The Amy Wax Debates

Posted on June 23, 2026 by Luke Ford

In his 2018 book, The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities, John J. Mearsheimer wrote:

My view is that we are profoundly social beings from the start to the finish of our lives and that individualism is of secondary importance… Liberalism downplays the social nature of human beings to the point of almost ignoring it, instead treating people largely as atomistic actors… Political liberalism… is an ideology that is individualistic at its core and assigns great importance to the concept of inalienable rights. This concern for rights is the basis of its universalism—everyone on the planet has the same inherent set of rights—and this is what motivates liberal states to pursue ambitious foreign policies. The public and scholarly discourse about liberalism since World War II has placed enormous emphasis on what are commonly called human rights. This is true all around the world, not just in the West. “Human rights,” Samuel Moyn notes, “have come to define the most elevated aspirations of both social movements and political entities—state and interstate. They evoke hope and provoke action.”
[Humans] do not operate as lone wolves but are born into social groups or societies that shape their identities well before they can assert their individualism. Moreover, individuals usually develop strong attachments to their group and are sometimes willing to make great sacrifices for their fellow members. Humans are often said to be tribal at their core. The main reason for our social nature is that the best way for a person to survive is to be embedded in a society and to cooperate with fellow members rather than act alone… Despite its elevated ranking, reason is the least important of the three ways we determine our preferences. It certainly is less important than socialization. The main reason socialization matters so much is that humans have a long childhood in which they are protected and nurtured by their families and the surrounding society, and meanwhile exposed to intense socialization. At the same time, they are only beginning to develop their critical faculties, so they are not equipped to think for themselves. By the time an individual reaches the point where his reasoning skills are well developed, his family and society have already imposed an enormous value infusion on him. Moreover, that individual is born with innate sentiments that also strongly influence how he thinks about the world around him. All of this means that people have limited choice in formulating a moral code, because so much of their thinking about right and wrong comes from inborn attitudes and socialization.

Grant Mearsheimer his premises. Men are tribal first. Reason sits below socialization and inborn sentiment in setting what a man wants. Universalist, individualist talk is a shield, not a description. Run the Amy Wax affair through that frame and the academic-freedom story and the inclusion story both thin. Instead, we see a fight between two coalitions for the engine that forms the next elite.
Wax argues that all cultures are not equal and defends mid-century bourgeois culture, the Anglo-Protestant legal inheritance, and assimilation. Her enemies hear White supremacy. Her friends hear a brave defense of the West. The frame hears Wax defending a value infusion. She tells the society that its order rests on a code drilled into children, and that the code holds the state together. On Mearsheimer’s account she has this right. The childhood infusion does most of the work, more than reason, and a people that loses its infusion loses its cohesion.
Then she breaks her own insight. She treats the Anglo-Protestant matrix as an open system that any individual can enter by learning the script. That is the conservative-liberal hope folded inside her realism, assimilation as a merit on-ramp for the atomized newcomer. She names a real friction, the strain when millions arrive carrying other infusions, and then she prescribes a cure that assumes the tribe is a club a man joins by reading its handbook. Mearsheimer’s man does not join a tribe that way. The script he lives by went into him in childhood, before he could weigh it, and an adult does not swap one infusion for another the way he changes an opinion.
Wax’s case rests on culture, not blood. She says the bourgeois script can be taught and absorbed, which puts socialization above inborn sentiment, the order Mearsheimer sets. The hereditarian leans the other way, on genes.
Now the institution. Penn argued professional norms and equal learning opportunity. The Heterodox Academy and the free-speech camp answered with the Chicago Principles and the marketplace of ideas. The frame treats the marketplace as a story the engine tells. The elite university transmits a moral code to the class that will run things, generation after generation, and a managerial faction now holds the engine and runs a code built around diversity, equity, and inclusion. The sacred premise of that code is the equality of groups and the openness of the multicultural settlement. Wax attacks the sacred premise by name and in public.
The sanction follows from that function. Her offense, in the frame, is the breach of the sacred said out loud. A tribe punishes the spoken heresy harder than the private doubt, because the spoken heresy threatens the cohesion the code exists to hold.
Penn left her tenure standing. One year of suspension at half pay, the loss of her named chair and her summer pay in perpetuity, a public reprimand, and a standing order that she state at every appearance that she speaks for herself and not for the law school. The faction measured the cost. A tenured chair is an expensive target. Dismissal makes a martyr and hands the courts a clean claim. So the tribe drew the boundary, shamed the heretic, and contained her, all short of the rupture that firing brings. The disclaimer is the sharpest stroke and the most telling. It cuts her voice away from the tribe’s name. You may speak, it says, but never again in our name. Against a peripheral affiliate the tribe can expel outright. Against a tenured insider it calibrates. The cost of the target sets the maneuver.
Her legal strategy then walks into the frame. She files under Titles VI and VII and her tenure contract, appealing to colorblind, neutral principle. The court reframed the suit as breach of contract and set the speech claim aside. The district judge dismissed the case in August 2025. She stands now on appeal before the Third Circuit, with a separate contract suit filed in Pennsylvania state court in November 2025 waiting behind it. The realist reading says the neutral-rights vocabulary she reaches for belongs to the order the faction has already displaced, and that law serves the arrangement in power, so she pleads the old rules into a room that keeps new defaults.
If law were only an instrument of the dominant tribe, Wax would hold no case. She holds one. A contract claim has teeth a captured institution cannot wish away. Procedure binds even a faction that runs the engine. Belief and contract suits sometimes lose in the first round and win on appeal, as Forstater did in Britain. Pure realism overshoots here. The old liberal rules are not a fiction all the way down. They run weaker than Wax hopes and stronger than the frame allows, and the appeal is the place to watch which reading the law bears out.
Then the symmetry. Both sides reject the neutral university, and both dress their tribe in a universal creed. The new faction wields inclusion and harm reduction to purge dissent and enforce its code, and it tells itself it serves a borderless human equality. The traditionalist camp wields academic freedom and merit to hold ground for the old alignment, and it tells itself it serves universal reason and the open society. Each pairs a true tribal instinct with a false universal story.
The affair resolves where the Cofnas affair resolves. No neutral seminar room. No value-free university, because the university is always a site of socialization and never anything else. The only live question is which faction holds the engine and which code it pours into the students who pass through. Wax names the engine and defends one code for it. Her enemies hold the engine and defend another. The contest is great power competition over the right to form the next elite, and the rest, the principles and the statutes and the reprimands, is the vocabulary the two sides speak while they fight for the prize.
Wax defends the bourgeois infusion as the ground of a stable order, and then she asks colorblind law and open debate to rescue her, as though reasoned principle stood above the fight. The frame says reasoned principle ranks junior to the value infusion and serves whoever holds the engine. If she has it right that childhood socialization rules the man, then her appeal to neutral reason is the weakest card in her hand, and her strongest holding is the one her enemies hold too, a tribe that will fight for the engine. She asks the room to honor a creed the room no longer teaches its young.

Posted in Amy Wax | Comments Off on The Amy Wax Debates

Benjamin Schreier: Literary Critic of Jewish Identity and Ethnic Studies

Posted on June 23, 2026 by Luke Ford

Benjamin Schreier (b. 1972) holds the Mitrani Family Professorship of Jewish Studies and a professorship in English and Jewish Studies at Penn State University, where he has directed the Jewish Studies Program and the graduate program in English. Since 2011 he edits Studies in American Jewish Literature, a journal published by Penn State University Press and one of the field’s central venues. His scholarship occupies the meeting point of literary theory, intellectual history, ethnic studies, and the sociology of academic knowledge, and across three monographs he presses a single sustained argument: that the categories scholars use to organize literature, above all the category of Jewish identity, are products of critical and institutional labor rather than reflections of a prior cultural essence.

Schreier earned his B.A. in English at Swarthmore College in 1994, graduating with High Honors, and completed his Ph.D. in English and American literature at Brandeis University in 2003. His training joined close textual reading to the theoretical currents that remade the humanities in the late twentieth century, among them post-structuralism, cultural studies, and the critical theory of identity and representation. That double inheritance marks all his work. He reads particular texts with care, and he reads the disciplines that read those texts with equal care.

His first book, The Power of Negative Thinking: Cynicism and the History of Modern American Literature (University of Virginia Press, 2009), takes cynicism as a category of literary and intellectual history. Schreier traces how skeptical and oppositional habits of thought shaped modern American writing, and the book already shows the concern that organizes his later career: the tension among identity, critique, and the cultural authority that lets some readings count and others fall away.

The book that established his reputation, The Impossible Jew: Identity and the Reconstruction of Jewish American Literary History (NYU Press, 2015), turns that concern on his own field. Schreier rejects the premise that Jewish American literature expresses a coherent Jewish communal self waiting in the texts to be found. He argues instead that “Jewish American literature” is a critical and institutional construction, assembled by scholars, critics, editors, and teachers who decide which writers belong and what their belonging means. Through readings of figures across the canon, among them Abraham Cahan (1860-1951), the New York Intellectuals, and Philip Roth (1933-2018), he asks what identity-based literary study does when it puts identity to work, and he treats the answer as a question about the discipline rather than about the writers. The book reached debates well beyond Jewish studies, touching canon formation, ethnicity, and the politics of identity in the academy, and reviewers noted the paradox at its center, that a sustained critique of the field also enriches it.

The Rise and Fall of Jewish American Literature: Ethnic Studies and the Challenge of Identity (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2020) extends the argument into a cultural and intellectual history of Jewish American literary study as such. Schreier traces how the field formed across the twentieth century and which institutional and political conditions gave it shape. He holds that labels like “Jewish American literature” are not neutral descriptions but artifacts of particular historical circumstances, and he asks whether identity-based frameworks still serve the reading of literature in a more mixed and connected cultural world. Read together, The Impossible Jew and The Rise and Fall of Jewish American Literature form one argument against essentialist accounts of ethnicity and identity in literary scholarship, and they place Schreier among a cohort of critics who want to rebuild the foundations of minority and ethnic literary study rather than add to its accumulated readings.

His other publications widen the frame. He edited Studies in Irreversibility: Texts and Contexts (2007), and with Jonathan Eburne he edited The Year’s Work in Nerds, Wonks, and Neocons (2017), a project that carries his interests into the politics and self-conception of contemporary American intellectual life. As editor of Studies in American Jewish Literature he has pushed the journal toward ethnic studies, secularism studies, political theory, postcolonial scholarship, and the critical study of identity, positioning it as a site for interdisciplinary work that situates Jewish culture inside larger social and theoretical arguments.

At Penn State he teaches across American literature, Jewish American literature, ethnic literature, American comedy, modernism, post-Holocaust literature, Jewish American film, contemporary political fiction, and the intellectual history of the New York Intellectuals, at both undergraduate and graduate levels. His teaching turns on close reading, theoretical self-awareness, and reflection on the categories through which readers assign value to texts.

A constant runs through the scholarship, the editing, and the teaching: the relation between literary criticism and institutional power. Schreier holds that a critic must read the assumptions and structures that govern his own methods alongside the texts those methods address, and this reflexive demand separates his work from more conventional literary history. His current research carries the program into new material. He is at work on a study of Palestinian American literature within the development of Arab American studies, and on a second project concerning Zionism and the institutional and cultural politics of the Jewish Studies field, both of which keep his long-standing question in view: how cultural categories form, gain authority, and govern reading inside the academy and beyond it.

The Great Delusion

In his 2018 book, The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities, John J. Mearsheimer wrote:

My view is that we are profoundly social beings from the start to the finish of our lives and that individualism is of secondary importance… Liberalism downplays the social nature of human beings to the point of almost ignoring it, instead treating people largely as atomistic actors… Political liberalism… is an ideology that is individualistic at its core and assigns great importance to the concept of inalienable rights. This concern for rights is the basis of its universalism—everyone on the planet has the same inherent set of rights—and this is what motivates liberal states to pursue ambitious foreign policies. The public and scholarly discourse about liberalism since World War II has placed enormous emphasis on what are commonly called human rights. This is true all around the world, not just in the West. “Human rights,” Samuel Moyn notes, “have come to define the most elevated aspirations of both social movements and political entities—state and interstate. They evoke hope and provoke action.”
[Humans] do not operate as lone wolves but are born into social groups or societies that shape their identities well before they can assert their individualism. Moreover, individuals usually develop strong attachments to their group and are sometimes willing to make great sacrifices for their fellow members. Humans are often said to be tribal at their core. The main reason for our social nature is that the best way for a person to survive is to be embedded in a society and to cooperate with fellow members rather than act alone… Despite its elevated ranking, reason is the least important of the three ways we determine our preferences. It certainly is less important than socialization. The main reason socialization matters so much is that humans have a long childhood in which they are protected and nurtured by their families and the surrounding society, and meanwhile exposed to intense socialization. At the same time, they are only beginning to develop their critical faculties, so they are not equipped to think for themselves. By the time an individual reaches the point where his reasoning skills are well developed, his family and society have already imposed an enormous value infusion on him. Moreover, that individual is born with innate sentiments that also strongly influence how he thinks about the world around him. All of this means that people have limited choice in formulating a moral code, because so much of their thinking about right and wrong comes from inborn attitudes and socialization.

The liberal error, for Mearsheimer, lies in treating the person as a free-standing chooser of his own moral code, when the code arrives mostly from birth and upbringing. If this anthropology holds, what happens to Benjamin Schreier?
Schreier’s argument moves in the opposite direction. He treats Jewish identity as made rather than given, and he treats the communal self that the field claims to read as the field’s own product. The category gets assembled by critics and editors and teachers, and a man might dismantle it by showing the seams. That is a claim about contingency. The thing the field calls a Jewish communal essence has no fixed reality. It can be built, and what can be built can be taken apart, or built otherwise, or set aside.
Run the two men against each other. Mearsheimer does not say group identity is fixed in its content. He says attachment to the group is near-universal, deep, and prior to reason, planted by socialization before the man can weigh it. Schreier’s construction thesis and Mearsheimer’s social anthropology might seem to meet here, because both deny a timeless essence and both grant that identity gets formed rather than inherited from nature. The agreement breaks on what the formation produces. For Schreier the construction is light, a critical and institutional artifact a scholar might expose and loosen. For Mearsheimer the construction is heavy, a value infusion welded to the man in childhood, carried below the reach of argument, defended sometimes to the death. Schreier shows that the academic category was assembled. Mearsheimer answers that the assembly of a category and the durability of a bond are separate questions, and that the bond survives the demolition of the category.
Mearsheimer’s account turns on the weakness of reason against socialization, and Schreier’s project is a project of reason. It asks a man to see through his inherited sense of who he is, to recognize the communal self as a construction and hold it at the distance critique requires. Mearsheimer ranks that capacity last among the forces that move us. He might read the whole anti-essentialist program as a late and local product of one particular socialization, the training of the theory-formed humanities of the 1990s, a group with its own intense value infusion and its own sacred refusal of essence. The man who learned to distrust group belonging learned it from a group. His cosmopolitan suspicion of the tribe is the marker of his tribe. On Mearsheimer’s terms the academic who announces that identity is constructed performs the membership badge of the cosmopolitan intellectual class, and he mistakes a socialized preference for the verdict of free reason.
Samuel Moyn (b. 1970), whom Mearsheimer quotes on the rise of human rights, sits near this point. The elevation of the rights-bearing individual over the inherited group is, for Mearsheimer, the signature liberal move, and Schreier’s loosening of communal Jewish identity belongs to the same family. It frees the person from the weight of the collective self. Mearsheimer says the weight does not lift, that the liberal who proclaims the autonomous chooser describes a creature who never existed, and that the social animal goes on cooperating with his fellow members and sacrificing for them after the theorist has declared the bond a fiction.
What survives for Schreier, if Mearsheimer is right, is narrower than the full anti-essentialist claim but firmer for the narrowing. Schreier might be correct about the academic category and wrong about the attachment beneath it. Jewish American literature as a field, a canon, a journal, a set of chairs, got built by men making choices, and Schreier maps the building with care. The error, on this reading, comes when the construction thesis migrates from the category to the bond, when the demonstration that scholars assembled a label becomes a suggestion that the communal self is similarly optional. Mearsheimer holds that the self is not optional. The group precedes the man, shapes him before he can refuse, and holds him after he thinks he has reasoned his way out. The category is paper. The tribe is not.
There is a cost to Schreier in this collision, and a cost to Mearsheimer. The cost to Schreier is that his rationalism might overreach, treating critique as a solvent strong enough to dissolve what childhood welded, and underrating the durability of the attachment his own readers carry into the seminar room. The cost to Mearsheimer is that he can prove too much, since an anthropology that makes reason nearly powerless against socialization struggles to explain Schreier at all, the man who did, in fact, turn his critical faculties against the value infusion of his own people and his own field. If socialization wins as completely as Mearsheimer says, the heretic should not exist. He does exist. Either reason can do more than Mearsheimer grants, or Schreier’s heresy is the socialized loyalty of a rival group, and the tribe he serves is the one that taught him to doubt the tribe.

Posted in Literature | Comments Off on Benjamin Schreier: Literary Critic of Jewish Identity and Ethnic Studies

Roger Pilon: Natural Rights, Judicial Engagement, and Constitutional Liberty

Posted on June 23, 2026 by Luke Ford

Roger Pilon (b. 1942) is an American political philosopher, constitutional theorist, and legal scholar whose work across more than four decades has shaped modern libertarian constitutionalism, and whose name now stands among the foremost American advocates of natural-rights theory, limited government, economic liberty, and constitutional originalism. Through his long association with the Cato Institute, where he founded the Center for Constitutional Studies in 1989 and served thereafter as vice president for legal affairs, Pilon became an architect of the libertarian legal movement, and his writings on natural rights, judicial review, property, federalism, and constitutional interpretation have reached scholars, judges, litigators, and policymakers who otherwise share little common ground.

His path to intellectual life departed from the conventional academic route in ways that mark the rest of his career. Born in Vermont and raised near the village of Galway in rural upstate New York, Pilon enrolled at Syracuse University as an engineering major, switched to music, and, finding neither discipline satisfying, left formal education for roughly seven years, a stretch he later described as an intellectual odyssey of various jobs, wide reading, and slow movement toward philosophy, political theory, economics, and law. He returned to higher education in 1968 with a clearer sense of purpose and took a bachelor’s degree in philosophy from Columbia University in 1971.

Pilon continued at the University of Chicago, where he earned a master’s degree and a doctorate in philosophy. His dissertation, A Theory of Rights: Toward Limited Government (1979), examined the philosophical foundations of individual rights and the moral limits of political authority, and it carried the marks of three influences who supervised or surrounded the project: the philosophers Alan Gewirth (1912-2004) and Alan Donagan (1925-1991), who directed the work, and the economist Milton Friedman (1912-2006), whose presence at Chicago colored the broader intellectual setting. During these years Pilon also met the law-and-economics scholarship then forming at Chicago, a body of thought that would inform his later constitutional writing.

The defense of natural rights has supplied the central theme of his career. Drawing on John Locke (1632-1704), the American Founders, and the wider classical liberal inheritance, Pilon argues that individuals hold rights because of their nature as rational and purposive agents, that such rights do not originate in government, and that governments instead come into existence to secure rights already in place. On this account the legitimacy of any political institution turns on how well it protects life, liberty, and property while respecting the equal rights of others.

This starting point leads him to a sharp distinction between liberty rights and welfare rights. Liberty rights guard the individual against coercion and interference. Welfare rights, by contrast, require government to compel some men to furnish resources or services to others. Pilon argues that governments may choose to establish social programs, yet such programs ought not be mistaken for fundamental rights, a position that places him within the classical liberal tradition and that has shaped his criticism of expansive government programs and regulatory systems.

Property occupies a place near the center of his thought. He treats property not as an economic institution alone but as a condition of personal independence, holding that secure control over one’s labor and possessions guards the other liberties, which grow vulnerable without it. Much of his scholarship therefore criticizes the judicial doctrines and regulatory practices that weaken constitutional protection of private property, and he has pressed a long argument against eminent-domain abuse, against heavy regulation, and against doctrines that let governments load substantial burdens on owners without compensation.

His constitutional theory joins originalism to a broader commitment to the principles of the American Revolution as stated in the Declaration of Independence. Pilon argues that the Declaration of Independence supplies the moral ground of the American constitutional order and that the Constitution then builds the institutions meant to secure those principles, and for that reason he rejects procedural or majoritarian readings of constitutional government, holding that democratic majorities carry legitimate authority only within the boundaries set by individual rights.

A defining feature of his legal philosophy has been a long quarrel with judicial restraint. Across the late twentieth century many conservative legal thinkers, Robert Bork (1927-2012) foremost among them, argued that judges should defer to legislatures except where a constitutional violation appears explicit and unmistakable. Pilon refused that view. He held that courts carry an affirmative duty to protect liberty against governmental encroachment and should not presume the constitutionality of legislative acts, and decades before the term gained currency he argued for what later acquired the name judicial engagement, an approach under which courts enforce constitutional limits on government power and give substantive protection to individual rights.

His scholarship on the Fourteenth Amendment shows the same commitment. Pilon argues that the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was meant to protect substantive individual rights against the states, and he regards the Supreme Court’s decision in The Slaughter-House Cases as among the gravest constitutional errors in American history because it drained that clause of force. Restoring the clause to its original meaning, he contends, might strengthen constitutional protection for economic liberty, property, and other freedoms.

Though known mostly as a scholar, Pilon also gathered considerable government experience. Under the administration of Ronald Reagan (1911-2004) he held a series of senior policy posts at the Office of Personnel Management, the Department of State, and the Department of Justice. At the Justice Department he served as the first director of the Asylum Policy and Review Unit, where he worked on refugee and asylum questions during a period of large international migration and Cold War strain, and the experience deepened a skepticism toward bureaucratic expansion and confirmed his sense that administrative agencies often wield powers hard to square with constitutional principle.

One episode from these years carried a personal cost. A lengthy inquiry by the Department of Justice’s Office of Professional Responsibility considered an alleged disclosure of classified information, and Pilon maintained his innocence throughout. After his clearance he brought suit under the Privacy Act, arguing that confidential information about the investigation had leaked. The litigation ended in his favor with a substantial settlement, an outcome that hardened his standing as a critic of governmental abuse and administrative misconduct.

Before his government service Pilon taught philosophy at California State University, Sonoma, and philosophy of law at Emory University School of Law, and he held a fellowship at the Hoover Institution and a senior fellowship at the Institute for Humane Studies. These posts tied him to a widening network of scholars devoted to free markets, constitutional government, and classical liberal ideas.

In 1989 Pilon joined the Cato Institute and founded what became an influential center for constitutional study. Under his direction the Center for Constitutional Studies advanced scholarship on limited government, federalism, economic liberty, and judicial review, and it grew into a venue for debate over constitutional interpretation and legal reform. Pilon organized conferences, sponsored research, testified before Congress, and built relationships among academics, judges, litigators, and policy experts drawn to the project of restoring constitutional limits on government power.

