Bold and Audacious: Danielle Allen’s “Justice By Means of Democracy”
Danielle Allen and Greg Thomas
Several weeks ago, I had the honor and pleasure of meeting with Professor Danielle Allen in her office at Harvard. I’ve followed her thought for several years, and have written about her work here at Tune In To Leadership, for instance “Possibility and Peril in Internal American Relations” and “Rooted Cosmopolitanism in a Decadent Time.” She’s also been referenced in posts such as “Democracy and a Post-Tragic Blues Sensibility.”
It so happened that the very day we met, her latest work, Justice By Means of Democracy, was released to the public. I consider the intent of the book, as she describes it briefly below—and in much greater detail in the introduction—to be an inspiring strategic manifesto that proposes design principles for a deeper, more integrative and inclusive American polity than ever before achieved. In what amounts to a bold and audacious exploration of the philosophical roots of today’s political debates, Dr. Allen argues for a democratic model for human flourishing based on non-domination.
The following exchange occurred by email after our in-person meeting.
Greg Thomas: In your acceptance remarks last November, for the Albert Murray Award for Omni-American Excellence, you called Justice By Means of Democracy your capstone work. Why?
Danielle Allen and her father W.B. Allen. He’s a scholar of political philosophy also. The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.
Danielle Allen: In the acknowledgments at the end, you’ll notice that I describe debates between my father and my aunt over political economy as a defining feature of my childhood. My dad was a Reagan Republican; my aunt ran for office in the Peace and Freedom Party. They had intense debates about the relative worth of market liberties; public sector investments; civic virtues; and experiments in living. In a sense, my academic career has been a long journey to find answers to the questions that they tee’d up for me with their debates. This book is an answer to the questions they raised. It’s taken me a lifetime to answer the questions they put to me, by debating each other in front of me.
GT: Arguably, John Rawls is the most significant American political philosopher of the late 20th century. You evaluate and critique his Theory of Justice very early in your book, the cover of which seems to signify on an early edition of his influential work. Where do you think Rawls missed the mark?
DA: John Rawls asserted that he considered both negative liberties (freedoms from interference by government) and positive liberties (freedoms to participate in decision-making structures) as being on equal footing with one another. But in fact, as his argument unfolds, he consistently prioritizes the former over the latter. The result of this is an implicit—if accidental—endorsement of political systems that concentrate power in the hands of an elite. And the result of political systems of that kind is that those with power ultimately take advantage of the disempowered and fail to wield their power on behalf of everyone. We know this general human tendency under the guise of the phrase, “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” I consider both negative and positive liberties to be non-sacrificeable, and so have offered a theory of justice that starts from that point and works assiduously to ensure that the positive liberties, the freedoms to participate that define empowerment, will not be eroded.
GT: In reading the work, I found it to be laid out in a methodical, comprehensive manner. You argue that an overarching ideal of the domain of human life is justice and human flourishing, from which follows specific guiding design principles, rules, and norms. Thereafter, you detail subdomains (political, social, and economic), and subsidiary ideals, with their own guiding design principles, rules and norms. Why did you organize the work in this way?
DA: I was trying to offer a comprehensive theory of justice with precision, in the manner of a precise analytical philosopher such as Rawls. Conceptual precision often leads to a picture at a fair remove from the real world, but it can be useful nonetheless to help us work through the implications of a few starting principles.
Danielle Allen and Cornel West
GT: During the sixties, the word “revolution” was all the rage among radicals and progressives. You argue for the “renovation” of our political and economic system. But might it not be the case that we need a revolution in cultural values, or as Cornel West, your former teacher at Princeton calls it, a renaissance in moral values?
DA: I do use the word “renovation” to speak specifically about the domain of institutions, organizational forms, and social practices. But to achieve any kind of renovation, one has to have a sense of the goal or purpose being pursued. And, yes, to provide direction for our renovation, I am calling for a pretty serious reorientation of our guiding purpose—away from elite control and toward universal empowerment, or toward full sharing of power and responsibility as MLK put it. That counts as a moral revolution, against the backdrop of the history of our country.
GT: What impact would you like Justice By Means of Democracy to have on America and Americans?
DA: Well, I guess you’ve already named it! A moral revolution, accompanied by diligent renovation of our institutions, organizational forms, and social practices!