologicalndivid-

ualists nd holistsnthephilosophy fthe ocialsciences.James ffersan excellent ccount of thephilosophical nd methodologicalssuesposed by thisdebate,particularly egardinghe natureof scientifictheory nd reduction. hese oftenrecondite nd difficultssues areclearly nd succinctlyxplicated, nd theirbearing n social sciencetheoryndinquiryriticallyxamined.Jamesbrilliantlyemonstratesthe rrelevancefmany f he rgumentshathavebeenofferedor achposition,and persuasivelyrgues that the fruitless ebate betweenindividualistsnd holists anonly etranscendedfwemovebeyond hepreoccupationwith the reductionof holisttheory o individualisttheory.Thismovebrings ames othe entral oncern fherwork, heroleofthesubject.Forunderlyingheoften rcanedebateaboutholism, heargues, are two opposing conceptions of the individualthat areassociated withdifferentxplanatorynterests nd moralconcerns.Individualists re concerned bove all to defend he value ofhumanautonomy: Individualism smotivated y a desire o defend he deathat ndividuals reautonomous gents, nd thus ends o focuson aparticular et of individualproperties,ncludingdesires,choices,decisionsand intentions"p. 59). Holists, on the otherhand, aremotivated y n nterestnunderstandingtheways nwhichndividualsare constrained ytheir ocial environmentsnd arguethat the bestexplanations re nformed ythis tandpoint"p. 176). This eads them

taylor moral

Documents