Among his lasting institutional achievements stands the Cato Supreme Court Review, which he created in 2001. Conceived as an annual study of the Court from a classical liberal vantage, the publication became a respected forum for legal analysis and constitutional argument. Pilon served as its founding publisher and later as publisher emeritus, and through the Review and the wider work of Cato’s constitutional program he carried libertarian legal arguments into the mainstream discussion of constitutional law.

He has written across a wide range of subjects, from free speech, federalism, and economic liberty to drug prohibition, judicial review, constitutional history, and international human rights, and he has edited volumes that include Flag-Burning, Discrimination, and the Right to Do Wrong, The Politics and Law of Term Limits, and The Rule of Law in the Wake of Clinton. His writing returns again and again to the danger of concentrated political power and to the place of constitutional constraint in the preservation of individual freedom.

Unlike many conservative constitutional theorists, Pilon grounds rights in reason rather than theology. He acknowledges the historical weight of Christianity on Western political development, yet he argues that natural rights admit of justification through philosophical reasoning open to all men whatever their religious belief, a rationalist orientation that reflects both his philosophical training and his continuing engagement with Enlightenment political thought.

His influence runs past libertarian circles. Scholars who work on judicial engagement, constitutional originalism, economic liberty, and limits on administrative power often take up arguments that Pilon helped form decades earlier, and while critics challenge his reliance on natural-rights reasoning and his skepticism toward the modern regulatory state, even opponents grant his standing as a consistent defender of classical liberal constitutionalism.

Pilon remains a senior fellow at Cato and continues to write and speak on constitutional questions, property, the Declaration of Independence, and the proper scope of government. His later writing circles back to the themes that have held him throughout: the moral foundations of liberty, the hazards of unconstrained political power, and the constitutional architecture built to protect individual rights.

He is married to Juliana Geran Pilon, a Romanian-born philosopher, author, and scholar of democracy and international affairs, and their shared formation in philosophy reflects a long intellectual partnership rooted in a common interest in political thought and the defense of free societies.

The significance of Roger Pilon rests not in his scholarship alone but in his work as a bridge among academic philosophy, constitutional law, and public policy. At a time when many legal scholars settled into either abstract theory or practical litigation, Pilon tied foundational questions about rights and human freedom to concrete constitutional disputes, and through that effort he became an architect of contemporary libertarian legal thought and a leading advocate of limited constitutional government in modern America.

The Sociology of Philosophies

Randall Collins (b. 1941) wrote The Sociology of Philosophies to press a hard claim about how ideas rise. Thinkers do not win on the strength of their arguments alone. They win on position in a network. The eminent cluster with the eminent, master to pupil and rival against rival, and the names that survive tend to sit at the dense crossings of these chains. Collins read two and a half millennia of philosophy this way and found one shape across cultures and centuries: a small set of linked figures holds the attention of each generation, the link comes first and the fame second, and the texts that endure carry the emotional charge of the gatherings that produced them. Set Pilon against this frame and the life hands the frame its data.

Begin with the chain that formed him. Collins holds that creative thinkers descend from creative thinkers, that cultural capital and emotional energy pass down master-pupil lines the way an inheritance passes down a family. Pilon took his doctorate at Chicago under Gewirth and Donagan, two philosophers already at work on the foundations of rights and moral agency, and he did so within reach of Friedman and the law-and-economics scholarship then gathering force at the same place. On Collins’s reading this matters more than any single book Pilon later wrote. He arrived at his own work charged by contact with men who held the attention of their fields, and he carried their problems forward as his own. Gewirth argued rights from the structure of rational agency. Pilon’s dissertation, A Theory of Rights: Toward Limited Government, took up that thread and ran it toward constitutional limits. The continuity reads less as borrowing than as descent.

Collins adds a second law, the one he calls the law of small numbers. The attention space of any field holds room for only a handful of active positions at a time, somewhere between three and six. Below three there is too little conflict to hold an audience. Above six the field splinters and no position commands notice. Rivals therefore define one another, and a thinker secures his slot by standing against the men who hold the neighboring slots. Place Pilon here and his quarrel with judicial restraint comes into focus. Across the late twentieth century the conservative legal field organized itself around restraint, and Bork held that position with authority. Pilon took the opposing slot and argued for what later acquired the name judicial engagement: courts that enforce constitutional limits rather than defer to legislatures. The two positions sharpen against each other. Engagement needs restraint to push against, and the energy of the argument comes from the opposition as much as from the substance. Collins would read the pairing as structural before it is philosophical.

The third element is the base. Collins insists that no intellectual position survives without an organizational base and a patron to fund it. Monasteries carried medieval philosophy. Universities and academies carried what came after. Shift the base and the field shifts with it. Most thinkers inherit a base, a chair in a department built by men who came before. Pilon built his own. He had taught at Sonoma and at Emory and had held fellowships at Hoover and the Institute for Humane Studies, the ordinary stations of an academic career, and then in 1989 he left that path and founded the Center for Constitutional Studies at Cato. The move reads, in Collins’s terms, as the creation of a base outside the university, funded by the patronage that sustains the libertarian network, and stocked deliberately with the carriers a position needs to spread: not other philosophers alone but judges, litigators, and policy experts who could move the argument from the page into the courts. A philosopher who recruits litigators has understood something Collins makes explicit. Ideas travel through their carriers.

The base needs its rituals, and here too the life cooperates. Collins draws his account of emotional energy from the study of interaction rituals, the focused gatherings that generate solidarity and recharge the confidence of the men inside them. Pilon ran conferences, testified before Congress, and built relationships across the field, and in 2001 he founded the Cato Supreme Court Review, an annual study of the Court from the libertarian vantage. An annual review is a ritual in Collins’s sense. It assembles the network on a fixed cycle, focuses its attention on a shared object, and sends its members back to their work charged with the sense that they belong to a project larger than any one of them. The Review did for Pilon’s circle what the seminar and the academy did for the chains Collins traced across history. It manufactured the solidarity that keeps a position alive between generations.

The judicial engagement idea rose, Collins’s account suggests, less because the argument compelled assent than because Pilon occupied a slot, built a base, ran the rituals, and recruited the carriers who could push the position into the institutions that decide cases. The merits of the natural-rights argument sit outside the frame. Collins brackets the question of whether a thinker is correct and asks instead how his position captured and held a share of the attention space. By that measure Pilon succeeded through the same route Collins found everywhere: descent from an eminent chain, a defining rivalry, a self-built base, a patron, and a ritual that renewed the whole arrangement on schedule.

Pilon presents himself as a man who reasons rights from human nature and follows the argument where it leads, and the natural-rights tradition trains its defenders to tell the story that way, as conviction against power. Collins relocates the story in the network. The conviction is real and the frame does not deny it. The frame holds that conviction alone never built an attention space, and that the rise of judicial engagement runs through Chicago, through Cato, through the Review, and through the litigators who carried it, more than through the force of any single proof.

What the frame leaves out is the content of the rights themselves and the question of whether the Privileges or Immunities argument or the reading of The Slaughter-House Cases states something true about the constitutional order. Collins does not arbitrate that. He maps the network that carried the claim into the room where it could be heard. Pilon’s life supplies what the theory asks for, and the theory returns a Pilon who looks less like a philosopher alone with a principle and more like a node that found its slot, built its base, and held its share of the attention space for forty years.

The Great Delusion

In his 2018 book, The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities, John J. Mearsheimer wrote:

My view is that we are profoundly social beings from the start to the finish of our lives and that individualism is of secondary importance… Liberalism downplays the social nature of human beings to the point of almost ignoring it, instead treating people largely as atomistic actors… Political liberalism… is an ideology that is individualistic at its core and assigns great importance to the concept of inalienable rights. This concern for rights is the basis of its universalism—everyone on the planet has the same inherent set of rights—and this is what motivates liberal states to pursue ambitious foreign policies. The public and scholarly discourse about liberalism since World War II has placed enormous emphasis on what are commonly called human rights. This is true all around the world, not just in the West. “Human rights,” Samuel Moyn notes, “have come to define the most elevated aspirations of both social movements and political entities—state and interstate. They evoke hope and provoke action.”
[Humans] do not operate as lone wolves but are born into social groups or societies that shape their identities well before they can assert their individualism. Moreover, individuals usually develop strong attachments to their group and are sometimes willing to make great sacrifices for their fellow members. Humans are often said to be tribal at their core. The main reason for our social nature is that the best way for a person to survive is to be embedded in a society and to cooperate with fellow members rather than act alone… Despite its elevated ranking, reason is the least important of the three ways we determine our preferences. It certainly is less important than socialization. The main reason socialization matters so much is that humans have a long childhood in which they are protected and nurtured by their families and the surrounding society, and meanwhile exposed to intense socialization. At the same time, they are only beginning to develop their critical faculties, so they are not equipped to think for themselves. By the time an individual reaches the point where his reasoning skills are well developed, his family and society have already imposed an enormous value infusion on him. Moreover, that individual is born with innate sentiments that also strongly influence how he thinks about the world around him. All of this means that people have limited choice in formulating a moral code, because so much of their thinking about right and wrong comes from inborn attitudes and socialization.

Pilon grounds rights in man’s nature as a rational and purposive agent. Rights precede government. They reach all men through reason, whatever the creed or culture a man happens to inherit, and Pilon takes care to ground them in reason rather than theology so that the claim might hold for everyone and not for believers alone. The rights-bearing individual stands first, the group and the government after, and property guards the independence that lets the individual stand at all. The architecture rests on three loads: the individual is prior, reason is the faculty that finds his rights, and the rights so found hold for every man.

Mearsheimer pulls each load.

He pulls the faculty first. Pilon rests the whole structure on reason, and Mearsheimer ranks reason the weakest of the three sources and the last to arrive. The faculty Pilon makes foundational shows up after a man’s society has already stocked him with a code, which means the rights Pilon says any man can reason toward are, on Mearsheimer’s account, reached by almost no man through reason, because reason is not the place moral codes come from. Pilon’s foundation turns out to be the part of the human equipment that does the least work.

He pulls the unit next. Pilon’s individual holds rights before any government and, in the logic of the argument, before any group. Mearsheimer’s individual is born into a society that forms him before he can assert a self, and develops attachments to that society strong enough to die for. The atomistic rights-bearer, the self who owns himself prior to the social world, is the figure Mearsheimer says liberalism invents and then mistakes for something it found in nature. Liberty rights that guard the self against coercion and property that secures the self’s independence both presuppose a self standing apart from the group. Mearsheimer denies there is one.

He pulls the reach last, and this pull does the most damage to the thing Pilon cares about. Pilon left theology for reason to win the universal, rights for all men whatever they believe. Mearsheimer answers that moral codes come from socialization and inborn sentiment, both of them local, both varying from group to group, so the universal Pilon reaches for through reason collapses back into the particular code of one society. The flight from creed lands in another creed wearing different clothes.

What then for Pilon, if Mearsheimer is right?

His universalism reads as parochialism in disguise. The natural rights he calls human nature become the moral inheritance of a particular people, Lockean, Enlightenment, American, dressed up as the structure of all human nature and offered to the species. Mearsheimer ties this move to foreign policy, to the liberal state that goes abroad to spread rights it takes for universal. Pilon keeps his work at home, on the Constitution and the courts, yet the intellectual move underneath is the one Mearsheimer names: take the code of your own society, run it through reason, and present the output as a discovery about man as such.

Something of Pilon survives the demolition, though not the part he would defend hardest. Mearsheimer grants that liberalism works inside a nation-state, nested within a bounded group held together by the stronger force of nationalism. Pilon’s constitutional project can survive on those terms, re-described as the defense of one nation’s inherited settlement rather than the application of universal reason. The American order is a particular people’s achievement, and a man who guards it guards his tribe’s arrangement. That is the last name Pilon claims for what he does. Mearsheimer hands it to him anyway.

The stress test owes Pilon a fair limit, and here it is. Mearsheimer’s anthropology describes how men come to believe what they believe. Pilon’s claim is normative, that rights exist however a man arrives at the sight of them. A story about how a belief forms does not settle whether the belief is true. Mathematics also arrives after the value infusion, and its lateness says nothing about whether its theorems hold. Pilon can answer, then, that Mearsheimer has explained why few men reason their way to natural rights without showing that natural rights are not there to be reasoned toward. To explain the rarity of a belief is not to refute it.

The standoff costs Pilon more than it costs Mearsheimer. Mearsheimer dissolves the social plausibility of the universal claim and leaves Pilon a foundation that almost no man reaches through the faculty Pilon says delivers it, defended by a tradition that looks, from the outside, like one tribe’s code raised to the dignity of human nature. Pilon keeps the bare possibility that the rights are real and waiting. Whether a moral foundation that nearly no one reaches by reason can still serve as the foundation it claims to be is the question Mearsheimer forces and Pilon cannot walk around. The rationalist grounding that was supposed to open natural rights to every man becomes, if Mearsheimer is right, the narrowest beam in the house.

Posted in Philosophy | Comments Off on Roger Pilon: Natural Rights, Judicial Engagement, and Constitutional Liberty

The Impossible Jew: Identity and the Reconstruction of Jewish American Literary History

Posted on June 23, 2026 by Luke Ford

In his 2018 book, The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities, John J. Mearsheimer wrote:

My view is that we are profoundly social beings from the start to the finish of our lives and that individualism is of secondary importance… Liberalism downplays the social nature of human beings to the point of almost ignoring it, instead treating people largely as atomistic actors… Political liberalism… is an ideology that is individualistic at its core and assigns great importance to the concept of inalienable rights. This concern for rights is the basis of its universalism—everyone on the planet has the same inherent set of rights—and this is what motivates liberal states to pursue ambitious foreign policies. The public and scholarly discourse about liberalism since World War II has placed enormous emphasis on what are commonly called human rights. This is true all around the world, not just in the West. “Human rights,” Samuel Moyn notes, “have come to define the most elevated aspirations of both social movements and political entities—state and interstate. They evoke hope and provoke action.”
[Humans] do not operate as lone wolves but are born into social groups or societies that shape their identities well before they can assert their individualism. Moreover, individuals usually develop strong attachments to their group and are sometimes willing to make great sacrifices for their fellow members. Humans are often said to be tribal at their core. The main reason for our social nature is that the best way for a person to survive is to be embedded in a society and to cooperate with fellow members rather than act alone… Despite its elevated ranking, reason is the least important of the three ways we determine our preferences. It certainly is less important than socialization. The main reason socialization matters so much is that humans have a long childhood in which they are protected and nurtured by their families and the surrounding society, and meanwhile exposed to intense socialization. At the same time, they are only beginning to develop their critical faculties, so they are not equipped to think for themselves. By the time an individual reaches the point where his reasoning skills are well developed, his family and society have already imposed an enormous value infusion on him. Moreover, that individual is born with innate sentiments that also strongly influence how he thinks about the world around him. All of this means that people have limited choice in formulating a moral code, because so much of their thinking about right and wrong comes from inborn attitudes and socialization.

If John Mearsheimer’s thesis is correct, it directly undermines the entire foundation of Benjamin Schreier’s The Impossible Jew Identity and the Reconstruction of Jewish American Literary History. Mearsheimer’s assertion that humans are fundamentally tribal, socially embedded, and shaped by an early “value infusion” completely opposes Schreier’s desire to dismantle stable ethnic categories.

Schreier advocates for a “postidentitarian” and “subjectless” approach to Jewish studies, drawing on critics who try to decouple ethnic fields from a concrete, identifiable human population. He argues that a text’s Jewishness should be viewed as a spectral product of interpretive desire rather than a reflection of real Jews. If Mearsheimer is right, Schreier’s theory is a textbook example of hyper-individualistic liberal delusion. In Mearsheimer’s view, humans do not operate as lone wolves or choose their identities from a menu of textual desires; they are born into social groups that shape their identities long before they can think for themselves. Schreier’s attempt to vaporize the biological and sociological reality of “the population” ignores the evolutionary and social fact that group survival depends on cooperation and shared, inherited tribal realities.

Schreier fiercely critiques the historicist mainstream of Jewish studies for its “anthropological expectation” that a body of literature represents an actual, legible population. He calls this a complacent, nationalistic dead end. If Mearsheimer is right, this historicist “ghetto” is actually the only scientifically and sociologically valid way to read literature. Literature should be evaluated through the lens of population, socialization, and shared tribal experience because authors are products of intense early childhood socialization within their specific group. You cannot separate a text from the collective survival engine of the society that produced the writer.

In Chapter 3, Schreier attacks right-wing critics like Ruth Wisse who argue that the Jewish New York Intellectuals had a biological or cultural responsibility to a Jewish polity. Schreier prefers Lionel Trilling’s model of “self-conscious detachment from any position” and the preservation of individual imaginative freedom over collective affiliation. Mearsheimer’s framework suggests that Trilling’s detached, universalist individualism is a psychological impossibility. If humans are tribal at their core and reason is subordinate to socialization, then the New York Intellectuals could never truly strip away their early “value infusion.” Wisse’s argument that their identity naturally bound them to the fate of their group comports with Mearsheimer’s belief that individuals develop powerful, involuntary attachments to their group and are wired to cooperate for collective survival.

If Mearsheimer is right, Schreier’s book is an artifact of the post-Cold War liberal universalism it purports to critique. By trying to turn a concrete, historical group identity into an abstract aesthetic playground of “negation” and “unknowability,” Schreier is downplaying the social nature of human beings to the point of ignoring it. Mearsheimer would argue that no matter how much a literary critic twists textuality to make identity “impossible,” the tribal reality of human socialization will always dictate the boundaries of the group.

Posted in Jews | Comments Off on The Impossible Jew: Identity and the Reconstruction of Jewish American Literary History

The Enlightenment Wasn’t Enlightened

Posted on June 23, 2026 by Luke Ford

In his 2018 book, The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities, John J. Mearsheimer wrote:

My view is that we are profoundly social beings from the start to the finish of our lives and that individualism is of secondary importance… Liberalism downplays the social nature of human beings to the point of almost ignoring it, instead treating people largely as atomistic actors… Political liberalism… is an ideology that is individualistic at its core and assigns great importance to the concept of inalienable rights. This concern for rights is the basis of its universalism—everyone on the planet has the same inherent set of rights—and this is what motivates liberal states to pursue ambitious foreign policies. The public and scholarly discourse about liberalism since World War II has placed enormous emphasis on what are commonly called human rights. This is true all around the world, not just in the West. “Human rights,” Samuel Moyn notes, “have come to define the most elevated aspirations of both social movements and political entities—state and interstate. They evoke hope and provoke action.”
[Humans] do not operate as lone wolves but are born into social groups or societies that shape their identities well before they can assert their individualism. Moreover, individuals usually develop strong attachments to their group and are sometimes willing to make great sacrifices for their fellow members. Humans are often said to be tribal at their core. The main reason for our social nature is that the best way for a person to survive is to be embedded in a society and to cooperate with fellow members rather than act alone… Despite its elevated ranking, reason is the least important of the three ways we determine our preferences. It certainly is less important than socialization. The main reason socialization matters so much is that humans have a long childhood in which they are protected and nurtured by their families and the surrounding society, and meanwhile exposed to intense socialization. At the same time, they are only beginning to develop their critical faculties, so they are not equipped to think for themselves. By the time an individual reaches the point where his reasoning skills are well developed, his family and society have already imposed an enormous value infusion on him. Moreover, that individual is born with innate sentiments that also strongly influence how he thinks about the world around him. All of this means that people have limited choice in formulating a moral code, because so much of their thinking about right and wrong comes from inborn attitudes and socialization.

If Mearsheimer is right here, John Locke, Voltaire and other Enlightenment thinkers were wrong.
If Mearsheimer is right, the Enlightenment is not the discovery of universal truths about human nature and society. It is a brilliant, localized cultural project that misunderstood its own foundations.
The mainstream Enlightenment, represented by figures like Denis Diderot (1713–1784), Voltaire (1694–1778), and Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), rested on the belief that human reason could break free from the chains of tradition, superstition, and local prejudice.
Kant famously defined Enlightenment as man’s emergence from his self-incurred immaturity, urging individuals to have the courage to use their own understanding. The project assumed that reason is a universal tool, that human nature is uniform beneath cultural differences, and that society can be engineered rationally to maximize individual liberty.
Mearsheimer’s argument demolishes these pillars. If reason is the least important of the ways men determine their preferences, then the Enlightenment overestimation of human rationality is a profound error.
Enlightenment thinkers believed that independent reason could judge and reform culture. Mearsheimer reverses this relationship. Intense childhood socialization injects an individual with a specific value system long before his critical faculties develop. By the time a man begins to reason, the logic of his particular tribe has already captured his mind.
Reason does not operate as an objective, neutral judge. It operates as a lawyer, constructing justifications for preferences that socialization and innate sentiments have already established. The Enlightenment ideal of the independent thinker who strips away cultural bias to find universal truth is an impossibility.
The Enlightenment advanced a teleological view of history (a belief in moral and political progress). Thinkers argued that as superstition receded and reason spread, humanity would move away from tribal warfare toward universal peace, commerce, and shared cosmopolitan values.
If humans are tribal at their core and depend on group cohesion for survival, this progressive vision is a fantasy. Tribalism is not a primitive phase of development that education can erase. It is a permanent biological and social necessity. When Enlightenment liberalism attempts to dismantle traditional group identities in the name of universal human rights, it creates a vacuum. It underestimates the intense human need to belong to a specific group that defines itself against other groups.
The Enlightenment claimed that its principles of individualism, inalienable rights, and rule by reason apply to all people everywhere. Mearsheimer’s view reveals that this universalism is a delusion.
The values of the Enlightenment are the specific products of Western socialization. When liberal states use these values to guide their foreign policies, they mistake their own tribal code for a universal law of nature. Other societies do not reject Western liberalism because they lack reason; they reject it because their own intense socialization has given them different, deeply embedded moral codes.
If Mearsheimer is right, the Enlightenment did not discover a universal human nature. It merely produced a highly successful Western tribe with a unique ideology. The project’s insistence on its own universality makes it blind to the enduring power of nationalism and cultural difference, turning a philosophy of liberation into a recipe for endless foreign conflict.
If Mearsheimer is right, the core of John Locke’s political philosophy collapses because its starting assumptions about human nature, rights, and reason are incorrect.
Locke bases his political theory on the concept of the state of nature, a pre-political condition where individuals exist as autonomous, free, and equal agents. In this state, men use reason to discover the law of nature, which dictates that no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions. For Locke, society and government are artificial constructs, created through a social contract when these autonomous individuals choose to join together to better secure their pre-existing, inalienable rights. Individualism is primary; social organization is secondary.
Mearsheimer flips this hierarchy. If humans are profoundly social beings from start to finish, the Lockean state of nature is a fiction. Men do not enter society as fully formed, rational adults who possess an inherent understanding of universal rights. Instead, they are born into specific social groups that shape their identities, languages, and moral codes long before their critical faculties develop. Survival requires tribal cooperation, not lone-wolf autonomy. If Mearsheimer is correct, Locke’s autonomous individual does not exist.
This undercuts Locke’s view of human reason. Locke famously compares the human mind at birth to a blank slate (tabula rasa), arguing that knowledge and moral understanding come through experience and reflection. He asserts that adult reason allows man to see past local prejudices to grasp universal moral truths. Mearsheimer argues that reason is weak compared to biological sentiment and intense childhood socialization. By the time a man can reason for himself, his community has already injected him with a specific, local value system. He has limited choice in formulating a moral code. Locke’s belief in a universal moral law discoverable by independent reason becomes an illusion.
Consequently, the concept of universal, inalienable rights loses its foundation. In Locke’s system, rights belong to the individual by virtue of his humanity, independent of government or culture. If Mearsheimer is right, rights are not inherent features of human existence; they are cultural products of a specific type of society. The belief that everyone on the planet possesses the same set of rights is a product of Western socialization rather than an objective truth.
When liberal states treat these rights as universal and attempt to spread them globally through ambitious foreign policies, they run into the reality of nationalism and tribalism. Other societies, shaped by their own intense socialization, do not see these rights as self-evident truths. They see them as foreign intrusions that threaten their own group identities.
If Mearsheimer’s description of human nature is accurate, Locke’s philosophy is not a universal blueprint for human governance. It is a highly localized ideology that downplays man’s tribal core. The social contract is not a historical or philosophical truth, but a myth that obscures the tribal solidarity and socialization required to maintain any state.
If Mearsheimer is right, Voltaire was a brilliant satirist who misdiagnosed the nature of the human condition.
Voltaire spent his life crusading against religious intolerance, superstition, and the abuses of the Catholic Church. His famous battle cry, Écrasez l’infâme! (Crush the infamous thing!), assumed that fanaticism and tribal bigotry were artificial distortions. He believed these evils were maintained by corrupt priests and kings to keep men in the dark. For Voltaire, if you removed the artificial weight of the Church and applied commerce, wit, and empirical reason, human beings would naturally default to a tolerant, cosmopolitan common sense.
Mearsheimer’s argument turns Voltaire’s entire crusade upside down.
Voltaire viewed religious intolerance as a disease of the mind that reason could cure. Mearsheimer argues that humans are tribal at their core and that survival requires deep embedding within a social group.
If Mearsheimer is right, the intense group loyalties and dogmas that Voltaire mocked in Candide and Treatise on Tolerance are not superficial errors invented by clever priests. They are the standard operating equipment of human survival. The fierce attachments to local religious or political groups are expressions of man’s evolutionary need for group cohesion. Voltaire was fighting against human nature itself, mistaking a permanent biological and social necessity for a temporary lack of education.
Voltaire believed in the power of the pen to change minds. He assumed that by exposing the absurdity of superstition through irony and clear argument, men would see the light and change their behavior.
Mearsheimer notes that reason is the least important way men determine their preferences. Long before Voltaire’s readers could develop their critical faculties, their families and societies had already injected them with an enormous value infusion. A witty pamphlet cannot undo years of childhood socialization and innate sentiments. Voltaire’s writing did not convert his enemies; it merely entertained a specific, highly socialized subset of European elites who already shared his tribal code.
Voltaire championed the idea of the cosmopolitan man—the rational individual who can look past his country’s prejudices to engage in commerce and conversation with men of all nations. He praised the Royal Exchange in London, where Royalists, Whigs, Catholics, and Jews traded peacefully for mutual benefit.
Mearsheimer’s view reveals that this cosmopolitanism is a mirage. Humans do not operate as lone-wolf traders who shedding their identities at the market door. They remain profoundly social beings whose identities are tied to their specific groups. While commerce might create temporary cooperation, the underlying tribal allegiances remain. When the pressure rises, the cosmopolitan veneer cracks, and men revert to their primary tribal defense structures: nationalism and the state.
If Mearsheimer is correct, Voltaire was not an objective observer liberating humanity from chains. He was the high priest of a new, secular Western tribe. His belief that his specific values of tolerance and skepticism were universally applicable was the ultimate delusion, blinding him to the reality that human beings prefer the security of the tribe to the cold autonomy of independent reason.

If Mearsheimer is right, several of the most contentious debates in contemporary politics, foreign policy, and culture would effectively resolve—not through a compromise, but because one side’s foundational assumptions would be proven completely wrong.
For decades, Western foreign policy has debated whether the United States should pursue liberal hegemony—exporting democracy, building international institutions, and intervening to protect human rights—or stick to a realist strategy of managing the balance of power.
If Mearsheimer is right, this debate is over. The idealist project of transforming foreign nations into liberal democracies is a structural impossibility. Interventions like those in Iraq and Afghanistan, or efforts to integrate nations like China and Russia into a rules-based liberal international order, are doomed from the outset. Because nationalism and tribal socialization always override abstract liberal values, foreign populations will inevitably view liberal intervention as imperial aggression. The debate resolves entirely in favor of a restrained, balance-of-power foreign policy.
Western democracies are locked in a fierce debate over immigration, border control, and national identity. One side argues for multiculturalism and open borders, believing that human beings are atomistic individuals who can easily integrate into any society by accepting abstract civic principles like the rule of law. The other side argues that integration is deeply difficult and that unchecked immigration destabilizes national cohesion.
Mearsheimer’s view resolves this in favor of the restrictionists. If human beings are intensely socialized from childhood and tribal at their core, you cannot simply drop millions of people from one culture into another and expect them to instantly become atomistic liberals. Their deeply embedded moral codes, shaped by their native societies, do not vanish upon crossing a border. Civic nationalism—the idea that a state can be held together purely by an allegiance to political ideas rather than a shared culture—reveals itself as an illusion.
Domestic political debates often center on whether society should be run by a technocratic, highly educated elite who claim to use objective, universal reason to solve social problems, or whether policy should reflect the instincts and traditions of the broader populist majority.
If reason is the weakest tool for determining human preferences, the technocratic ideal collapses. The globalist elite are not objective neutral actors; they are simply a distinct tribe socialized in elite universities, operating on their own insular value system. Their claims to scientific, value-free governance are a mask for group interest. Populism, rather than being an irrational pathology, is the natural reaction of a native population protecting its group identity against a managerial class that downplays the social nature of man.
The debate over identity politics splits those who view people primarily as individual citizens with universal rights from those who view people primarily through the lens of their demographic group (race, gender, class).
Mearsheimer’s logic suggests that the universalist liberals are wrong and the identity theorists are partially right about human mechanics, though wrong about their political goals. Humans do not operate as lone wolves; they are tribal from start to finish. The liberal dream of a colorblind society of pure individuals is a psychological impossibility. However, because group solidarity is an innate human defense structure, the identity politics attempt to fragment a nation into competing tribal grievance groups cannot lead to liberation. It can only lead to total social balkanization and majoritarian tribal backlash.
The modern debate over free speech usually pits free-speech absolutists, who rely on John Milton (1608-1674) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), against advocates for censorship and harm reduction. Mill argued that a completely open marketplace of ideas allows truth to eventually defeat error through public debate.
If Mearsheimer is right, the marketplace of ideas is a psychological impossibility. Because people are not atomistic individuals evaluating arguments with cold, objective reason, they do not change their minds when presented with superior logic. Instead, they view speech through a tribal lens. Information that threatens the group’s foundational myths is experienced as a physical threat to survival, while falsehoods that strengthen group cohesion are embraced as truth. The debate settles on a grim reality: speech is not a tool for discovering universal truth, but a weapon used in inter-group conflict. Free speech can exist only within a highly socialized, homogenous tribe that already shares the same underlying values.
For decades, international elites have argued that the world must move toward transnational governance. This view holds that global problems like climate change, financial crises, and pandemics require states to cede sovereignty to international bodies like the United Nations, the World Health Organization, or the World Trade Organization.
Mearsheimer’s logic ends this debate in favor of strict state sovereignty. If humans are tribal at their core and derive their identities from their specific national cultures, they will never transfer their ultimate loyalty to an abstract, global bureaucracy. Transnational institutions lack organic legitimacy because there is no such thing as a global tribe. When a crisis hits, individuals look to their nation-state for protection, and the state looks out for its own people first. Any attempt to enforce global governance will be resisted as a form of foreign imperial overreach.
Educational theorists debate the purpose of schooling. The classical liberal tradition aims to teach children how to think, turning them into independent, critical agents who can question their own societies. The opposing view, often associated with progressive or critical theories, sees education primarily as a tool for political and social engineering.
If Mearsheimer is right, the classical ideal of teaching a child to be a completely autonomous thinker is a delusion. During a long childhood, the human mind is intensely vulnerable to value infusions before its critical faculties can even form. Education is always and everywhere a process of socialization—it is the tribe reproducing its own moral code in the next generation. The only real question in education is which set of tribal values will be injected into the child, not whether the child can be kept free from indoctrination.
The debate over Universal Basic Income (UBI) features proponents who argue that giving individuals cash directly maximizes their personal freedom and autonomy, allowing them to exit bad jobs or bad relationships and construct their own lives. Critics argue it destroys the incentive to work and creates dependency.
Mearsheimer’s view shifts the ground beneath this debate entirely, cutting against the individualistic assumptions of UBI. If man is a profoundly social being whose identity and psychological health depend on being useful to and embedded in a concrete group, simply cutting him a check as an isolated consumer misses the core of human nature. Without the social structure, discipline, and communal recognition that come from shared work and local institutions, atomistic financial support cannot prevent social alienation. It accelerates the breakdown of the very social groups man needs to survive.

If Mearsheimer is right, the fierce intellectual civil wars that have fractured elite English departments since the 1970s would abruptly end.
For decades, these departments have been battlegrounds for competing literary theories: traditional humanism, post-structuralism, deconstruction, and various schools of identity-based cultural studies. If Mearsheimer’s description of human nature is accurate, the foundational justifications for almost all of these camps collapse, resolving the debate by exposing their shared misconceptions.
The traditional, conservative wing of English departments has long argued for a literary canon based on aesthetic excellence and universal human truths. Figures like Harold Bloom (1930–2019) argued that reading the “Great Books” allows an individual to transcend his specific time and place, cultivate a solitary, autonomous consciousness, and commune with the universal human spirit across centuries.
Mearsheimer’s logic destroys this humanist ideal. If humans are tribal from start to finish and deeply socialized from childhood, there is no autonomous individual consciousness to cultivate, nor is there a uniform, universal human spirit waiting to be discovered in a text. The Western literary canon is not a collection of transcendent, objective truths; it is the specific, sophisticated socialization mechanism of the European elite. The humanist belief that reading Shakespeare can liberate a man from his tribal instincts is an illusion. Literature does not transcend the tribe; it encodes it.
In the late twentieth century, elite departments were captured by post-structuralism and deconstruction, led by thinkers like Jacques Derrida (1930–2004). This camp argued that language is unstable, texts have no fixed meaning, and all stable identities or social truths are linguistic illusions that can be unraveled through clever reading. They believed that by deconstructing language, the critic could liberate himself from the dominant power structures of society.
If Mearsheimer is right, high theory is an intellectual dead end driven by the ultimate liberal delusion: that reason and language can exist independently of social survival. Humans do not live in a world of endless linguistic play; they live in concrete societies where survival depends on intense group cohesion. The moral codes and identities injected during childhood are not fragile linguistic constructs that vanish under a deconstructive critique; they are deeply embedded biological and social realities. High theory reveals itself as a luxury product of a highly secure, over-socialized academic tribe playing word games that bear no relation to how human beings function.
The dominant faction in contemporary elite English departments views literature almost exclusively through the lens of power, race, gender, and empire. This school argues that literature is either an instrument of imperial oppression or a tool for subverting dominant power structures to achieve universal liberation and global social justice.
Mearsheimer’s view suggests this camp is half-right in its diagnostics but completely wrong in its aims. They are right that literature is a tool of group power and socialization rather than a repository of disinterested beauty. Every text carries the value infusion of the tribe that produced it. However, their ultimate goal—using literature to dismantle all traditional identities and build a borderless, egalitarian, cosmopolitan world—is a psychological and political impossibility. By attempting to strip away national and tribal identities, they are fighting human biology. Furthermore, their own academic subculture is not a vanguard of universal liberation; it is just another tribe, socialized in elite institutions, using its own jargon-heavy moral code to compete for status and institutional power.
If Mearsheimer is right, the century-long debate over whether literature is about Beauty, Language, or Liberation resolves into a single, realist truth: Literature is an instrument of socialization.
The sole function of a culture’s stories, myths, and poems is to inject the tribe’s moral code into the next generation during their long, vulnerable childhood, ensuring group solidarity and survival. The elite English department would be forced to abandon its grand philosophical and political delusions. It would become a department of cultural anthropology, analyzing texts simply as the historical artifacts of various human tribes trying to hold themselves together in a competitive world.
If the history of English literature is fundamentally the history of Christian literature, and if Mearsheimer is right, then Christianity is not merely a set of theological propositions that individuals choose to believe through independent reason. It is the civilizational engine of Western socialization, the primary source of the value infusion that shaped the English-speaking mind for over a millennium.
Mearsheimer’s framework alters how we must view this Christian literary tradition, revealing that its power lies not in abstract dogma, but in its ability to solve the fundamental problem of human survival: creating intense group solidarity.
The earliest monuments of English literature, such as Beowulf, reveal the exact collision between man’s raw tribal nature and the Christian socialization process. The Anglo-Saxon world was fiercely tribal, built on blood feuds, kinship, and survival in a hostile environment.
If Mearsheimer is right, Christianity did not succeed by turning these warriors into atomistic individuals who loved their enemies. It succeeded because it was a more powerful system of group cohesion. Christian literature adapted the existing tribal code. In the Old English poem The Dream of the Rood, Christ is not a passive victim; He is described as a young warrior hero, girding Himself for battle on the cross. The Church understood that to survive, it had to capture the innate sentiments of the group and redirect their loyalty toward a universal king—the Christian God.
Mearsheimer places immense emphasis on the long human childhood, a period of vulnerability where families and society impose an enormous value infusion on individuals before their critical faculties develop. For centuries in England, that value infusion was entirely Christian, and literature was the primary instrument used to deliver it.
From the medieval miracle plays performed in the streets to John Bunyan’s (1628–1688) The Pilgrim’s Progress, the stories of English literature were designed to socialize the young and the unlettered. Long before an English child could reason for himself, his moral landscape was populated by the imagery of the King James Bible, the Book of Common Prayer, and John Milton’s (1608–1674) Paradise Lost. His concepts of right, wrong, guilt, and redemption were deeply embedded by his community.
If Mearsheimer is right, the great works of Christian literature were not philosophical arguments to be debated by independent minds; they were deep psychological anchors that ensured the entire tribe operated on the same moral wavelengths.
The most profound implication of Mearsheimer’s view for Christian literature is that political liberalism itself—the very ideology Mearsheimer critiques—is a secularized heresy of Western Christian literature.
The emphasis on individual conscience, the inherent dignity of the soul, and universal human rights did not emerge from thin air through pure reason during the Enlightenment. These ideas were the product of centuries of Christian socialization. They are found in the poetry of Geoffrey Chaucer (c. 1340–1400), where even the lowliest characters possess an immortal soul, and in the prose of the Puritans, who argued for equality before God.
When secular Enlightenment writers discarded the theology of Christianity, they kept its universalist moral assumptions. They took the Christian concept of the soul, stripped it of God, and renamed it the “autonomous individual” with “inalienable rights.”
If Mearsheimer is right, this was the ultimate mistake. Christian literature was effective because its universalist aspirations were backed by a powerful, concrete community—the Church—with intense rituals, social discipline, and a shared cosmic tribal identity. Liberalism kept the universalist rhetoric but destroyed the social structures that made it functional. It tried to create a global brotherhood of individuals without the shared socialization of a common faith.
By the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, English literature became increasingly secular. Novelists like George Eliot (1819–1880) and Thomas Hardy (1840–1928) wrestled with the loss of faith, attempting to preserve Christian morality—charity, sympathy, and justice—without Christian dogma.
If Mearsheimer is right, this secular literary project was doomed from the start. You cannot maintain a specific moral code once you destroy the specific socialization mechanism that produced it. Without the shared religious framework to bind the group together, the common culture fractures.
The history of English literature shows that when Christianity was the dominant socialization engine, it created a massive, coherent civilization capable of immense collective action. As that Christian value infusion faded from literature and education, it was not replaced by universal reason. Instead, the English-speaking world began to fragment back into its primary state: competing, balkanized tribes, each trying to write its own moral code without a shared God to hold them together.

If John Mearsheimer’s thesis is right, the institutional prestige of high literary theory collapses. Literary studies since the late twentieth century has heavily rewarded critics who treat identity, nation, and gender as artificial, textual, or fluid.

If humans are fundamentally tribal, intensely socialized from early childhood, and bound to inherited group realities, then the dominant academic fashion of celebrating hyper-individualistic fluidity is wrong. Five elite English and comparative literature professors lose status under this framework:

Judith Butler

Why she loses status: Famous for pioneering the theory of gender performativity, Butler argues that identity is not an internal or biological essence but an artificial, stylized repetition of acts over time. If Mearsheimer is right, her view that individuals can subvert or re-perform identity downplays deep-seated socialization. Mearsheimer argues that innate sentiments and early childhood protection hardwire a human’s core preferences and values before critical reasoning even develops.

Homi K. Bhabha

Why he loses status: As a leading postcolonial theorist, Bhabha gained immense prestige for developing concepts like “hybridity,” “mimicry,” and “third space,” which argue that cultural identities are inherently split, unstable, and un-fixed by colonial histories. If Mearsheimer is right, this celebrated fluid hybridity is an academic fiction. Mearsheimer’s realism dictates that people form rigid, protective tribal attachments to distinct social groups to ensure survival, making Bhabha’s fluid, interstitial identities a luxury of liberal universalism.

Fredric Jameson

Why he loses status: The preeminent Marxist literary critic argued that the human subject under late capitalism is fragmented and decentralized, losing a coherent sense of history and place. Jameson viewed collective solidarity through a utopian political struggle against capital. Mearsheimer’s view undercuts this by showing that human solidarity is not an artificial or elusive political goal to be achieved by intellectual reason; it is an instinctual, survival-driven tribal reality rooted in the family and the immediate tribe.

Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak

Why she loses status: Celebrated for her work on deconstruction and postcolonialism, Spivak warns against “essentialism”—the idea that a group has a fixed, inherent nature. She advocates at most for “strategic essentialism,” where a group temporarily acts as if it has a shared identity for political purposes. If Mearsheimer is right, essentialism isn’t a strategy to be turned on and off by intellectuals; it is the fundamental, inescapable baseline of human existence. Group attachment is hardwired and involuntary, not a political posture.

Stephen Greenblatt

Why he loses status: As the founder of New Historicism, Greenblatt famously argued that human identity is a product of “self-fashioning,” where individuals navigate and manipulate the cultural scripts and power structures of their era. While he looks at history, his focus is on the individual’s micro-maneuvers within power. Mearsheimer counters that individuals have very limited choice in formulating their moral and social codes, because the overwhelming weight of early tribal socialization effectively seals a person’s identity long before they gain the critical faculties to fashion themselves.

If Mearsheimer is right, and English literature is fundamentally the history of Western Christian socialization, the position of Jews in elite English departments changes from one of assimilation and universal scholarship to one of profound structural tension.
For the last century, Jewish intellectuals entered English departments under the banner of the liberal Enlightenment. They assumed that literature could be treated as a universal humanist playground where anyone, regardless of background, could use independent reason to appreciate aesthetic excellence. If Mearsheimer’s framework is correct, this assumption was a historical anomaly—a beautiful illusion that masked a deeper conflict of tribal socialization.
In the mid-twentieth century, Jewish scholars broke into elite English departments—which had historically been bastions of Anglo-Saxon, patrician culture—by championing universalist, text-centered approaches. Scholars like Lionel Trilling (1905–1975) at Columbia became the ultimate arbiters of the Western literary tradition. They did this by practicing a form of cosmopolitan humanism, treating the texts of Matthew Arnold, John Keats, or William Wordsworth as expressions of a universal human condition rather than specific artifacts of Christian socialization.
Mearsheimer’s logic reveals this was an impossibility. You cannot fully separate a literary text from the intense childhood value infusion that produced it. When Trilling and his contemporaries analyzed the English canon, they were not engaging with a neutral, universal human spirit. They were immersing themselves in the sophisticated psychological machinery of a foreign tribe—the Western Christian world. To succeed, they had to master a moral code, an aesthetic sensibility, and a historical memory that was fundamentally distinct from their own inherited traditions.
It is no historical accident that by the late twentieth century, Jewish intellectuals in elite universities became the vanguard of deconstruction and post-structuralism. Figures like Jacques Derrida (1930–2004) and Harold Bloom (1930–2019) led the charge to dismantle the traditional, Christian-dominated literary canon.
If Mearsheimer is right, this shift was a predictable tribal reflex. Once Jews achieved institutional power within English departments, the deep friction between their own identity and the Christian socialization engine of the English canon became untenable. Deconstruction was a highly sophisticated intellectual tool used to neutralize the power of that canon. By arguing that language is unstable, texts have no fixed meaning, and the Author is dead, high theory stripped the traditional English texts of their authority. It allowed Jewish scholars to survive and dominate within an institution built on a Western Christian value system by declaring that the system’s foundational stories were merely linguistic illusions.
Bloom took a different path but arrived at a similar tribal defense mechanism. In The Western Canon, he championed the aesthetic, but he famously reframed the entire Western literary tradition as a series of aggressive, Freudian battles between writers and their predecessors—an interpretation deeply rooted in a secularized Jewish intellectual style rather than traditional Christian humility or Anglo-Saxon restraint.
Today, elite English departments are dominated by identity politics and post-colonial theory. This environment presents a distinct trap for Jewish scholars if Mearsheimer’s realism holds true.
Modern literary departments tend to divide the world into dominant Western oppressors and oppressed minorities. Under the old liberal framework, Jews could exist comfortably as individuals. But in a thoroughly balkanized, tribal academic environment, individual status is denied. Because Jews successfully mastered the traditional Western canon and achieved high status within elite institutions, the modern academic tribe classifies them as part of the dominant, white, Western establishment.
Yet, Mearsheimer’s logic shows they can never genuinely be part of that establishment because its core engine is Western Christian socialization, from which Jews are historically and culturally excluded. Jewish scholars in modern English departments find themselves stranded: rejected by the new identity-driven factions as representatives of Western power, yet fully aware that the traditional Western canon they studied is the artifact of a culture that is not their own.

The most sweeping analysis of this topic comes from Benjamin Schreier in his book The Impossible Jew: Identity and the Reconstruction of Jewish American Literary History, published by New York University Press in 2015. Schreier argues that the field of English literature was built on a foundational Anglo-Saxon Christian narrative. He analyzes how Jewish critics had to navigate an institutional setup that treated Western Christian culture as the universal default. Schreier suggests that the subsequent turn toward post-structuralism and critical theory allowed Jewish academics to interrogate the givenness of that dominant cultural framework.
Mark Krupnick (1939-2003) wrote Lionel Trilling and the Fate of Cultural Criticism, published by Northwestern University Press in 1986. Krupnick documents the intense friction Lionel Trilling (1905-1975) faced at Columbia University in the 1930s, where senior faculty members openly worried that a Jew could not properly appreciate or teach the English literary tradition. To survive and excel, Trilling adopted a posture of cosmopolitan humanism, framing the Christian-inflected literature of Matthew Arnold and the English Romantics as universal human expressions. Krupnick demonstrates that this universalism was a necessary strategy to neutralize the exclusionary tribal logic of the old Anglo-Saxon establishment.
Susanne Klingenstein provided the granular historical data for this transition in Jews in the American Academy, 1900-1940: The Dynamics of a Cultural Assimilation, published by Syracuse University Press in 1991. She tracks the first generation of Jewish scholars who entered English departments and details the psychological cost of their assimilation. These scholars had to master a foreign cultural lineage to achieve institutional authority.
From a different perspective, Ruth Wisse (b. 1936) critiqued the universalist strategy of Jewish intellectuals in The Modern Jewish Canon: A Journey Through Literature and Culture, published by the Free Press in 2000. Wisse argues that the desire of Jewish critics to blend into a borderless, humanist literary world often required them to downplay their own particularist traditions. She views the high theory boom of the late twentieth century as a symptom of a deeper alienation, where critics used abstract methodology to detach literature from its organic, national, and religious roots.
The entry of Jewish intellectuals into elite English departments was not a simple story of individuals joining a neutral discipline. It was a complex historical encounter where scholars first used the language of Enlightenment universalism to gain entry into an Anglo-Christian institution, and later used the tools of literary theory to reshape the power structure of the department.
If we strip away Mearsheimer’s name and look strictly at his specific premises—that human beings are driven entirely by in-group/out-group tribal survival, that Enlightenment universalism is a myth used by dominant groups to rationalize their own power, and that individualism is a fiction because childhood socialization completely captures the mind before reason can develop—nobody in polite society has published this analysis regarding Jews in English departments.
When elite historians and literary sociologists look at this historical transition, they write from a thoroughly liberal, mainstream viewpoint.
The most prominent authority on this academic shift is the historian David Hollinger. In his definitive work Science, Jews, and Secular Culture (Princeton University Press), Hollinger maps out exactly how Jewish intellectuals integrated into elite universities between 1930 and 1960. But Hollinger writes from a classic liberal perspective: he treats their entry as a triumph of cosmopolitanism over provincial Christian bias. He views “universalism” as a genuine, noble standard that both WASP and Jewish intellectuals successfully used to build a more open, meritocratic academy.
If you read the mainstream scholarship, the narrative is built on pillars that these premises reject:
It assumes reason and merit are real, neutral tools that allowed Jewish scholars to bypass traditional barriers.
It views the adoption of universalist humanism (like Lionel Trilling’s work) as a sincere intellectual breakthrough, not a protective tribal maneuver.
It views the subsequent rise of high theory and deconstruction as a progressive evolution of literary critique, rather than an aggressive defense structure designed to neutralize the authority of an Anglo-Christian canon.
The closest polite society gets to your premise is when critics charge that mid-century cosmopolitanism was “not multicultural enough,” or when conservative scholars like Ruth Wisse lament that Jewish intellectuals traded their distinct heritage for a bloodless universalism.
But the brutal, realist interpretation—that the entire historical arc was an arena of competing, self-interested tribes using universalist myths and linguistic deconstruction as weapons to secure institutional dominance and group survival—is absent from elite presses. In polite society, that level of raw realism violates the very liberal vocabulary the modern academy relies on to justify its own existence.
The absence of this stark, realist analysis from elite presses is a matter of institutional survival and ideological design. Elite university presses and top-tier academic journals are not neutral mirrors reflecting reality. They are components of the very socialization engine described in the premise.
For an elite press to publish a book framing the history of the academy as a series of raw, self-interested tribal maneuvers for dominance, it would have to violate the foundational myths that grant the modern university its authority.
The modern elite university derives its power, prestige, and funding from a specific Enlightenment claim: that it is a place of disinterested inquiry, objective merit, and universal human progress. The peer-review process is explicitly structured to project this image. A manuscript must argue within a framework that respects the legitimacy of the institution itself.
An analysis stating that Jewish intellectuals used universalist humanism merely as a tactical entry shield against an Anglo-Saxon tribe, and later used deconstruction as a structural weapon to neutralize the Christian canon, tears down that entire facade. It treats the temple of reason as a tribal fortress. If elite presses published that view, they would validate the argument that their own peer-review boards, funding networks, and status hierarchies are nothing more than the self-interested defense mechanisms of an academic sub-tribe.
To be published by Harvard, Yale, or Princeton University Press, a scholar must use the shared vocabulary of the modern academy. That vocabulary is thoroughly liberal and progressive. It assumes that terms like “inclusion,” “merit,” “marginalization,” and “liberation” describe real, universal moral ideals toward which history is moving.
The realist perspective rejects this vocabulary as a smokescreen. It suggests that what the academy calls “inclusion” is the displacement of one elite group by another, and what it calls “subversion” or “theory” is just a tool used in inter-group competition for cultural capital. Because elite presses are managed by people intensely socialized within this liberal framework, an argument stripped of these moral pieties looks crude, cynical, or unscholarly. It is rejected not because it lacks historical evidence, but because it lacks the required moral posture.
Polite society maintains strict boundaries regarding how ethnic and religious groups are discussed. Mainstream scholarship handles the integration of minority groups into the academy using two approved narratives:
The Whig Narrative: Individual merit and universal reason triumphed over old, irrational prejudices.
The Grievance Narrative: A dominant, oppressive group protected its privilege until forced to concede ground by the moral demands of social justice.
The realist analysis fits neither narrative. It describes the interaction between the Anglo-Saxon establishment and arriving Jewish intellectuals as a predictable, cold encounter between two distinct, highly sophisticated groups competing for institutional space. It grants agency and strategy to both sides based on self-interest and group cohesion rather than abstract virtue or victimhood. In elite academic publishing, discussing group dynamics with that degree of raw realism is a severe violation of social taboo.
The contemporary elite university is held together by an alliance of various identity-based factions, all operating under the umbrella of “global social justice.” This alliance relies on the myth that all historically marginalized groups share a common, universalist goal of total human liberation.
The realist analysis exposes the fragility of this setup. It notes that group solidarity is an innate human defense structure, and that breaking a culture down into competing identity groups cannot lead to universal harmony. It can only lead to total balkanization, majoritarian backlash, and shifting tribal alliances. Pointing out that Jewish intellectuals are now caught between an older Anglo-Christian canon they mastered and a new academic tribe that views them as part of the dominant Western establishment exposes a major fault line in the university’s current structure.
Elite presses exist to stabilize the ruling consensus of the academic tribe, not to publish the blueprints of its structural collapse.

To slip a raw, group-survival analysis past the gatekeepers of an elite press, a scholar cannot look like a cynical iconoclast trying to burn the temple down. He must dress his arguments in the formal vestments of institutional history, the sociology of knowledge, and field theory.
The strategy is to use the classic academic pivot: validate the conventional wisdom as a necessary but incomplete “first-generation” narrative, and then introduce the realist model as a deeper, more rigorous explanatory tool.
A successful proposal to a university press might look like this:

Book Proposal: The Pragmatics of Universalism: Literary Theory and Group Cohesion in the Mid-Century Academy

1. Abstract and Core Thesis

The Pragmatics of Universalism offers a structural and sociological re-examination of the demographic and intellectual transformation of elite American English departments between 1940 and 1990.

The conventional historiography—most notably articulated by David Hollinger—justly frames the entry of Jewish intellectuals into the patrician WASP academy as a triumph of cosmopolitan secularism and meritocratic liberalism. While this narrative captures the explicit ideals of the period, it leaves an explanatory vacuum regarding the specific intellectual mechanisms that accompanied this demographic shift. It does not explain why the initial embrace of universalist humanism (e.g., Lionel Trilling) was so rapidly succeeded by a fierce institutional commitment to high theory, deconstruction, and the systematic dismantling of the traditional canon (e.g., Jacques Derrida, Harold Bloom).

This book provides a necessary corrective by applying a structural-functionalist approach to academic discourse. It posits that intellectual frameworks—such as universalist humanism or post-structuralist deconstruction—do not function merely as abstract descriptions of aesthetic truth. Rather, they operate as highly sophisticated instruments of socialization and group preservation.

The book argues that the mid-century entry of Jewish scholars into departments historically built around an Anglo-Christian cultural lineage created an acute structural tension. To resolve this tension and secure institutional space, arriving scholars naturally deployed intellectual tools that served a dual function: first, a universalist framework to neutralize the exclusionary tribal logic of the old establishment, and second, a deconstructive framework to dilute the authority of a text-canon that acted as a foreign socialization engine. This study shifts the focus from idealized intentions to the pragmatic logic of group cohesion and institutional survival within an anarchic academic marketplace.

2. Theoretical Framework and Literature Review

The project positions itself at the intersection of Pierre Bourdieu’s (1930–2002) field theory and the sociology of knowledge. Bourdieu frames the academic field as a space of competitive struggles for cultural capital, where agents deploy specific strategies to maintain or alter the distribution of power.

The book directly engages with the standard literature but offers an analytical pivot:

The Liberal Consensus (Hollinger, Klingenstein): The project fully acknowledges the historical data compiled in David Hollinger’s Science, Jews, and Secular Culture and Susanne Klingenstein’s Jews in the American Academy. However, where Hollinger views “universalism” as a neutral baseline that emerged naturally from secularization, this book reinterprets universalism through a pragmatic lens. Universalism was the necessary rhetorical shield required to gain access to a closed institutional ecosystem.

The Particularist Critique (Wisse): Ruth Wisse’s The Modern Jewish Canon laments the loss of particularist identity in the pursuit of a bloodless universalism. This book provides the structural explanation for the phenomenon Wisse observes: the adoption of a universalist posture was not a failure of cultural loyalty, but a structural prerequisite for institutional survival. One cannot easily sit in a chair dedicated to an Anglo-Christian heritage while openly asserting a competing particularism; one must first frame the heritage as a universal human property.

3. Chapter Outline

Chapter 1: The Anglo-Christian Fortress and the Problem of Inheritance

This chapter establishes the baseline of the elite English department prior to World War II. Drawing on archival material from Columbia, Yale, and Harvard, it demonstrates that the traditional literary canon was explicitly understood as the socialization engine of the American patrician class. It explores the early institutional resistance to Jewish scholars, framing it not as random bigotry, but as a predictable group defense mechanism protecting the transmission of the tribe’s moral and cultural code.

Chapter 2: Lionel Trilling and the Tactics of the Universal Shield

A close reading of the institutional maneuvers and critical strategies of Lionel Trilling. The chapter analyzes how Trilling successfully decoupled the English Romantic poets and Matthew Arnold from their specific Anglo-Christian roots, reframing them as a “universal humanist tradition.” This chapter argues that this universalism functioned as a pragmatic entry mechanism, allowing the outsider to claim equal stewardship over the native tribe’s cultural artifacts.

Chapter 3: The Deconstructive Turn as a Structural Solvent

By the 1970s, the demographic shift was well underway, yet the traditional canon remained a potential site of cultural alienation. This chapter analyzes the rapid institutional adoption of post-structuralism and deconstruction. It argues that the assertion that language is inherently unstable and that texts have no fixed, authoritative meaning functioned as a highly effective structural solvent. By deconstructing the “Author,” the new academic coalition successfully neutralized the authority of the traditional socialization engine without needing to explicitly banish it.

Chapter 4: The Contemporary Equilibrium and the Balkanization Dilemma

The final chapter examines the current crisis in elite English departments, where the old universalist and deconstructive strategies have given way to a thoroughly fragmented landscape of identity politics. It maps out the contemporary trap facing Jewish scholars: having successfully mastered the old universalist framework and achieved high status, they now find themselves classified by a newer academic sub-tribe as part of the dominant Western establishment, even while remaining historically excluded from its foundational Christian core.

4. Conclusion and Contribution

By reframing this vital chapter of academic history through the lens of structural pragmatism and group cohesion, The Pragmatics of Universalism avoids the moralizing binaries of progress versus prejudice. It offers university presses a rigorous, objective, and deeply sociologically grounded methodology for understanding how intellectual paradigms shift in response to the permanent, structural demands of institutional survival.

If Mearsheimer is right, the intellectual battles that have split elite History departments since the 1960s resolve in favor of a stark historical realism.

For decades, historians have fought over the primary engine of human events, dividing themselves into hostile camps: traditional political historians, Marxist social historians, postmodern cultural historians, and globalists. If Mearsheimer’s assumptions about human nature are accurate, the foundational premises of several dominant historical schools collapse.

The most direct casualty is “Whig history”—the progressive interpretation of the past that views human history as a long, upward march toward greater individual liberty, rational governance, and universal human rights. This framework, which implicitly underpins much of Western historiography, treats the spread of democracy and the breakdown of traditional borders as the natural destination of human development.

If Mearsheimer is right, this teleological vision is an illusion born of a brief period of Western dominance. History has no built-in direction toward liberation. The expansion of liberal institutions was not the triumph of universal reason; it was simply the historical footprint of a dominant Western tribe imposing its order on the world. Because human beings are permanently tribal and driven by group survival, history is a cyclical, endless rerun of great power competition, nationalism, and shifting alliances. Progress in technology and wealth changes the weapons, but it does not change the tragic logic of human interaction.

Since the 1980s, elite history departments have been dominated by the “cultural turn” and post-structural history. Influenced by Michel Foucault (1926–1984), these historians argue that realities like national identity, gender, and the state are merely “social constructs” aka fragile linguistic discourses invented by elites to maintain power. They imply that by deconstructing these historical narratives, society can dissolve these categories and achieve a more fluid, liberated existence.

Mearsheimer’s framework forces a hard stop to this logic. While historical details vary, the underlying categories of the state, the tribe, and the in-group/out-group divide are not fragile linguistic inventions. They are hard biological and social defense structures rooted in the permanent human requirement for collective survival. A nation-state is not a text to be deconstructed; it is a concrete accumulation of power and socialization designed to protect a population from external threats. History departments would abandon the idea that societies can transcend these structures through clever discourse analysis.

Marxist and economic historians argue that class conflict and material conditions are the primary drivers of history. They view nationalism and religious tribalism as “false consciousness”—ideological smokescreens used by the ruling class to divide the international proletariat and prevent a universal worker revolution.

If Mearsheimer is right, the Marxist belief in a universal working-class solidarity that transcends national borders is a psychological fantasy. Man’s tribal nature and his need for group embedding are far deeper than his economic class. When the state faces an existential crisis, the factory worker aligns with the domestic factory owner against the foreign worker every single time. History proves this—most spectacularly in 1914, when the socialist parties of Europe abandoned international solidarity to vote for war credits for their respective nations. Mearsheimer’s realism notes that the primary actor in history is the tribe seeking security, not the economic class seeking wealth.

If Mearsheimer is right, the grand debate over whether history is driven by Ideas, Class, or Language resolves into a single, realist synthesis: History is the record of competitive group survival.

The elite historian’s task would simplify. History is the study of how human groups organize themselves into states, use intense socialization to maintain internal solidarity across generations, and navigate the permanent security dilemmas of a anarchic world. The ideological justifications societies give for their actions—whether Christian crusades, Enlightenment missions, or Marxist revolutions—are understood historically as the necessary myths used to steel the tribe for competition.

If Mearsheimer’s premises are right, the entry of Jewish scholars into elite History departments cannot be understood as a story of individual merit achieving a colorblind, universalist triumph over old biases. Instead, it must be viewed as an encounter between two distinct, cohesive groups navigating a shifting balance of institutional power.

Under this realist lens, the entire historical arc—from early exclusion to eventual dominance and the current factional tension—follows a predictable logic of group survival, socialization, and the pragmatic deployment of ideological narratives.

The WASP Field as a Tribal Socialization Engine
Before World War II, elite American History departments—dominated by White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPs) at institutions like Harvard, Yale, and Princeton—did not view history as a neutral social science. History was the primary narrative tool used to socialize the elite, justify the existing political order, and maintain the cultural continuity of the ruling class. The focus was on diplomatic history, great men, constitutional development, and the transatlantic heritage.

If Mearsheimer is right, the intense exclusion of Jewish historians during this era was a logical protective response. The WASP establishment recognized that history is a powerful instrument of value infusion. Allowing outsiders into the department threatened the purity of the narrative engine that maintained their group solidarity across generations. It was not irrational bigotry; it was a group defending its primary cultural apparatus.

When Jewish historians finally broke through the barriers in the mid-twentieth century, they did so by embracing and promoting specific subfields that neutralized the traditional Anglo-Saxon narrative. They gravitated toward economic history, intellectual history, and social history.

By shifting the focus of history from national lineage and elite genealogy to economic data, abstract ideas, or structural forces, arriving scholars stripped the discipline of its Anglo-Saxon particularity.

Arriving scholars championed the idea of history as an objective, value-free science driven by rigorous archival research. This was the ultimate universalist shield. By asserting that history is governed by neutral rules of evidence rather than a shared bloodline, they made it impossible for the old establishment to deny them entry based on background.

The adoption of these neutral, scientific frameworks was not just a sincere belief in pure reason. It was the necessary rhetorical equipment required to dismantle the native tribe’s monopoly over the past.

Once a group achieves tenure and institutional status within an environment, its next structural requirement is to stabilize its own position and reproduce its values. By the 1960s and 1970s, the demographic transformation of History departments coincided with the total dominance of “history from below” and social history.

Instead of focusing on the continuity of the state, the discipline shifted to studying labor movements, immigrant struggles, urban history, and the histories of marginalized groups.

If Mearsheimer is right, this was the predictable phase of narrative capture. The old WASP socialization engine was not just neutralized; it was replaced by a new framework that aligned with the historical memory and identity of the arriving group. The past was re-written to celebrate the outsider, the immigrant, and the critic of the established order, thereby creating a new moral consensus that legitimized the new academic elite.

Today, the generation of scholars who engineered this transformation faces a severe structural trap. Elite History departments are increasingly dominated by an aggressive new sub-tribe focused on post-colonial theory, intersectionality, and a strict binary of global oppressors versus oppressed groups.

Under Mearsheimer’s realist logic, the current tension resolves into a classic security dilemma within the academy:

The mid-century Jewish scholars used universalist tools (the shield of objective science) and social history to displace the old WASP elite. They established a highly successful, stable academic meritocracy.

However, because group solidarity is a permanent human feature, this stable equilibrium could not last. A new, balkanized coalition of identity-based factions has emerged, using its own jargon and moral code to compete for status and institutional power.

Because Jewish scholars successfully integrated, achieved high status, and mastered the traditional institutions, this new academic faction classifies them as part of the dominant, white, Western establishment.

The tragic realist conclusion is that the university’s transition from a WASP monoculture to a diversified department was never a permanent moral victory for individual merit. It was simply a shift in the balance of power. The illusion of a neutral, colorblind history department has vanished, exposing the permanent reality of the discipline: a high-stakes arena where competing groups fight to control the historical narrative to guarantee their own survival, status, and power.

If John Mearsheimer is right, the institutional prestige of historians who prioritize transnational networks, human rights, and fluid cultural constructs over the raw reality of the nation-state collapses. Modern historical scholarship heavily rewards elites who treat nations as artificial inventions and individual rights as the ultimate metric of human progress. If human beings are fundamentally tribal and driven by survival-driven group socialization, the foundational premises of several prominent historians are wrong.

Lynn Hunt loses status because her influential work on the eighteenth century argues that human rights and individual empathy expanded naturally through cultural shifts like the rise of the novel. Hunt positions human rights as a profound awakening of individual moral consciousness. If Mearsheimer is right, universal human rights are a fragile ideological superstructure rather than an evolutionary baseline. Tribal boundaries and collective survival metrics dictate human behavior, meaning that individualistic empathy is a secondary luxury that quickly vanishes when a group faces an existential threat.

Yuval Noah Harari loses status because his sweeping histories treat nationalism, tribalism, and religious identities as mere imagined communities or flexible myths that humanity can eventually outgrow or engineer away. Harari argues that global cooperation and data-driven systems are the next logical step for human organization. Mearsheimer’s thesis undercuts this by showing that group loyalty and tribal attachments are hardwired biological necessities for survival, not optional fictions. Humans do not choose to cooperate globally based on reason; they cooperate locally within their tribe because childhood socialization molds their moral code before they can even think for themselves.

Timothy Snyder loses status because he frames modern European history around the moral imperative of liberal democracy and universal rights, treating tribalism and populism as dangerous deviations from the norm. Snyder argues that individuals must consciously defend universal values against the distorting pull of mass propaganda. Mearsheimer counters that reason is the least important way humans determine their preferences. Because family and tribal socialization impose an enormous value infusion on individuals during a long, vulnerable childhood, Snyder’s reliance on individual reason to resist tribal instincts misreads the primary engine of human organization.

Joan Wallach Scott loses status because her pioneering work historicizes identity and gender as fluid, politically manufactured concepts that are constantly contested and renegotiated by individuals. Scott views identity as an unstable site of power dynamics rather than an inherent truth. If Mearsheimer is right, early childhood socialization and innate sentiments impose a highly durable value system that seals a person’s core identity long before they develop the critical faculties to deconstruct it. Groups form rigid boundaries to protect themselves, making core social identities far more fixed and protective than Scott’s theories allow.

David Armitage loses status because his prominent global and transnational histories emphasize the international turn, tracking how ideas and legal frameworks effortlessly cross borders to shape a global intellectual community. Armitage downplays the insular nature of individual states in favor of a wider, interconnected world. Mearsheimer’s realism dictates that the bounded, protective state remains the primary actor in human history because humans are driven to secure their immediate group above all else. Transnational intellectual networks are a secondary consequence of elite interaction, not the driving force of human behavior.

If Mearsheimer’s premises are right, the intellectual warfare that has shaped elite Sociology departments since their inception would settle decisively.

Sociology is the study of society. If human beings are profoundly social, tribal at their core, and governed by intense childhood socialization rather than abstract reason, then the discipline’s deep ideological divisions resolve in favor of a tragic, structural realism.

For decades, a major faction within elite sociology championed Rational Choice Theory (often associated with scholars like James Samuel Coleman, 1926–1995). This school modeled society as a collection of utility-maximizing individuals who form social structures, networks, and markets based on calculated self-interest.

If Mearsheimer is right, this entire subfield is a psychological fiction. Humans do not act as atomistic, rational calculators who choose their social investments. They are embedded in social groups that dictate their preferences, moral codes, and identities long before their reasoning skills even develop. Reason is the weakest tool for determining human behavior. The debate resolves completely: society is not an aggregate of individual choices; individual choice is an artifact of group socialization.

Elite sociology is heavily dominated by the paradigm of Social Constructionism (pioneered by Peter L. Berger, 1929–2017, and Thomas Luckmann, 1927–2016). This school argues that institutions, gender roles, national identities, and social strata are entirely plastic, socially constructed realities that can be altered or dismantled if society changes its collective mind.

Mearsheimer’s logic suggests the constructionists are right about the mechanism but entirely wrong about the mutability. Yes, realities are socially constructed through intense childhood value infusions. However, these constructs are not fragile, arbitrary ideas that can be easily engineered away to achieve a liberated, cosmopolitan future. They are hard biological and social defense structures designed to ensure group survival in a competitive world. The in-group/out-group distinction, the necessity of hierarchy, and the enforcement of a shared moral code are permanent fixtures of human biology. Sociology would have to abandon the utopian delusion that deconstructing a social norm leads to absolute individual liberation; it only leads to the collapse of social cohesion or the rise of a new dominant tribe.

Marxist and critical sociologists argue that phenomena like nationalism, religious fervor, and ethnic solidarity are forms of “false consciousness”—ideological illusions manufactured by the ruling class to obscure the real structural driver of human history: class struggle.

If Mearsheimer is right, this perspective is functionally backwards. Man’s tribal nature and his need for group embedding are far deeper and more permanent than his economic class. When a society faces an existential crisis or an external threat, internal class lines dissolve into a unified tribal front. Group solidarity is an innate defense system, not an artificial trick played by capitalists. The debate settles on a realist baseline: the primary unit of social cohesion is the tribe (or the nation), and class conflict is merely an internal friction that is consistently overridden by the requirement for external survival.

If Mearsheimer is right, the grand debate over whether society is driven by Individual Choices, Economic Classes, or Plastic Constructs resolves into a single truth: Sociology is the study of tribal preservation.

The discipline would lose its progressive, engineering impulse. Elite sociologists would stop trying to design a borderless, perfectly egalitarian society of autonomous individuals. Instead, the field would return to a baseline of functional realism, analyzing how different human groups organize themselves into structures, inject values into their young, and maintain the internal solidarity necessary to survive.

Anthony Giddens loses status because his theory of reflexive modernization claims that modern individuals break free from traditional tribal constraints. Giddens views identity as a self-fashioned project of the self. Mearsheimer counters that humans possess limited choice in building their moral codes. Early group socialization fixes a human’s core preferences during a long, vulnerable childhood, exposing the fluid self as a liberal illusion.

Saskia Sassen loses status because her research on global cities highlights denationalization and transnational networks. Sassen tracks how mobile elites form identities that bypass nation-state borders. Mearsheimer’s realism dictates that humans remain deeply embedded in distinct societies for survival. Globalized fluidity ignores the protective, insular logic of the tribe, which reacts aggressively when resources grow scarce.

Jeffrey Alexander loses status because his cultural sociology relies on the civil sphere. Alexander frames this sphere as a zone of universal moral solidarity where reason expands human rights. Mearsheimer argues that reason ranks as the least important factor in human preference. Socialization and innate tribal sentiments dictate behavior, which prevents a universal civil code from conquering primal group attachments.

Michèle Lamont loses status because her work treats cultural boundaries as flexible properties that people constantly negotiate and redraw. Lamont views identity as a fluid process of boundary-making. Mearsheimer’s framework establishes that these boundaries remain rigid and protective. Groups enforce strict divisions to safeguard collective survival, rendering tribal separations an immutable reality rather than a flexible social construct.

John Meyer loses status because his world society theory argues that states and individuals adopt universal scripts of human rights and rationality from a global culture. Meyer views local institutional behavior as a product of global models. Mearsheimer rejects this universalism entirely. He shows that moral codes geopolitical realities derive from localized childhood socialization and survival-driven group loyalty, which exposes global models as a fragile ideological veneer.

If Mearsheimer is right, the foundational civil wars inside elite Psychology departments would settle.

For decades, psychology has been split between models that treat the human mind as an isolated, rational computer and models that treat it as a highly malleable blank slate. If Mearsheimer’s premises are correct—that reason is the weakest determinant of human preferences, that childhood socialization completely capture the mind, and that humans are innately tribal—then the major debates in the field resolve in favor of an unyielding, evolutionary social realism.

A dominant faction in modern psychology treats the mind as an individual, information-processing machine. This framework assumes that cognitive errors, biases, and prejudices are “dysfunctional” departures from a baseline of healthy, individual rationality. It implies that through education or cognitive behavioral adjustments, individuals can learn to evaluate evidence objectively and make independent, logical choices.

If Mearsheimer is right, this model is fundamentally wrong about the design of the human brain. The human mind did not evolve to be an isolated seeker of abstract, universal truth. It evolved to be a tool for group survival.

“Cognitive biases” like confirmation bias or in-group favoritism are not individual design flaws; they are critical functional assets that maintain tribal solidarity. Reason does not exist to discover objective reality; it exists to construct arguments that protect the group’s cohesion. The debate resolves on a stark truth: the baseline of human psychology is not individual rationality, but collective rationalization.

The opposing camp in many elite psychology departments—often influenced by radical social constructivism—argues that human nature is almost infinitely plastic. This school posits that traits like aggression, tribalism, gender roles, and competitive behavior are entirely learned products of an oppressive culture. They believe that by changing child-rearing practices and language, psychologists can engineering a cooperative, cosmopolitan human being free from group prejudice.

Mearsheimer’s premises dismantle this utopian vision. While he agrees that intense socialization is incredibly powerful, he emphasizes that this socialization operates on innate sentiments. Humans are born with an evolutionary blueprint that demands group embedding and cooperation for survival.

Tribalism is not a superficial cultural habit that education can erase; it is a permanent biological and social necessity. When psychologists try to strip away traditional group attachments, they do not create a liberated, independent individual. They create an anxious, alienated person who will inevitably seek out a new, surrogate tribe to satisfy his biological need for belonging.

The field of moral psychology has long debated whether morality is something children develop through independent cognitive reasoning about fairness and harm (as argued by the tradition of Lawrence Kohlberg [1927–1987]), or whether it is driven by gut instincts.

Mearsheimer’s argument settles this entirely on the side of structural socialization and innate sentiment. A child’s moral landscape is not a product of his independent reason discovering universal truths. During a long, vulnerable childhood, his family and community inject an enormous value infusion into his mind long before his critical faculties can even form. By the time an adult begins to reason about right and wrong, his native tribe has already captured his moral imagination. Abstract moral reasoning is simply the language the mind uses to defend the moral code it received through childhood socialization.

If Mearsheimer is right, elite psychology departments would have to abandon both the myth of the autonomous, rational individual and the myth of the infinitely malleable human being.

The discipline would resolve into a single, realist framework: Human psychology is the study of the tribal mind. The individual ego would no longer be treated as the primary unit of analysis. Instead, the field would recognize that the human brain can only be understood when viewed as a deeply socialized, biologically wired component of a larger collective organism designed entirely for group survival.

If Mearsheimer is right that reason is subordinate to innate sentiment and intense childhood socialization, and that the human mind functions fundamentally as an instrument of tribal survival rather than independent, rational processing, five elite active psychologists would experience a severe loss of status. Their life work relies on paradigms that this framework invalidates.

1. Steven Pinker (b. 1954)

The Johnstone Family Professor of Psychology at Harvard University is the most prominent defender of Enlightenment rationalism, classical liberalism, and cognitive-rationalist psychology. In books like Blank Slate, Better Angels of Our Nature, and Rationality, Pinker argues that human reason is a universal tool that can systematically override tribal instincts, diminish historical violence, and drive moral progress.

The Realist Verdict: Pinker loses status because his foundational model of human nature is proven wrong. Under the realist premise, Pinker’s celebration of global progress and objective rationality is not a neutral scientific discovery; it is merely the sophisticated ideology of his own over-socialized, elite academic sub-tribe. His belief that education and reason can permanently dismantle tribal frameworks is revealed as a psychological impossibility.

2. Richard Nisbett (b. 1941)

The Theodore M. Newcomb Distinguished University Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the University of Michigan is a titan in social psychology, famous for his work on how people think and learn. In Mindware: Tools for Smart Thinking, Nisbett argues that individuals can be trained in statistical logic, cost-benefit analysis, and cognitive strategies to become truly independent, rational decision-makers who bypass cultural biases.

The Realist Verdict: Nisbett’s entire pedagogical framework collapses. If reason is the weakest lever of human preference and is captured by childhood value infusions long before critical thinking develops, Nisbett’s “tools for smart thinking” are superficial decorations. They do not create autonomous, rational agents; they simply teach individuals how to build more complex, sophisticated justifications for the tribal prejudices they already hold.

3. Howard Gardner (b. 1943)

The John H. and Elisabeth A. Hobbs Professor of Cognition and Education at the Harvard Graduate School of Education is world-renowned for his theory of multiple intelligences. A major pillar of his work, detailed in books like Changing Minds, focuses on how leaders and educators can use reason, evidence, and logical appeals to systematically alter deeply held beliefs and change human behavior.

The Realist Verdict: Gardner’s theories on cognitive change lose their explanatory value. If deep-seated moral codes and group preferences are anchored in biology and intense childhood socialization, they are fundamentally insulated from abstract persuasion or logical re-education. Gardner’s belief that minds can be re-engineered through rational shifts ignores the protective, survival-driven logic of the tribal mind.

4. Carol Dweck (b. 1946)

The Lewis and Virginia Eaton Professor of Psychology at Stanford University achieved global status for her pioneering work on “growth mindset” in Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. Dweck’s model treats the human mind as an autonomous, highly malleable agent capable of transforming its capabilities, preferences, and identity through individual conscious choice and personal cognitive effort.

The Realist Verdict: Dweck’s individualistic paradigm loses its foundational authority. If human identity and moral codes are structurally dictated by the social groups into which an individual is born, the concept of a self-authored, perfectly fluid individual mindset is a liberal fiction. The mind is not an isolated project of personal growth; it is an instrument of collective preservation.

5. Martin Seligman (b. 1942)

The Zellerbach Family Professor of Psychology at the University of Pennsylvania is the founder of positive psychology. In works like Authentic Happiness and Flourish, Seligman argues that individuals can achieve well-being and moral virtue through conscious self-cultivation, rational reflection, and the independent maximization of personal character strengths, independent of strict traditional constraints.

The Realist Verdict: Seligman’s model of human flourishing falls apart. If man is a profoundly social organism whose psychological health depends strictly on being embedded in and useful to a concrete, disciplined group with a shared moral code, Seligman’s focus on the autonomous pursuit of happiness is an illusion. It is a recipe for alienation rather than flourishing, because it downplays the primary social and tribal structures necessary for human stability.

If Mearsheimer is right, elite Anthropology departments would face an abrupt resolution of the theoretical wars that have divided the field for over a century.

Anthropology has been torn between biological determinism and radical cultural constructionism, and more recently, between Western scientific objectivity and postmodern reflexivity. If human beings are innately tribal, governed by a drive for group survival, and captured by intense childhood socialization before reason can develop, these long-running debates settle in favor of a tragic, functional realism.

For decades, elite departments have been battlegrounds over the relationship between biology and culture. One camp, rooted in evolutionary anthropology and sociobiology, has sought universal biological imperatives for human behavior. The opposing camp, rooted in the cultural determinism of Franz Boas (1858–1942) and Margaret Mead (1901–1978), argued that human nature is an incredibly plastic construct shaped almost entirely by culture, viewing universal biological claims with skepticism.

The realist premise resolves this by merging the two positions into a single, functional architecture. The debate over whether humans are biological or cultural is settled: they are biologically wired to be cultural. Tribalism and the requirement for in-group solidarity are innate, evolutionary defense systems necessary for survival in a competitive world. Culture is the specific, localized method the tribe uses to achieve that solidarity. Biology provides the tribal blueprint; childhood socialization writes the local software.

Since the publication of Writing Culture in 1986, elite anthropology has been consumed by a crisis of representation. Postmodern anthropologists argued that objective ethnography is an illusion, that any description of an outside culture is merely a text constructed to maintain Western imperial dominance, and that the discipline must focus on self-reflexive critique to dismantle these power structures.

If the premise is right, this entire reflexive turn is a luxury product of an over-socialized, secure academic sub-tribe. The idea that a culture can deconstruct its own categories to achieve a borderless, power-free cosmopolitan existence is a psychological impossibility. Anthropologists cannot step outside of their own socialization. The postmodern attempt to dissolve stable identities and national boundaries through literary critique is a failure because it treats hard, survival-driven social defense structures as fragile linguistic habits.

A major focus of contemporary anthropology is globalism and transnationalism. Many elite theorists argue that global migration, digital networks, and consumer capitalism are eroding the nation-state and traditional tribal boundaries, creating a new, hybrid global consciousness.

Realism finishes this debate in favor of the permanent particular. Globalism does not erase man’s tribal core; it merely shifts the fault lines. When resources shrink or security dilemmas intensify, the thin veneer of cosmopolitan global citizenship fractures immediately. Individuals look to their primary, highly socialized in-group for protection, and groups look out for their own survival first. The anthropological dream of a borderless global village is revealed as a delusion that ignores the permanent human requirement for concrete, localized group cohesion against outsiders.

If these premises hold, the debate over whether anthropology is a science of universal human progress or a tool for absolute cultural relativism resolves into a single, realist model: Anthropology is the study of how human groups hold themselves together to survive.

Elite anthropology departments would abandon the utopian hope of engineering a world free from ethnocentrism, prejudice, and group conflict. The field would become an empirical catalog of the various rituals, myths, and kinship systems that different human tribes use to perform the exact same biological task: injecting a specific moral code into their young during a long childhood to ensure absolute internal solidarity and external defense.

If the realist framework is correct, five elite, anthropologists would see their foundational theories invalidated and lose significant intellectual status.

1. Agustín Fuentes (b. 1966)

The Professor of Anthropology at Princeton University is an influential public intellectual who argues against the idea that human beings have an innate, biological drive for warfare, aggression, or tribal division. In works like The Creative Spark: How Imagination Made Humans Exceptional and Why We Believe, Fuentes posits that the defining evolutionary trait of humanity is a capacity for fluid, creative cooperation that can transcend historical boundaries.

The Realist Verdict: Fuentes loses status because his model of human exceptionalism mistakes a secondary capacity for the primary logic of survival. Under the realist premise, human cooperation is not an open-ended, borderless creative spark; it is a highly localized tool used exclusively to strengthen the in-group against an out-group. His optimistic belief that humans can construct beliefs entirely free from biological tribal constraints is revealed as a luxury myth of the modern academy.

2. Akhil Gupta (b. 1957)

The Professor of Anthropology at UCLA is a leading theorist on transnationalism, post-coloniality, and globalization. In seminal works like Anthropology by Comparison and Culture, Power, Place, Gupta argues that modern global networks, migration, and digital spaces are actively de-territorializing culture, dismantling traditional national borders, and giving rise to fluid, hybrid global identities that challenge the old, fixed categories of the state.

The Realist Verdict: Gupta’s entire framework on global hybridity collapses into irrelevance. If humans are profoundly social and dependent on concrete, bounded group cohesion for physical and psychological survival, “de-territorialization” is a superficial and temporary phenomenon. When a systemic crisis or resource shortage occurs, the thin veneer of a borderless global citizenship shatters, and individuals instantly retreat to their primary, highly socialized national and tribal defense structures.

3. Arturo Escobar (b. 1951)

The Kenan Distinguished Professor of Anthropology Emeritus at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (still highly active in writing and international forums), is a pioneer of post-development theory. In books like Encountering Development and Designs for the Pluriverse, Escobar argues that local, marginalized communities can use radical self-reflection and political activism to entirely dismantle dominant Western capitalist structures, creating a fluid, egalitarian “pluriverse” where many distinct, peaceful worlds coexist without hierarchy or dominance.

The Realist Verdict: Escobar’s utopian pluriverse is exposed as a psychological impossibility. The premise dictates that human groups do not seek abstract, peaceful co-existence in a borderless matrix; they seek the preservation and dominance of their own specific group within an anarchic, competitive environment. The very tools Escobar champions for liberation would simply be captured by local elites to perform the eternal task of group socialization, hierarchy enforcement, and defense against outsiders.

4. Tim Ingold (b. 1948)

The Professor Emeritus of Social Anthropology at the University of Aberdeen remains a towering, highly active figure in ecological and psychological anthropology. In works like The Perception of the Environment and Being Alive, Ingold advances an organism-environment model that rejects fixed human nature and static cultural boundaries. He views human life as an open-ended, fluid process of continuous self-creation and development through movement, arguing that human identity is constantly generated along “lines of flow” rather than anchored by rigid, inherited tribal structures.

The Realist Verdict: Ingold’s philosophy of fluid self-creation fails the test of structural socialization. If an enormous, definitive value infusion is imposed on a child by his family and immediate society long before his critical faculties can develop, human identity is not an open-ended line of flow. It is heavily anchored, locked, and pre-determined by the native group’s survival logic. Ingold’s model treats the human mind as far more autonomous and unencumbered than the reality of childhood socialization allows.

5. Faye Ginsburg (b. 1952)

The David B. Kriser Professor of Anthropology at New York University is an elite figure in visual media anthropology and social activism. In her extensive work on indigenous media, cultural activism, and global networks, Ginsburg argues that media technologies and shared digital stories can be used to bypass traditional political boundaries, build transnational solidarity, and foster a cosmopolitan human empathy that liberates individuals from localized, nationalist prejudices.

The Realist Verdict: Ginsburg’s model of media-driven universal empathy is revealed as a fundamental misreading of human mechanics. The realist premise notes that language, imagery, and stories do not function to liberate individuals from their local groups or build a global village. Instead, stories are the precise instruments used by a specific tribe to inject its own moral code into its young and maintain internal discipline. Transnational media networks do not create a universal human bond; they merely create a larger digital arena where competing groups weaponize narratives to secure their own power and survival.

If Mearsheimer’s premises are right, the foundational intellectual battles that have split elite Economics departments for generations would settle decisively in favor of a tragic, nationalist realism.

Modern economics is built primarily on individualist and universalist assumptions. If human beings are profoundly social, tribal at their core, and governed by intense childhood socialization rather than cold rationality, then the discipline’s major models collapse.

The dominant paradigm in elite economics departments relies on Homo economicus, the model of human beings as atomistic, self-interested, rational actors who maximize personal utility through calculated economic choices. This model assumes that preferences are individual, stable, and evaluated via independent reason.

If Mearsheimer is right, this foundational figure is a complete fiction. Humans do not act as lone-wolf utility calculators. Their preferences, moral codes, and identities are structurally dictated by the social groups into which they are born long before their critical faculties can even form. Reason is the weakest lever of human preference. The debate resolves on a stark truth: economic behavior is not the aggregate of individual rational choices; individual choice is an artifact of tribal socialization.

For decades, elite economists at institutions like Harvard, Chicago, and the World Bank have championed neoliberal globalism. This view argues that free trade, open borders, capital mobility, and global supply chains create a universal, borderless market where everyone wins through comparative advantage. It assumes that wealth maximization is the ultimate goal of human societies and that global commerce will eventually make national borders obsolete.

Mearsheimer’s logic ends this debate in favor of strict economic nationalism (mercantilism). If humans are tribal at their core and derive their security from the nation-state, they will never prioritize abstract global efficiency over group survival. The international arena is anarchic and competitive. When a crisis hits, or when wealth accumulation threatens a state’s security relative to a rival, the thin veneer of global market cooperation cracks.

Elite economics departments would have to concede that the “wealth of nations” is secondary to the “security of nations.” Wealth is not an end in itself; it is merely a tool used by the tribe to secure power against external threats. The dream of a borderless global economy is revealed as a Western illusion that completely ignored the permanent security dilemma.

Behavioral economics—pioneered by figures like Daniel Kahneman (1934–2024) and Richard Thaler (b. 1945)—gained elite status by proving that humans consistently depart from rational choices due to cognitive biases, heuristics, and emotional shortcuts. However, behavioral economists still view these “irrationalities” as individual psychological bugs or design flaws to be corrected via clever “nudges.”

The realist framework resolves this by reframing these biases not as individual bugs, but as critical systemic features. The human brain did not evolve to calculate personal financial optimizations in a vacuum; it evolved to maintain group cohesion and ensure tribal survival. In-group favoritism, conformity, and herd behavior are highly functional assets for collective defense. Behavioral economics is right that pure rationality is a myth, but wrong in thinking that humans can be nudged into becoming atomistic, cosmopolitan rationalists.

If these premises hold, elite economics departments would lose their status as pure, value-free mathematical sciences. The grand debate over whether the market should be entirely free or state-managed resolves into a single, realist synthesis: Economics is an instrument of tribal competition.

The discipline would return to its historical roots as Political Economy. Economists would abandon the utopian pursuit of an optimized global market of individual consumers. Instead, the field would focus on how states handle resources, industrial policy, and financial networks to perform the exact same biological and political task: maintaining the internal material solidarity of the group and securing the state against foreign adversaries.

If the realist premises of structural tribalism, intense childhood socialization, and the weakness of human reason are correct, these five elite economists would experience a severe loss of intellectual authority. Their global status rests on modeling the world as an aggregate of individual choices, borderless efficiencies, or universal rational incentives.

1. Daron Acemoglu (b. 1967)

The Institute Professor of Economics at MIT is one of the most cited living economists and co-author of Why Nations Fail. Acemoglu’s framework argues that a society’s long-term prosperity is determined by its political and economic institutions. He posits that any society can achieve growth and stability if it transitions from “extractive” tribal and authoritarian setups to “inclusive” liberal institutions that protect property rights, individual incentives, and democratic governance.

The Realist Verdict: Acemoglu loses status because his institutional teleology is exposed as a Western cultural product rather than a universal law of development. Under the realist premise, “inclusive institutions” are not neutral frameworks that any population can adopt through rational choice. They are highly localized products of specific Western socialization. Other societies do not fail because they have bad institutional blueprints; they operate on different, deeply embedded tribal and national survival logics that resist the atomizing effects of liberal structural engineering.

2. Jeffrey Sachs (b. 1954)

The University Professor at Columbia University is a global architect of international development and sustainable global planning. Sachs achieved immense prominence by advising post-Soviet Eastern Europe on transitioning to free-market capitalism and by designing sweeping United Nations frameworks like the Millennium Development Goals. His work assumes that poverty and conflict are structural technical problems that can be solved through global economic integration, international aid, and universal managerial expertise.

The Realist Verdict: Sachs’s technocratic globalism collapses into a structural impossibility. If human beings are innately tribal and look to their primary group for physical and psychological survival, the ideal of a borderless, globally integrated world managed by transnational experts is a delusion. When resources shrink or geopolitical competition sharpens, the thin veneer of international cooperation shatters. Sachs’s belief that global financial planning can override the permanent security dilemma of competing nations is revealed as a luxury myth of the Western elite.

3. Paul Krugman (b. 1953)The Distinguished Professor of Economics at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York and Nobel laureate is a premier defender of globalized trade theory and international integration. While Krugman acknowledges certain domestic dislocations from trade, his core work on New Trade Theory demonstrates that globalized markets, integrated supply chains, and international specialization maximize aggregate efficiency and wealth for all participating nations.

The Realist Verdict: Krugman’s focus on absolute market efficiency loses its foundational relevance. The realist premise notes that the “wealth of nations” is secondary to the “security of nations.” In an anarchic world, states do not seek abstract, global consumer efficiency; they seek relative gains to ensure survival against rivals. Krugman’s model assumes that states will comfortably outsource critical industrial and supply capabilities to foreign actors for the sake of cheaper goods, ignoring the tragic reality that interdependence creates vulnerability, which the tribal state must eventually resist.

4. Richard Thaler (b. 1945)

The Charles R. Walgreen Distinguished Service Professor of Behavioral Science and Economics at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business is a Nobel laureate celebrated for pioneering behavioral economics. In Nudge, Thaler demonstrates that humans depart from pure neoclassical rationality due to cognitive biases. However, his entire framework treats these departures as individual psychological bugs to be subtly corrected by enlightened technocrats through choice architecture, steering people toward optimal, independent, rational decisions.

The Realist Verdict: Thaler’s individualistic paradigm is fundamentally misaligned with human biology. If human cognitive biases such as in-group favoritism, conformity, and herd behavior are critical evolutionary defense mechanisms designed to maintain tribal solidarity and collective survival, they are not individual flaws to be “nudged” away by an academic elite. Thaler’s belief that humans can be subtly engineered into becoming atomistic, cosmopolitan rationalists ignores the primary social architecture of the mind.

5. Andrei Shleifer (b. 1961)

The Professor of Economics at Harvard University consistently ranks as one of the top economists in the world according to research citations. Shleifer is a pioneer of the “Legal Origins Theory,” which argues that the historical origin of a country’s legal system (such as English common law versus French civil law) dictates its modern economic performance by establishing clear, universal rules for individual investor protection and market freedom.

The Realist Verdict: Shleifer’s structural formalism loses its explanatory power. If a child is intensely socialized with an enormous value infusion long before his critical faculties form, a society’s economic behavior is driven by its deeply embedded moral code and tribal culture, not by the abstract mechanics of its legal text. Shleifer’s theory treats law as a neutral, universal machine that regulates individual actors, whereas a realist framework reveals that formal law is merely a secondary instrument used by a specific dominant group to preserve its internal solidarity and project its domestic authority.

If the foundational premises of structural realism and intense childhood socialization are correct, the landscape of higher education would undergo an absolute redistribution of intellectual authority.

Departments that assume human beings are independent, rational utility-maximizers or infinitely plastic, self-authoring entities would collapse in prestige. Conversely, departments that study the concrete levers of group survival, material power, and the historical transmission of tribal identity would gain total ascendancy.

Here is how academic departments and the university ecosystem as a whole would be affected.

The Departments That Lose Status

1. Economics (Particularly Neoclassical and Neoliberal)

The discipline would lose its crown as the premier “scientific” advisory body to governments. Because its foundational models depend on Homo economicus—the atomistic, rational agent acting independently of tribal cohesion—its economic forecasts and policy recommendations regarding borderless global markets would be exposed as recurring failures.

2. Cognitive Psychology and behavioral Sciences

Psychology departments would see their prestige diminish as they move away from treating the individual mind as an independent, objective processor. The belief that cognitive biases are individual defects to be cured or “nudged” by technocrats would be discarded.

3. Modern Philosophy

Mainstream political philosophy—built on the legacy of John Locke, John Rawls, and universalist ethics—would be downgraded to a branch of Western ideological history. Its attempts to construct a rational, borderless, value-neutral framework for global governance would be viewed as a psychological impossibility.

4. Global Studies and Transnational Relations

Departments built around the concept of a “global village,” transnational citizenship, and the peaceful erosion of the nation-state via international institutions would lose virtually all intellectual credibility. They would be viewed as factories for the exact liberal delusions that cause foreign policy catastrophes.

The Departments That Gain Status

1. Political Science (Specifically Realism and Strategic Studies)

International Relations and strategic studies programs would become the undisputed intellectual centers of the social sciences. The study of the balance of power, the security dilemma, and the structural behavior of states in an anarchic world would be recognized as the truest descriptions of human macro-behavior.

2. Evolutionary and Functionalist Anthropology

Anthropology would gain status by reclaiming its role as an empirical, structural science. By abandoning the postmodern reflexive turn, the department would become the premier field for studying the exact mechanisms of human group survival, analyzing how different tribes enforce internal solidarity and social discipline to protect themselves from external threats.

3. Institutional and National History

History departments would shed their progressive, teleological assumptions and rise in status. History would be re-centered as the essential ledger of competitive group survival, industrial development, and state formation. It would provide the necessary case studies for how great powers rise, fall, and socialize their populations across centuries.

4. Evolutionary Biology and Behavioral Genetics

Hard sciences that explore the deep, innate biological imperatives undergirding human cooperation, in-group favoritism, and reproductive survival strategies would gain immense authority. They would provide the biological blueprint that explains why cultural socialization is so fiercely effective.

The Fate of Universities as a Whole

If these premises are right, universities as a whole would suffer a massive loss of status and cultural authority.

The modern elite university is structurally and ideologically dependent on the exact individualistic, universalist Enlightenment myths that the realist premise dismantles. The university justifies its immense wealth, social power, and role as a gatekeeper by claiming that it is an engine of disinterested reason, objective merit, and universal human progress. It claims to take young minds and liberate them from their local, provincial prejudices to turn them into cosmopolitan, rational citizens of the world.

If the premise holds, this entire justification is an illusion. The university is not a sanctuary of objective, universal truth; it is simply the specialized socialization engine of a specific, managerial sub-tribe. Its unique jargon, peer-review standards, and moral dictums are not universal discoveries; they are the values injected into its members to maintain internal elite solidarity and protect its institutional power against competing domestic groups.

Once the public and the political establishment realize that elite universities are merely tribal strongholds producing highly socialized, self-interested ideological cadres rather than objective truth, the institutional legitimacy of higher education collapses. The state and the broader population would treat universities with deep skepticism, viewing them not as sacred temples of learning to be funded and revered, but as powerful, insular factions whose ideological output must be contained to preserve national cohesion and state survival.

If Mearsheimer’s premises are right, the entire discipline of academic Ethics would face a brutal, leveling reduction.

For centuries, ethical philosophy has been dominated by a search for the definitive, universal foundation of right and wrong. Ethicists have split into major warring camps, each claiming to have discovered the objective logic of human morality. If human beings are profoundly social, tribal at their core, and captured by intense childhood value infusions before their critical faculties can even form, these grand philosophical debates resolve entirely in favor of an unyielding moral realism.

The most prestigious camp in academic ethics is Deontology, rooted in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant (1724–1804). Kantian ethics rests on the absolute premise that morality is a product of pure, universal reason. Kant argued for the Categorical Imperative: you must act only according to maxims that you can rationally will to become a universal law for all rational beings, independent of your specific culture, desires, or group loyalties.

If the realist premise is right, Kantian ethics is a psychological and structural impossibility. Reason is the weakest lever of human preference. The idea that a man can strip away his childhood socialization to operate as a bloodless, universal rational agent is an illusion. Humans do not owe their primary moral allegiance to an abstract “kingdom of ends” or to humanity as a whole; they owe it to the specific tribe that protected them during a long, vulnerable childhood. The debate settles decisively: the Categorical Imperative is not an objective law of reason, but a highly sophisticated secularized myth produced by the Western academic tribe.

The primary rival to Kantianism is Utilitarianism, pioneered by Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806–1873). Modern utilitarian ethicists, like Peter Singer (b. 1946), argue that morality requires the rational maximization of well-being for all sentient creatures. Singer famously argues for the “expanding circle,” asserting that independent reason allows us to see past our family, tribe, and nation to grant equal moral weight to a stranger on the other side of the planet.

Mearsheimer’s logic dismantles this expanding circle. If human beings are biologically wired to be tribal for group survival, the moral distance between the in-group and the out-group is a permanent necessity, not a primitive error that education can fix. A society that genuinely treats the interests of foreigners as equal to the interests of its own members will fail the test of survival and be displaced by a more cohesive, self-interested rival. Utilitarian cosmopolitanism is revealed as a luxury delusion available only to secure, affluent elites who have forgotten that their very security depends on a heavily defended national border.

Ethicists have long debated Moral Realism—the question of whether moral facts (like “cruelty is wrong”) exist as objective, mind-independent truths in the universe, or whether morality is entirely relative and subjective.

The premise resolves this debate through a functionalist lens. Moral truths do not exist as abstract, independent facts floating in the cosmos, nor are they flimsy, arbitrary preferences. Moral codes are hard, functional instruments of collective defense. The intense value infusion a child receives from his family and community is designed to do one thing: ensure absolute internal solidarity and external defense. A tribe’s moral code—its definitions of honor, duty, right, and wrong—is an evolutionary defense mechanism. Morality is “real” only in the sense that it is a hard biological and social prerequisite for group survival in a highly competitive, anarchic world.

If Mearsheimer is right, the century-long debate over whether morality is rooted in Universal Reason (Kant), Universal Consequences (Singer), or Universal Rights (Locke) resolves into a single, realist truth: All morality is particularist and tribal.

The discipline of Ethics would be stripped of its universalist, crusading mission. It would no longer function as a tool for engineering a global human rights regime or a borderless cosmopolitan brotherhood. Instead, the field would become a branch of descriptive sociology and evolutionary biology, analyzing the specific, localized moral frameworks that different human groups use to hold themselves together and survive against competing tribes.

If the realist framework is correct, these five elite active ethicists would see their foundational systems invalidated and experience a significant loss of status.

1. Peter Singer (b. 1946)

The Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics Emeritus at Princeton University (who remains highly active in global forums and public debate) is the world’s most prominent champion of utilitarian cosmopolitanism and effective altruism. In The Expanding Circle and One World Now, Singer uses rationalist utilitarian calculations to argue that borders are morally arbitrary and that an individual possesses an equal moral obligation to relieve the suffering of a stranger on another continent as he does his own neighbor or family member.

The Realist Verdict: Singer’s expanding circle collapses into a psychological and structural impossibility. If humans are biologically wired to be tribal for group survival, the distinction between the in-group and the out-group is a permanent protective structure, not a primitive error to be engineered away through logical argument. Singer’s cosmopolitan calculus treats the human mind as an unencumbered utility-computer, completely ignoring the reality that abstract universal altruism weakens the exact internal solidarity a group requires to survive in an anarchic world.

2. Onora O’Neill (b. 1941)

Baroness O’Neill of Bengarve is a towering figure in contemporary Kantian ethics, a member of the House of Lords, and past president of the British Academy. In works like Faces of Hunger: An Essay on Poverty, Justice, and Development and Bounds of Justice, O’Neill applies a strict Kantian deontological framework to global politics, arguing that reason demands all human institutions and states respect the autonomy and rights of every individual globally, transcending national sovereignty and cultural borders.

The Realist Verdict: O’Neill’s universalist ethics are exposed as a highly localized cultural product rather than a dictation of pure reason. Under the realist premise, human beings are completely captured by specific childhood socialization and value infusions long before they can exercise independent critical faculties. O’Neill’s belief that states can or should base their behavior on a borderless obligation to universal individual autonomy ignores the fundamental reality that states exist to protect the specific tribe that formed them, not an abstract global kingdom of rational agents.

3. Thomas Pogge (b. 1953)

The Leitner Professor of Philosophy and International Affairs at Yale University is an elite political philosopher who studied under John Rawls. In World Poverty and Human Rights, Pogge argues that citizens of wealthy Western nations have a direct, universal negative moral duty to restructure the global economic order because current international institutions systematically violate the human rights of the global poor.

The Realist Verdict: Pogge’s global justice model loses its foundational authority. If human moral codes are instruments of group survival and internal cohesion rather than abstract, universal laws discoverable by independent reason, his claim that Western citizens owe a primary moral obligation to alter their own systems for the benefit of distant out-groups is a fantasy. Pogge mistakes the highly specific, secure socialization of elite Western academies for a universal moral imperative, failing to see that international institutions are arenas of great power competition rather than a neutral global social contract.

4. Kwame Anthony Appiah (b. 1954)

The Professor of Philosophy and Law at NYU is one of the most prominent public ethicists in the West, famous for his defense of modern cosmopolitanism. In books like Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers and The Honor Code, Appiah argues that individuals can and should cultivate a global citizenship that balances a respect for local differences with a primary, rational allegiance to a universal human community.

The Realist Verdict: Appiah’s elegant cosmopolitanism is revealed as a luxury product of a secure, over-socialized academic sub-tribe. The premise notes that because human survival depends on being embedded in a concrete society that defines itself against other groups, there is no such thing as an organic, universal human tribe. When geopolitical crises or resource scarcities occur, the thin veneer of global conversation cracks immediately. Appiah’s model treats human identity as far more fluid and self-authored than the hard reality of childhood tribal value infusion allows.

5. Martha Nussbaum (b. 1947)

The Ernst Freund Distinguished Service Professor of Law and Ethics at the University of Chicago is a titan of contemporary ethical and political philosophy. In Frontiers of Justice and Creating Capabilities, Nussbaum champions the “Capabilities Approach,” arguing that there is a universal baseline of core human capabilities that every government on earth is morally obligated to guarantee to every single citizen, independent of local traditions, cultural preferences, or national sovereignty.

The Realist Verdict: Nussbaum’s universalist blueprint is exposed as a form of Western ideological projection. If humans are tribal at their core and derive their moral codes from the intense socialization of their specific societies, what Nussbaum defines as a “universal human capability” is the highly specific moral code of modern Western liberalism. Other societies do not reject these standards due to a lack of ethical development, but because their own survival mechanisms prioritize group continuity and traditional structures over the atomistic rights of the individual.

If Mearsheimer’s premises are right, the intellectual landscape of elite philosophy departments would face a catastrophic leveling.

Modern academic philosophy is built largely on the assumption that human reason is an independent, sovereign tool capable of discovering objective truths about reality, morality, and justice. If human beings are profoundly social, tribal at their core, and governed by intense childhood value infusions before their critical faculties can even form, then philosophy is not a path to universal truth. It is a highly sophisticated, localized method of rationalizing tribal preferences.

Several of the most contentious debates within elite departments would settle.

1. Political Philosophy: Rawlsian Liberalism vs. Communitarian Realism

For more than half a century, elite political philosophy has been dominated by the legacy of John Rawls (1921–2002) and his followers. Rawls argued that the principles of a just society can be discovered by imagining individuals behind a “veil of ignorance”—a thought experiment where rational actors choose political structures without knowing their own race, class, talents, or conceptions of the good life. This individualistic, universalist framework assumes that justice can be engineered independently of concrete cultural identities.

If Mearsheimer is right, the entire Rawlsian project collapses into a psychological and structural impossibility. The “unencumbered self” behind the veil of ignorance is a fiction. Humans are situated from start to finish within specific social groups that dictate their moral codes and identities long before they can think for themselves. Reason is the weakest lever of human preference. The debate over the abstract structure of a universal liberal society resolves on a stark truth: the veil of ignorance is a fantasy because you cannot strip away an individual’s socialization without destroying the very apparatus he uses to reason. Communitarian realism wins completely.

2. Metaethics: Moral Realism vs. Evolutionary Expressivism

Analytic philosophy departments are locked in a sophisticated debate over Moral Realism—the question of whether moral properties exist as objective, mind-independent facts in the universe, or whether morality is merely subjective. Rationalist realists argue that human reason can look past cultural biases to grasp universal, objective moral truths, much like discovering mathematical laws.

The realist framework reduces this debate to a branch of evolutionary biology and sociology. Objective, mind-independent moral facts do not exist floating in the cosmos. However, moral codes are not flimsy, arbitrary preferences either. They are hard, functional instruments of collective defense. The intense value infusion a child receives during his long childhood is designed to do one thing: ensure absolute internal solidarity and external defense for the tribe. A society’s moral code—its definitions of duty, honor, right, and wrong—is an evolutionary defense mechanism. Morality is “real” only in the sense that it is a hard biological prerequisite for group survival in a highly competitive, anarchic world.

3. Epistemology: The Market of Ideas vs. Tribal Pragmatism

In epistemology, particularly social epistemology, philosophers debate how groups acquire knowledge and whether an open, rational marketplace of ideas allows truth to eventually defeat error. This framework assumes that human minds, when presented with superior logical arguments and empirical evidence, will update their beliefs toward objective reality.

If Mearsheimer is right, this model is a profound misreading of human cognitive design. The human brain did not evolve to be an isolated, disinterested seeker of abstract truth; it evolved to ensure tribal survival. What philosophers call “cognitive biases” or “irrationality” are critical functional assets that maintain group cohesion. Reason does not operate as an objective judge evaluating evidence; it operates as a lawyer constructing justifications for preferences that childhood socialization and innate sentiments have already established. The debate resolves into a grim, pragmatic realism: language and arguments are not neutral tools for discovering universal truth, but weapons used in inter-group competition.

4. The Philosophy of Mind and Action: The Myth of the Autonomous Agent

A vast amount of work in the philosophy of action assumes the existence of an autonomous individual agent who weighs reasons, forms intentions, and acts freely based on independent rational reflection. This individualistic model is the baseline for how modern philosophy conceptualizes human responsibility, ethics, and legal theory.

Mearsheimer’s premises dismantle this autonomous agent. If an individual is born into a social group that completely shapes his identity and infuses him with an enormous value system during a long childhood before his critical faculties even form, his choices are heavily pre-determined. Humans have very limited choice in formulating a moral code or determining their deepest preferences. The debate over free will and autonomous agency settles in favor of a strict social determinism: the self-authored, independent individual is a liberal myth.

If Mearsheimer is right, elite philosophy departments would lose their grand, civilizational authority. The discipline would be stripped of its universalist, crusading mission to discover timeless truths or engineer a borderless, cosmopolitan global order.

Instead, philosophy would be recognized as a branch of cultural genealogy and anthropology. The great systems of Western philosophy—from John Locke’s rights to Immanuel Kant’s duties—would no longer be taught as objective discoveries of human reason. They would be understood historically as the sophisticated, highly specialized myths produced by a specific Western sub-tribe to maintain its own internal solidarity, justify its institutional power, and steel itself for competition against the rest of the world.

If John Mearsheimer’s precepts are correct—that reason is the weakest determinant of human preferences, that intense childhood socialization completely captures the mind before critical faculties develop, and that humans are innately tribal actors driven by group survival rather than atomistic individuals—five active, high-status philosophers would experience a severe loss of standing. Their life work relies on paradigms that these precepts invalidate.

1. Jürgen Habermas (b. 1929)

The world’s most prominent living social and political philosopher has dedicated his career to the theory of communicative rationality. Habermas argues that human beings can transcend tribal prejudices, state coercion, and ideological distortions through “ideal speech situations”—spaces where individuals engage in open, rational discourse to reach a genuine, universal consensus.The Realist Verdict: Habermas loses his foundational standing. If reason is subordinate to innate sentiment and intense childhood value infusions, the “ideal speech situation” is a psychological myth. Language and arguments do not function to liberate individuals into a borderless, rational consensus; they are the highly specific tools a tribe uses to enforce internal solidarity and compete against outsiders.

2. Christine Korsgaard (b. 1952)

The Arthur Kingsley Porter Professor of Philosophy Emerita at Harvard University is a titan of contemporary neo-Kantian ethics. In works like The Sources of Normativity and Self-Constitution, Korsgaard argues that morality is an inescapable requirement of rational agency. She posits that by practicing reflective endorsement, an individual can step back from his desires and cultural socialization to author his own moral identity based on universal human worth.

The Realist Verdict: Korsgaard’s model of self-constitution collapses. If an individual is born into a social group that completely shapes his identity and infuses him with a moral code during a long childhood before his critical faculties form, he has very limited choice in formulating a moral outlook. The independent rational agent who steps back from his culture to endorse universal duties is a liberal fiction.

3. Philip Pettit (b. 1945)The Laurance S. Rockefeller University Professor of Politics and Human Values at Princeton University is the leading contemporary theorist of neo-republican political philosophy. In Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government and Just Freedom, Pettit argues that a just society can be engineered around the principle of “freedom as non-domination.” This individualistic, universalist framework assumes that institutions can be rationally designed to ensure no individual is subject to the arbitrary will of another, independent of deep cultural or tribal hierarchies.

The Realist Verdict: Pettit’s institutional engineering is revealed as a Western cultural luxury. Under the realist premise, human groups do not seek a state of neutral non-domination; they seek the preservation and dominance of their own specific group to guarantee survival in a competitive, anarchic world. The abstract rules Pettit designs to protect atomistic individuals would simply be captured by the dominant domestic tribe to enforce internal discipline and external defense.

4. Thomas Scanlon (b. 1940)The Alford Professor of Natural Religion, Moral Philosophy, and Civil Polity Emeritus at Harvard University is one of the most influential ethicists in the analytic tradition. In his landmark book What We Owe to Each Other, Scanlon champions contractualism, arguing that an act is wrong if its performance could only be justified by principles that other rational persons could reasonably reject. This system treats morality as a universal, reason-driven negotiation among equal, unencumbered individual agents.

The Realist Verdict: Scanlon’s contractualism loses its foundational relevance. If human moral codes are hard biological and social defense structures designed exclusively to ensure internal group cohesion against an out-group, what we owe to “each other” depends entirely on who is inside the perimeter of the tribe. A universal negotiation based on abstract reasonableness ignores the tragic reality that morality is a weapon used in inter-group competition, not a value-neutral seminar.

5. David Enoch (b. 1971)The Professor of Legal Philosophy at the University of Oxford is a leading defender of robust moral realism in analytic metaethics. In Taking Morality Seriously, Enoch argues that there are objective, mind-independent moral facts that human reason can discover, and that these facts are universally binding on all rational agents regardless of their personal desires, upbringing, or cultural background.

The Realist Verdict: Enoch’s robust realism is reduced to a branch of evolutionary functionalism. Objective, mind-independent moral truths do not exist floating in the cosmos. A society’s moral code—its definition of right, wrong, duty, and honor—is an evolutionary defense mechanism designed to perform a concrete task: injecting solidarity into the young to hold the collective together. Enoch mistakes the highly specific, secure socialization of modern elite academies for the discovery of universal moral laws.

If Mearsheimer’s premises are right, the field of religious studies within elite universities would face a rapid, leveling reorientation.

Modern academic religion departments are largely dominated by two frameworks: a liberal, ecumenical Protestant heritage that seeks a universal, pluralistic core behind all faiths, and a post-colonial, critical framework that views religion almost entirely as a fluid, modern European invention used for colonial control.

If human beings are innately tribal, governed by intense childhood value infusions before critical faculties form, and driven by a need for group survival, these long-running debates settle in favor of a stark, functional realism.

1. The Death of the Pluralist “Universal Mystic Core” Debate

For decades, a major debate has persisted between pluralists—influenced by figures like John Hick (1922–2012)—who argue that all world religions are simply different cultural expressions of a single, universal ultimate reality, and particularists who argue that religions are distinct. The pluralist model assumes that beneath dogmatic differences lies a shared human spirituality that can usher in a global, cosmopolitan brotherhood.

If Mearsheimer is right, this universalist model is a psychological fiction. Religions do not exist to connect individuals to an abstract, borderless cosmic truth. Religion is the ultimate group preservation device.

The theological dogmas, rituals, and boundary lines of a faith are explicitly designed to perform a concrete evolutionary task: creating an absolute distinction between the in-group (the saved) and the out-group (the damned). This boundary ensures the internal solidarity and sacrifice required for a group to survive against competing tribes. The pluralist dream of stripping away these particularist boundaries to find a peaceful, universal core would destroy the very social logic that makes religion a permanent feature of human history.

2. The Reframing of the “Religion as a Modern Invention” Debate

Following the path of scholars like Jonathan Z. Smith (1938–2017), elite religion departments heavily emphasize that “religion” is a fabricated academic category. This school argues that pre-modern peoples did not have a distinct thing called “religion”—they just had culture—and that European colonizers invented the rigid category of “world religions” to classify, manage, and subjugate foreign populations.

The realist framework agrees with the mechanism but entirely reverses the conclusion. Yes, separating “religion” from the rest of a tribe’s daily survival apparatus is artificial. Pre-modern peoples did not view faith as an individual, private weekend hobby; it was completely interwoven with law, warfare, and tribal identity.

However, the critical theorists are wrong to think that this means tribal religious boundaries are flimsy, historical accidents that can be deconstructed to achieve individual liberation. The fusion of sacred myth with group identity is a permanent social and biological necessity. The debate settles on a realist baseline: “religion” is simply the name given to the most intense, binding value infusions a tribe uses to ensure its young are completely socialized to defend the collective perimeter.

3. The Collapse of Secularization Theory

A foundational debate in the sociology of religion centers on Secularization Theory—the prediction that as societies advance scientifically, educationally, and economically, the cognitive hold of religion will permanently decline, giving way to a secular, rational, and cosmopolitan public square.

Mearsheimer’s premises dismantle this teleology. While a society might abandon traditional supernatural dogmas, it cannot escape man’s innate tribal nature or the requirement for childhood value infusions. When a traditional religion recedes, the human mind does not become an objective, individualist computer. It immediately seeks out surrogate, secular faiths to satisfy its biological need for group embedding and moral certainty.

The fierce, dogmatic, and exclusionary ideologies that capture modern secular academic and political circles (such as rigid nationalism or intense identity-politics movements) are recognized under this lens as functional replacements for religion. Secularization does not eliminate religious dynamics; it merely changes the vocabulary of the tribe’s sacred code.

4. The Resolution: Religious Studies as Evolutionary Political Theology

If these premises hold, elite religion departments would lose their status as arenas for universalist moral lecturing or postmodern textual deconstruction.

The discipline would resolve into a single, realist framework: The study of religion is the study of high-stakes group cohesion. The field would become an empirical catalog of the specific rituals, taboos, and sacred myths that human groups deploy to steel their members for the permanent, zero-sum competition of an anarchic world.

If John Mearsheimer’s realism rules, five high-status scholars of religion would lose significant standing. Their influential frameworks rely on individualist choice, global cosmopolitan pluralism, or the idea that religious boundaries are merely plastic linguistic constructs rather than rigid, survival-driven defense systems.

1. Diana L. Eck (b. 1945)

The Professor of Comparative Religion and Indian Studies at Harvard University and founder of The Pluralism Project is a leading voice on religious diversity. Eck’s life work models “pluralism” not just as the existence of diversity, but as an energetic, empathetic engagement where distinct religious groups cross tribal lines to build a shared, harmonious civic space through ongoing dialogue.

The Realist Verdict: Eck loses status because her model of dialogic harmony ignores the structural logic of group cohesion. If humans are innately tribal, religious identities are not open-ended commitments that can be held loosely in a global conversation. They are boundary markers designed to protect the in-group from external threats. Eck’s pluralism is revealed as a luxury product of a highly secure, elite academic ecosystem that mistakes civilized academic dialogue for a permanent transformation of human nature.

2. Reza Aslan (b. 1972)

A prominent writer, public intellectual, and Professor of Creative Writing at the University of California, Riverside, Aslan holds a doctorate in the sociology of religions. In works like No god but God and God: A Human History, Aslan champions a progressive, universalist reading of faith, arguing that individual religious expressions are simply different historical pathways toward a shared human spiritual baseline. He regularly asserts that personal spiritual evolution can dismantle traditional institutional dogmas and border-enforcing prejudices.

The Realist Verdict: Aslan’s individualistic, evolutionary paradigm collapses. Under the realist premise, a person’s moral and religious worldview is heavily captured during a long childhood by intense group value infusions before independent reason even develops. Religion does not function to liberate individual egos into a borderless human family; it binds them to a specific tribe for collective preservation. Aslan’s celebration of an unencumbered, personalized spirituality is exposed as a modern liberal fiction.

3. Karen Armstrong (b. 1944)A globally renowned scholar, former nun, and author of A History of God and The Case for God, Armstrong is the architect of the Charter for Compassion. Her sweeping historical work argues that the true core of all major world religions is the “Golden Rule” and the cultivation of universal, borderless empathy. She posits that the dogmatic, aggressive, and tribal elements of religion are historical corruptions that can be stripped away through rational education and a return to compassionate practices.

The Realist Verdict: Armstrong’s core thesis is turned completely on its head. If Mearsheimer is right, the aggressive in-group/out-group distinctions she views as corruptions are the primary functional features of religion. Universal empathy is a recipe for group dissolution in a competitive, anarchic world. Religions survive across generations precisely because they use sacred myths to enforce intense internal solidarity and an unyielding defense against the out-group, rendering Armstrong’s universalist compassion a psychological impossibility on a macro scale.

4. Mark Juergensmeyer (b. 1940)The Distinguished Professor of Sociology and Global Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara, is a leading authority on religious violence and global religion. In works like Terror in the Mind of God, Juergensmeyer frames religious nationalism and fundamentalist violence as localized, reactive distortions—”global rebellions” against the secular, cosmopolitan global order, driven by ideological choices and strategic calculations.

The Realist Verdict: Juergensmeyer’s framework loses its explanatory primacy. Realism dictates that tribal nationalism and the defense of the in-group are the baseline conditions of human existence, not reactive distortions. The “secular global order” he treats as a baseline is the aggressive ideological projection of a specific, managerial Western elite. Religious groups do not revolt because they are confused by modernity; they mobilize along sacred lines because group survival demands a rejection of any universalist system that seeks to dissolve their unique cultural borders.

5. David Morgan (b. 1957)

The Professor of Religious Studies at Duke University is a pioneer in the study of material religion and visual culture, famous for The Sacred Gaze and The Forge of Vision. Morgan focuses heavily on how religious images, media, and consumer objects allow individuals to construct personal, fluid networks of feeling and attachment, treating religious visual culture as an open-ended, transactional space where meanings are continuously made and altered.

The Realist Verdict: Morgan’s emphasis on fluid, individualistic aesthetic construction fails the test of structural socialization. While he correctly notes that religion is material and behavioral rather than purely intellectual, his framework treats the “sacred gaze” as far more plastic and self-authored than the reality of childhood value infusion allows. A group’s sacred symbols are not open-ended consumer choices for personal emotional management; they are the heavily policed, non-negotiable instruments used by the collective to hammer its specific moral code into the young, ensuring total internal conformity and generational survival.

Posted in Europe | Comments Off on The Enlightenment Wasn’t Enlightened

Morality from Within: The Philosophy of Alan Gewirth

Posted on June 22, 2026 by Luke Ford

Alan Gewirth (1912-2004) ranks among the American moral philosophers who pressed hardest against the skepticism of his century. For roughly four decades he pursued a single ambition: to show that morality, and with it human rights, follows from reason alone. He worked at a time when relativism, emotivism, and logical positivism had made the idea of objective moral truth seem naive, and he treated that intellectual climate as both a philosophical error and a social danger. His central claim, that every man who acts for a purpose has already committed himself to a universal moral principle, remains contested. Few philosophers, even among his critics, have attempted a defense of moral objectivity as systematic as his.

He was born Isidore Gewirtz on November 28, 1912, in Union City, New Jersey, and grew up in West New York and other towns along the Hudson. His parents, Hyman and Rose Lees Gewirtz, were Jewish immigrants from the Russian Empire who had fled antisemitic persecution. Hyman hung wallpaper for a living and longed to play the violin in concert halls. Music filled the home, and the boy took up the violin young. He rose to concertmaster of the Columbia University Orchestra and taught the instrument to younger students.

Two changes of name marked his early sense of himself as a man set apart. At eleven, weary of the taunt “Dizzy Izzy,” he took the name Alan after Alan Breck Stewart, the bold Highlander of Robert Louis Stevenson‘s (1850-1894) Kidnapped. In 1942, against a backdrop of open antisemitism in American life, he anglicized the family surname from Gewirtz to Gewirth. The experience of exclusion came early, and it shaped a lifelong concern with dignity, rights, and the standing of persons.

Gewirth excelled as a student. He finished as valedictorian of Memorial High School in January 1930 and entered Columbia University, where he studied under Richard McKeon (100-1985), a scholar of wide learning who pushed him toward philosophical inquiry and influenced his early work. He took his bachelor’s degree from Columbia in 1934, spent time at Cornell University, and served as McKeon’s research assistant at the University of Chicago. The Second World War cut into these plans. He served in the United States Army from 1942 to 1946 and rose from private to captain. He returned to Columbia under the GI Bill and completed his doctorate in 1948.

His dissertation took up the fourteenth-century political thinker Marsilius of Padua (c. 1275-c. 1342), whose effort to pry political authority loose from church power anticipated modern constitutional thought. Gewirth went on to publish studies of medieval political philosophy and to translate parts of Marsilius’s Defensor Pacis, and he earned a reputation as a careful historian of ideas. He joined the University of Chicago faculty in 1947 and stayed there for the rest of his working life. He became a full professor in 1960 and the Edward Carson Waller Distinguished Service Professor in 1975. He served as president of the Western Division of the American Philosophical Association and of the American Society for Political and Legal Philosophy, and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences elected him a Fellow. He retired in 1992 and kept teaching and writing into his nineties.

The first half of his career centered on the history of political thought. The second turned to a larger question: can morality be justified by reason? By mid-century many philosophers had given up on the idea. The logical positivists treated moral statements as expressions of feeling. Relativists treated morality as a product of culture. The existentialists stressed individual choice over universal duty. Gewirth read these positions as both mistaken and corrosive. If morality had no rational ground, he held, then human rights rested on nothing sturdier than preference and custom, and what convention grants, convention can take away.

His answer came in Reason and Morality (1978), the book that made his name. There he set out the Principle of Generic Consistency, which scholars call the PGC. The principle reads: “Act in accord with the generic rights of your recipients as well as of yourself.” Gewirth argued that this principle follows by logical necessity from the standpoint of anyone who acts for a purpose.

His method set him apart. He began neither from religious doctrine nor from intuition, social contract, or any thick account of human nature. He began inside the perspective of an acting man. He called the approach dialectical because it drew out commitments that an agent already holds whenever he pursues a goal. The argument moves in stages. Every agent acts on purpose for ends he counts as good. Every agent must therefore value the conditions he needs to act at all, and those conditions are freedom and well-being. Without freedom a man cannot choose or pursue anything. Without well-being he lacks the capacity to act. So every agent must prize freedom and well-being as goods he cannot do without.

The hard step comes next. Because an agent must value freedom and well-being, Gewirth argued, he must claim rights to them. To deny himself such rights would mean accepting interference with the very conditions his action requires. The final step turns the claim outward. The ground of a man’s claim to these rights lies in nothing more than that he is a purposive agent. Every other person is a purposive agent too. Consistency then forces him to grant the same rights to everyone else. A universal moral principle emerges from the structure of agency.

Gewirth named this reasoning “dialectical necessity.” He believed he had found a route to morality that owed nothing to premises outside the agent. Morality, on his view, is not laid on a man from without. It sits inside the logic of his own action.

The concept of generic rights stands at the heart of the theory. These are the rights every agent holds simply as an agent, and they fall into two classes: freedom and well-being. Freedom names control over one’s own conduct and choices. Well-being names the conditions of successful action, and Gewirth ranked it in three tiers. Basic well-being covers life, bodily integrity, and mental competence, without which agency collapses. Nonsubtractive well-being covers protection against coercion, deception, and exploitation that strip a man of his power to act. Additive well-being covers the goods that widen his reach, among them education, wealth, self-respect, and opportunity. The ranking gave him a way to weigh competing claims. Basic rights outrank additive ones. The right to life outweighs the right to gain more wealth. He offered the scheme as a working tool for legal and political judgment, not as an abstraction sealed off from practice.

He saw himself as an heir to Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) and a corrector of him. He admired the attempt to anchor morality in reason but found the categorical imperative too formal, too thin in content. Kant had shown that moral rules must hold for everyone. He had not, in Gewirth’s reading, supplied the substance such rules require. Freedom and well-being supply it. By tying morality to the real conditions of action, Gewirth hoped to keep Kant’s universalism while giving it teeth.

His later books drew out what the principle implied. Human Rights: Essays on Justification and Applications worked through the moral ground of rights. The Community of Rights examined how individual liberty meets the claims of social institutions, and here Gewirth parted from the libertarians. Rights, he argued, generate not only duties of noninterference but, in some cases, positive duties of aid. A society carries obligations to protect the basic conditions of agency for all its members. His last major book, Self-Fulfillment, studied the link between morality and human flourishing and held that a man’s pursuit of fulfillment must run inside a framework of universal rights.

His reach extended past philosophy departments into legal theory and human-rights scholarship. His student Roger Pilon bent parts of the PGC toward libertarian ends. The legal philosopher Deryck Beyleveld became the system’s leading defender and reconstructed it in detail in The Dialectical Necessity of Morality. Legal scholars found in Gewirth something rare: a defense of human rights that leaned on neither religion, tradition, national identity, nor political consensus. If rights follow from agency, they stand on firmer ground than any agreement men happen to reach.

The theory drew sustained fire. The sharpest objections target the move from agency to rights. Alasdair MacIntyre (1929-2025) held that rights are social concepts with a history, not truths of logic. Others asked whether an agent must claim rights at all, rather than simply register practical needs, and whether one can pass from facts about action to conclusions about obligation. The egoist objection pressed the case in its starkest form. Why can a man not say, with consistency, that he values his own freedom and well-being because they serve his purposes while owing nothing to anyone else’s? Gewirth replied that the stance contradicts itself, since the ground of a man’s own claim is his agency and not any trait unique to him, and agency is something he shares with all others. His critics have not been satisfied, and the argument runs on.

Other philosophers attacked his defense of positive rights and welfare duties. Jan Narveson (b. 1936) and fellow libertarians held that rights guard a man against interference rather than oblige others to help him. Bernard Williams (1929-2003) and other skeptics doubted that any moral system might be wrung from universal requirements of reason at all. Nearly every step of the PGC has generated its own body of commentary.

For all the dispute, Gewirth holds a major place in twentieth-century moral philosophy. Even his opponents grant the rigor and ambition of the project. Few thinkers have tried to derive a whole account of ethics, politics, and human rights from the logic of action. Read as a proof or read as a brilliant failure, his work stands among the last great attempts to ground morality in objective truth during an age that had lost its taste for such truths.

Gewirth died in Chicago on May 9, 2004, at ninety-one. He left a body of work that still presses philosophers, legal theorists, and political thinkers, and a question that has not lost its force: if men hold rights, what justifies them? His answer gave no quarter. The justification lies not in religion, tradition, law, or sentiment, but in the plain fact that men act, choose, and pursue ends. Reason itself, he held, requires morality.

‘A Big Misunderstanding’

David Pinsof says intellectuals believe the world’s troubles come from misunderstanding, and that this belief flatters the people whose trade is understanding. A philosopher who can show that morality follows from reason has done something better than flatter himself. He has made himself the man who holds the proof. If rights rest on logic rather than custom, then the logician sits above the quarrel as its judge. Gewirth’s whole career runs on the claim that the trouble with his age was an error, a failure to see what reason already contains. Relativists had misunderstood. Emotivists had misunderstood. The positivists had misunderstood. And the cure lay with the one man rigorous enough to walk the argument from agency to rights without a slip. The misunderstanding myth gives the intellectual a heroic part. Gewirth wrote himself the largest part on offer: the man who saves morality itself.
Read his stated motive at face value and you get a thinker who fears for human dignity in a skeptical century and labors to put rights on solid ground. Pinsof’s frame asks what the work does rather than what it says it does. Watch the deeds, not the mission statement. Gewirth’s deeds built a system in which trained philosophers adjudicate every claim of right, rank every conflict, and certify which interests count as basic and which as additive. He handed the keys to his own guild. The PGC reads as a contribution to knowledge. It functions as a charter of authority for the people who can wield it.
Gewirth’s hardest critic was the egoist, the man who says, “I value my freedom and well-being because they serve my purposes, and I owe nothing to yours.” Gewirth called that position incoherent. The ground of your own claim, he argued, is your agency, and your rival has agency too, so consistency forces you to grant him the same rights. Pinsof’s frame is the egoist objection restored to health and given a Darwinian pedigree. The savvy animal values his own freedom and well-being because natural selection built him to value them. He extends the courtesy to others when alliance pays and withholds it when it does not. There is no inconsistency in this, only fitness. Gewirth’s proof requires that an agent’s reason for valuing his own goods generalize into a reason for valuing everyone’s. The frame says the agent’s reason does not generalize at all. It serves him. It was never meant to travel.
So the famous “dialectical necessity” looks, in this light, like a piece of motivated reasoning dressed as logic. The argument has to reach universal rights because Gewirth wants universal rights, and he wants them because a universal moral law gives the moral philosopher a jurisdiction without borders. Confirmation runs the proof forward. Each step that an outsider finds doubtful, Gewirth found necessary, and he found it necessary in proportion to how much the conclusion needed it.
The positive-rights turn fits the same reading. In The Community of Rights Gewirth broke with the libertarians and held that rights generate duties of aid, that society owes its members the basic conditions of agency. Treat this as moral discovery and it is generous. Treat it through the frame and it is a bid in a status contest. A doctrine of welfare obligation aligns the philosopher with the redistributive coalition, the side that confers elite standing on those who speak for the dispossessed, and it does so under a moralistic cover that makes the alignment look like the conclusion of a syllogism rather than a choice of allies. The libertarians made the opposite bid and dressed it in the opposite proof. Narveson’s rights guard the man against interference and oblige no one to help. Both men found in pure reason exactly the politics they brought to it.
Gewirth feared relativism as a social danger. He was right that what convention grants, convention can revoke. He drew the wrong lesson. The danger he sensed was the danger to his guild’s authority, because a world that treats morality as convention has no special need of moral philosophers to certify the truth. So he built a fortress, a proof that no shift in custom could touch, and he staffed it with people like himself. The frame reads the fortress as a status play, not a discovery. The intensity of his alarm tracks the size of the threat to his standing, not the size of the threat to anyone’s rights.
What does the frame leave standing? Not much of the proof. It grants Gewirth his rigor and reads the rigor as a weapon, the finest available, swung in a fight he denied was a fight. It grants him his sincerity and counts sincerity as cheap, since the surest way to win a moral argument is to believe your own case. And it answers his central question without ceremony. If men hold rights, what justifies them? Gewirth said reason. The frame says nothing justifies them in his sense, that rights are tools coalitions forge and defend because the tools pay, and that the search for a deeper ground is the hole the moral philosopher studies while sitting in it. The only misunderstanding, on this telling, is Gewirth’s faith that there was a proof to find. He spent forty years examining the dirt.

The Great Delusion

In his 2018 book, The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities, John J. Mearsheimer wrote:

My view is that we are profoundly social beings from the start to the finish of our lives and that individualism is of secondary importance… Liberalism downplays the social nature of human beings to the point of almost ignoring it, instead treating people largely as atomistic actors… Political liberalism… is an ideology that is individualistic at its core and assigns great importance to the concept of inalienable rights. This concern for rights is the basis of its universalism—everyone on the planet has the same inherent set of rights—and this is what motivates liberal states to pursue ambitious foreign policies. The public and scholarly discourse about liberalism since World War II has placed enormous emphasis on what are commonly called human rights. This is true all around the world, not just in the West. “Human rights,” Samuel Moyn notes, “have come to define the most elevated aspirations of both social movements and political entities—state and interstate. They evoke hope and provoke action.”
[Humans] do not operate as lone wolves but are born into social groups or societies that shape their identities well before they can assert their individualism. Moreover, individuals usually develop strong attachments to their group and are sometimes willing to make great sacrifices for their fellow members. Humans are often said to be tribal at their core. The main reason for our social nature is that the best way for a person to survive is to be embedded in a society and to cooperate with fellow members rather than act alone… Despite its elevated ranking, reason is the least important of the three ways we determine our preferences. It certainly is less important than socialization. The main reason socialization matters so much is that humans have a long childhood in which they are protected and nurtured by their families and the surrounding society, and meanwhile exposed to intense socialization. At the same time, they are only beginning to develop their critical faculties, so they are not equipped to think for themselves. By the time an individual reaches the point where his reasoning skills are well developed, his family and society have already imposed an enormous value infusion on him. Moreover, that individual is born with innate sentiments that also strongly influence how he thinks about the world around him. All of this means that people have limited choice in formulating a moral code, because so much of their thinking about right and wrong comes from inborn attitudes and socialization.

If Mearsheimer is right here, he hands Gewirth a clean defeat at the level Gewirth cared about most: the order in which a man arrives at his morality.
Gewirth built everything on the acting individual reasoning his way out, alone, from the bare fact of his own agency to a universal law. Strip away religion, tradition, nation, sentiment, and what remains is a mind following an argument it cannot consistently refuse. Mearsheimer says that picture inverts the real sequence. The infusion comes first. A man is born into a group that shapes him through a long childhood, before his reasoning faculties exist, and by the time he can reason he is already loaded with inherited sentiment and the values his people pressed on him. Reason arrives late and arrives last, the weakest of the three sources of preference, well behind socialization and innate disposition. So the agent Gewirth places at the start of the argument is a fiction. There is no man who reasons toward his commitments from a standing start. There is only a man who was furnished with his commitments and later learned to give reasons for them.
If that is right, dialectical necessity collapses into rationalization. Gewirth thought he was excavating commitments every agent already holds by the logic of action. Mearsheimer would say he was excavating commitments every agent already holds by the accident of where he was raised, and the logic is a story told afterward. The PGC does not lie beneath socialization. It sits on top of it. A liberal Jewish American philosopher at the University of Chicago in 1978 reasoned his way to individual inalienable rights because individual inalienable rights were the air he breathed, the value his society had infused in him long before he opened Kant. A man infused with different values, raised in a clan or a confessional order or a nation that ranks the group above the person, reasons his way somewhere else and feels the same necessity Gewirth felt. The sense of being driven by logic is real. It is also what socialization feels like from the inside.
The universalism takes the hardest hit, because that is where Mearsheimer aimed the book. Gewirth’s claim that every man on earth holds the same rights, derived the same way, is the exact doctrine Mearsheimer names as liberalism’s central conceit and its central danger. The universalism rests on the priority of the individual, the atomistic actor who is a man before he is a member of anything. Mearsheimer says we are social from start to finish, members before we are individuals, and that the individual Gewirth abstracts is a being who never existed. Pull the atomistic individual out from under the PGC and the universal scope goes with him. What is left is a moral code that is local in origin, parochial in content, and universal only in the ambition of the men who hold it. Gewirth thought he had found the ground common to all agents. He had found the ground common to liberals.
This cuts deeper than the egoist objection Gewirth fought all his life. The egoist accepted the rules of the game and tried to show the move from self to others did not follow. Mearsheimer refuses the game. He does not argue that the agent should not generalize his reason. He argues the agent did not reason his way to the starting point and cannot, because no one reasons from nothing. You cannot derive a value-free morality from agency when the agent comes pre-loaded. The premises Gewirth treats as the bare structure of action, the necessary valuing of freedom and well-being, are themselves products of a particular value infusion. A man socialized to prize honor over freedom, or the standing of his lineage over his own well-being, does not recognize Gewirth’s necessary goods as necessary. He recognizes them as foreign.
Gewirth published Reason and Morality in 1978, at the front edge of the human-rights ascendancy Moyn dates to that decade, the moment human rights became the highest language of aspiration across the world. Gewirth read his proof as the discovery of a timeless foundation. Mearsheimer reads the whole human-rights wave as a contingent ideological project that armed liberal states to remake other societies in their image and ran aground on the social and national loyalties it had dismissed. On that reading Gewirth was not standing outside history with a proof. He was riding the crest of a particular history and supplying its philosophy. The proof and the foreign policy share a root, and the root is the same false anthropology: man as individual first, reasoner first, bearer of universal rights first, member of his people a distant last.
What survives? Gewirth might answer that Mearsheimer describes how men come to their morals and says nothing about whether those morals are justified. The genetic point does not touch the validity of the argument. A proof reached by a socialized creature can still be a proof. That defense holds against the weaker reading of Mearsheimer. It does not hold against the stronger one, because Mearsheimer does not merely note the origin. He denies the premise. He denies that there is a generic agent whose generic structure yields generic rights, and he grounds the denial in the claim that the social precedes and constitutes the individual rather than the reverse. If man is a member before he is an agent, then agency is not the bedrock Gewirth needs. Something stands beneath it. The group is there first, and it put the agent together.
So if Mearsheimer is right, Gewirth’s monument reads as the most rigorous expression of a delusion. The rigor is real. He worked the argument harder than anyone. But he worked it from a foundation that was poured by his own society, mistook the pouring for bedrock, and called the result reason. The man who tried to escape tradition, nation, and sentiment built his system out of the one tradition, the one nation’s faith, that told him such escape was possible.

Posted in Philosophy | Comments Off on Morality from Within: The Philosophy of Alan Gewirth

Adrian Vermeule and the Common Good

Posted on June 22, 2026 by Luke Ford

Cornelius Adrian Comstock Vermeule (born May 2, 1968) is an American legal scholar and constitutional theorist who holds the Ralph S. Tyler, Jr. Professorship of Constitutional Law at Harvard Law School. He came to wide notice as a scholar of administrative law, statutory interpretation, and the design of legal institutions, and he became, after his conversion to Roman Catholicism in 2016, the figure most closely identified with common-good constitutionalism, a theory that draws on the classical legal tradition and on Catholic political thought and that defines itself against both originalism and living constitutionalism. His defenders regard him as a rigorous critic of liberal jurisprudence; his critics regard his program as a justification for illiberal government. By either reading he stands among the more influential and contested legal academics of his generation.

Vermeule was born in Cambridge, Massachusetts, into a family of established academic standing. His father, Cornelius Clarkson Vermeule III (1925-2008), served for decades as curator of classical and ancient art at the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston and ranked among the leading American classical archaeologists of his day. His mother, Emily Vermeule (1928-2001), was a professor of classical philology and archaeology at Harvard and a figure of comparable distinction in her field. His sister, Blakey Vermeule, became a literary scholar and a professor of English at Stanford University. He was raised in the Episcopal tradition, drifted from organized religion during his college years, returned for a time to Anglicanism, and converted to Roman Catholicism in 2016, a passage that would reorganize his public thought.

He graduated summa cum laude from Harvard College in 1990 with a degree in East Asian languages and civilizations, an education in textual reading and tradition that has left visible marks on the cast of his later legal work. He then entered Harvard Law School, where he earned the Juris Doctor magna cum laude in 1993. After law school he clerked for Judge David Sentelle (b. 1943) of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from 1993 to 1994, and then for Justice Antonin Scalia (1936-2016) of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1994 to 1995. The clerkship with Scalia carries a particular irony, since Scalia was the most prominent judicial advocate of originalism in his era and Vermeule became, in time, among the most searching critics of the originalist project.

After a period in practice and early teaching, Vermeule joined the faculty of the University of Chicago Law School in 1998, where he established a reputation as a scholar of constitutional structure and institutional design and held the Bernard D. Meltzer Professorship. He returned to Harvard Law School as a professor in 2006, was named the John H. Watson Professor of Law in 2008, and was appointed the Ralph S. Tyler, Jr. Professor of Constitutional Law in 2016. His standing within the profession was confirmed by his election to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2012, at the age of forty-three, and in 2020 he was appointed to the Administrative Conference of the United States. He has authored or co-authored nine books and a substantial body of articles across constitutional law, administrative law, legislation, and national security law.

The early scholarship took as its premise that legal institutions should be judged by their real capacities and their real limits rather than by the idealized portraits common in constitutional theory. Vermeule argued that courts, legislatures, and agencies each operate under conditions of uncertainty and bounded competence, and that the proper allocation of interpretive authority follows from a candid comparison of those competences rather than from a presumption in favor of judicial supremacy. This institutional orientation set him apart from theorists who organized their accounts around rights or around judicial doctrine, and it supplied the through-line of his first books, among them Judging Under Uncertainty (2006), Law and the Limits of Reason (2009), and The System of the Constitution (2011). In place of the familiar celebration of courts as singular guardians of liberty, these works pressed the inevitability of error, the value of restraint where judges lack comparative advantage, and the practical constraints that shape adjudication in a complex society.

A connected theme, the defense of executive and administrative authority, runs through the middle period of his career. In The Executive Unbound (2010), written with Eric Posner (b. 1965), Vermeule argued that modern emergencies enlarge executive power as a matter of practical necessity and that formal constitutional limits restrain presidents less than do elections, public opinion, and political competition. The book unsettled the conventional account of the separation of powers by relocating the real checks on the executive from legal doctrine to politics. His defense of the administrative state grew more explicit in Law’s Abnegation (2016), where he argued that the courts had ceded authority to agencies not through constitutional failure but through a reasoned recognition of administrative expertise and institutional competence. Where many conservatives treated the bureaucracy as a standing threat to liberty, Vermeule treated administrative governance as a durable and legitimate feature of the modern state, capable of serving public purposes when rightly directed. That position placed him at a distance from much of the conservative legal movement, and in particular from the wing of the Federalist Society that sought to revive judicially enforced limits on agency power. His collaboration with Cass Sunstein (b. 1954) in Law and Leviathan (2020) extended the argument by showing that administrative governance remains bound by longstanding principles of legality and reasoned decision.

His conversion to Roman Catholicism in 2016 marks the decisive reorientation of his intellectual life. Reading Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821), and above all John Henry Newman (1801-1890), Vermeule came to hold that liberal political theory cannot furnish a stable moral foundation for law and government. Newman proved the most important of these influences, shaping his understanding of the development of doctrine, the standing of authority, and the continuity of a living tradition. He summarized the shift in a remark made soon after his conversion, in which he disclaimed any deep faith in law as such and described it as a tool that serves good or bad ends and that will, over time, prove no better than the culture and the polity that hold it.

From this position Vermeule emerged as a leading advocate of Catholic integralism, the tradition holding that political authority should be ordered toward the common good, including the spiritual ends of the human person, rather than remaining neutral among competing accounts of the good life. He distinguished his approach from any program of sudden institutional rupture and described instead a strategy of ralliement, a patient working within existing institutions to turn them toward substantive moral ends.

His most widely debated contribution to legal theory is common-good constitutionalism. He introduced it to a general audience in the 2020 essay “Beyond Originalism,” published in The Atlantic, and developed it at length in Common Good Constitutionalism (2022). The theory rejects both conservative originalism and progressive living constitutionalism and asks that constitutional interpretation draw on the classical legal tradition, on the ius commune, and on principles of natural law rather than on original public meaning or on evolving social values alone. Interpretation, on this account, should advance substantive goods such as justice, peace, public morality, prosperity, solidarity, and human flourishing, and it should treat authority, hierarchy, subsidiarity, and the educative office of law as legitimate parts of a sound political order. Vermeule sets the promotion of these conditions above the modern elevation of individual autonomy to the highest constitutional value. A distinctive feature of the theory places interpretive responsibility not on judges alone but also on legislators, administrators, and executive officials, who are to apply the law with a conscious view to the common good. His supporters read the program as a recovery of the classical tradition that governed Western law before the rise of modern liberalism; his critics read it as a grant of wide discretion to officials and as a theory open to authoritarian use.

Much of the controversy that surrounds Vermeule has gathered around his engagement with the German jurist Carl Schmitt (1888-1985). He rejects a great deal of what Schmitt concluded, yet he has found Schmitt’s treatment of sovereignty, emergency, and political authority useful for describing the actual operation of modern government. His critics take the borrowing as evidence of an authoritarian cast of mind; he answers that classical legal principle and natural law supply the moral framing that holds such power within bounds. His public rhetoric has at times sharpened the conflict and drawn rebuke, as when a remark of his in early 2020 was read as a comparison between attendees of a conservative gathering and the first inmates of the Nazi camps, a reading that brought criticism from colleagues and alumni. Episodes of this kind have shaped his reception as much as the scholarship has.

The portrait of his career as a clean ideological break understates the continuity in his development. Long before he described himself as a Catholic integralist, Vermeule placed institutions above individual rights, administrative expertise above judicial supremacy, and the practical conditions of governance above abstract constitutional theory. The later work reads less as a repudiation of the earlier than as a theological and philosophical reinterpretation of commitments that had organized his thought for two decades. The skeptic of judicial ambition and the theorist of the directed state share a single underlying preference for ordered authority exercised by competent officials.

Vermeule remains an active figure in public argument. He serves as a contributing editor at Compact, co-founded the book-review journal The New Rambler in 2015, and writes a Substack newsletter, The New Digest. He continues to publish on constitutional theory, administrative law, executive power, and postliberal political thought, and his commentary on decisions such as Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and his replies to critics of common-good constitutionalism keep him engaged with the moving edge of doctrine.

His personal life met a grave loss in 2024, when his son, Spencer Vermeule (2003-2024), a sophomore at the University of Notre Dame and a member of the university’s fencing team, died on March 2 in a single-car accident in Elkhart County, Indiana, at the age of twenty. A memorial Mass was held for him at the Basilica of the Sacred Heart on the Notre Dame campus, and friends, family, and members of the academic and Catholic communities gathered to mourn him.

Vermeule holds a singular place in American legal thought. Few scholars of his generation have done as much to undermine the assumptions of liberal constitutionalism and of movement conservatism at the same time. Read as a critic of liberal jurisprudence, a defender of the administrative state, a Catholic political theorist, or the author of common-good constitutionalism, he has obliged lawyers, scholars, and officials to confront direct questions about the purposes of law, the standing of authority, and the moral foundations of political order.

The Great Delusion

In his 2018 book, The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities, John J. Mearsheimer wrote:

My view is that we are profoundly social beings from the start to the finish of our lives and that individualism is of secondary importance… Liberalism downplays the social nature of human beings to the point of almost ignoring it, instead treating people largely as atomistic actors… Political liberalism… is an ideology that is individualistic at its core and assigns great importance to the concept of inalienable rights. This concern for rights is the basis of its universalism—everyone on the planet has the same inherent set of rights—and this is what motivates liberal states to pursue ambitious foreign policies. The public and scholarly discourse about liberalism since World War II has placed enormous emphasis on what are commonly called human rights. This is true all around the world, not just in the West. “Human rights,” Samuel Moyn notes, “have come to define the most elevated aspirations of both social movements and political entities—state and interstate. They evoke hope and provoke action.”
[Humans] do not operate as lone wolves but are born into social groups or societies that shape their identities well before they can assert their individualism. Moreover, individuals usually develop strong attachments to their group and are sometimes willing to make great sacrifices for their fellow members. Humans are often said to be tribal at their core. The main reason for our social nature is that the best way for a person to survive is to be embedded in a society and to cooperate with fellow members rather than act alone… Despite its elevated ranking, reason is the least important of the three ways we determine our preferences. It certainly is less important than socialization. The main reason socialization matters so much is that humans have a long childhood in which they are protected and nurtured by their families and the surrounding society, and meanwhile exposed to intense socialization. At the same time, they are only beginning to develop their critical faculties, so they are not equipped to think for themselves. By the time an individual reaches the point where his reasoning skills are well developed, his family and society have already imposed an enormous value infusion on him. Moreover, that individual is born with innate sentiments that also strongly influence how he thinks about the world around him. All of this means that people have limited choice in formulating a moral code, because so much of their thinking about right and wrong comes from inborn attitudes and socialization.

The social account underwrites Vermeule’s positive program better than it underwrites the liberal’s. If a man is socialized before he can reason, raised through a long childhood under heavy value infusion, then the law that forms and teaches him is no intrusion on a free chooser. It is how the creature gets made. Vermeule prizes the educative office of law, authority, hierarchy, subsidiarity, solidarity. Mearsheimer’s picture of human nature hands him each one. The neutral state that declines to form its citizens is the fiction, since something always forms them, and Vermeule’s reply is that the state should know what it forms them toward. So far the realist is the integralist’s ally, and a strong one. Mearsheimer’s anthropology is Vermeule’s foundation.
The premise that lays the foundation cracks the roof. Mearsheimer ranks the three sources of our preferences. Innate sentiment, then socialization, then reason, with reason last and weakest. By the time a man’s reasoning runs sharp, his family and society have already laid down their value infusion and his inborn sentiments have already tilted him. Reason arrives late and mostly serves what came first. Set Vermeule’s project beside that ranking. Common good constitutionalism rests on natural law and the classical tradition, the ius commune, treated as a universal moral order that reason reaches and that binds all men everywhere. The whole architecture is a claim staked on reason, that a trained mind apprehends the true human good and points law toward it. Mearsheimer ranks that faculty last.
So the integralist universalism stands exposed as a second universalism, the mirror of the one it fights. Mearsheimer’s quarry in The Great Delusion is liberal universalism, the doctrine that every person on the planet carries the same inalienable rights, the doctrine that drives liberal states to remake the world. He calls it a delusion because it overrates reason and ignores the particular, tribal nature of men. Natural law makes the same shape of claim. Everyone, everywhere, one moral order, reachable by reason, binding without regard to belonging. If Mearsheimer has the ranking right, the integralist universal falls to the same blade as the liberal universal. Vermeule has not climbed out of the delusion. He has swapped its content and kept its form. Rights gave way to the common good; the universal reach and the trust in reason stayed.
Vermeule half-concedes the point in his own voice. He says he puts little faith in law, calls it a tool fit for good or bad ends, and says it will prove no better than the culture and the polity that hold it. That is a Mearsheimerian sentence. Culture over formal reason, formation over parchment. The man who wrote it has granted that the value infusion runs deeper than the legal argument laid on top. Then he stops the knife short of his own natural law. He lets socialization dissolve the liberal’s rights and exempts his own universal good from the solvent. Mearsheimer might refuse the exemption.
A Vermeule consistent with this frame drops the universal claim and keeps the particular community formed toward its own good. That Vermeule is a nationalist of the soul, a man who says this people, with this inheritance, formed by these authorities toward the ends this tradition carries, and who makes no pretense that the ends bind the Chinese or the Turk. Mearsheimer could sign that. It is his own pluralism, each society with its infusion and no universal court of reason seated above them. It is not the Vermeule who exists. The living Vermeule insists the classical tradition is true for all and not merely ours, and reaches past the American community to an order that predates and outranks it. Strip the universal and a defensible integralism remains that is also a parochialism. Keep the universal and the frame returns the liberal’s error in clerical dress.
Mearsheimer fears the universalist state because universalism joined to power breeds the crusade. The liberal hegemon, sure it knows the rights of all men, sends its armies to install them and names the wreckage liberation. Vermeule wants a state with a substantive mission, sure it knows the good of all men, holding the coercive power and using it to form them. The same logic points home. A regime convinced it has found the universal good and granted the means to enforce it presses toward the good as it sees it and reads resistance as error to correct. Mearsheimer’s book is a long warning against that confidence. The warning does not stop at the water’s edge.
Apply the ranking to the man. Vermeule is a creature of reason if anyone is, summa cum laude, the two clerkships, the endowed chair, the lawyer’s apparatus run across nine books. Mearsheimer says reason comes last and mostly dresses the sentiment and the socialization that came before. Read that way, the natural-law scaffolding is the late arrival. What came first was the Cambridge boyhood, the academic home, the drift, the return, the conversion in 2016, the new belonging among the postliberals. The belonging landed, and the reasoning followed to dignify it. This carries no charge of bad faith. The claim holds for every man, the liberal included, whose rights-talk is the late servant of a prior formation, and it holds for Mearsheimer too. The order is the whole of it. For Vermeule the order means the common good he reaches by argument is the good he was already formed to want, and the argument came after.
Mearsheimer ranks reason last; he does not abolish it. If reason never reached past socialization, no man could judge his own tribe’s infusion false, and reformers, converts, and dissenters would be impossible creatures. Vermeule is himself a convert, a man who turned against the formation of his youth, which is some evidence that reason and conscience pull against the value infusion as well as serve it. The frame explains the pull toward the common good as sentiment and socialization, and on its own terms it cannot rule out that the pull also runs toward something true. Mearsheimer is an anthropologist of belief, not a judge of its truth. He can show that Vermeule’s universalism wears the same form and rests on the same weak footing as the liberalism it opposes. He cannot show that the natural law is false. He can show only that the confidence in reaching it outruns what reason, ranked last, can carry.
If Mearsheimer is right, Vermeule keeps his anti-liberal anthropology and loses his warrant for the universal. He is left with a people to form and a tradition to carry, and no view from above to prove the tradition true for anyone outside it. Whether that reads as a loss or as a homecoming turns on whether he can surrender the claim that made his name.

‘A Big Misunderstanding’

Vermeule asks officials to read the constitution toward substantive goods, justice, peace, public morality, solidarity, and flourishing, drawn from a classical tradition, the ius commune, and the natural law, sources he treats as available to reason and held in common. The frame puts the question the program cannot answer on its own terms. Whose good, by whose lights, named by whom? No common good hangs in the air apart from the men who name it. When an official directs law toward the common good, he directs it toward the good as he and his allies see it. The phrase does not pick out a thing in the world. It picks out a coalition’s conception of the good, raised to the dignity of the universal.
This is the Starbucks move. The mission statement says it nurtures the human spirit one cup at a time. The goal is profit. Vermeule’s mission statement says it orders law toward justice, peace, and flourishing. Read through this frame, the goal is the capture and direction of the coercive apparatus of the state by a particular coalition, postliberal, integralist, traditionalist, Catholic, national-conservative, against its rivals. The rivals are the liberals who hold autonomy as the highest value and the originalists who want to freeze the contest at the founding. Common good constitutionalism is what the bid for power sounds like when a learned man makes it.
Watch the candor. He claims no neutrality. He says authority is legitimate, hierarchy is legitimate, the law teaches and forms, the state may pursue substantive ends. He names his strategy, ralliement, working inside the institutions to turn them toward those ends. Pinsof’s targets bury the bid for power under proceduralism and the promise that reason will decide. Vermeule states the bid. He wants his side to hold the apparatus and use it. The frame credits the honesty and then declines the gloss.
Why the noble language at all, if the aim is power? Because the naked sentence repels. To say my coalition should rule you and bend you toward our conception of the good drives men off. To say law should serve the common good and human flourishing draws them in. The content is the same. The reception is not. The classical framing does double work. It dignifies the bid as the recovery of a lost inheritance, and it recruits a lineage of allies, Aquinas, Newman, the whole ius commune, whose authority transfers to the man citing them. A faction with Aquinas in it looks less like a faction and more like the truth.
Turn it on the critics. The liberal scholars who call him an authoritarian and panic over his reading of Schmitt are not clearing up a misunderstanding either. They are a coalition defending a long hold on the courts and the academy, coding a rival as outside the bounds of decent argument. Their alarm is real and it is also a weapon. His interest in Schmitt on sovereignty and emergency is the recognition that politics turns on friend and enemy and on who decides, which is the recognition the frame starts from. The two sides understand each other well. Each calls its own bid for the state the universal good and calls the rival’s bid a threat to it. This is no seminar. It is a contest of coalitions conducted in the language of principle.
The conclusion the frame forces is bracing. There is no misunderstanding to resolve at Harvard Law School. Vermeule and his opponents do not talk past each other; they grasp each other’s ends and reject them. Better arguments will not settle the question, because the question is not an argument. It is who controls the coercive apparatus of the state and toward what ends he points it. The debate over common good constitutionalism stands in for that question. The world he wants to order does not want to be ordered by him, and he knows it, which is why he reaches for authority over persuasion. The originalists he left behind do not misread the constitution. They want a different master. He wants his.

Posted in Law | Comments Off on Adrian Vermeule and the Common Good

Loïc Wacquant: The Boxer, the Ghetto, and the Penal State

Posted on June 22, 2026 by Luke Ford

Loïc Wacquant (b. August 26, 1960) is a French sociologist whose work on urban poverty, race, punishment, embodiment, and the state has made him an influential social theorist of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. He holds a professorship in sociology at the University of California, Berkeley, and for decades he worked alongside Pierre Bourdieu (1930-2002). Wacquant joins ethnographic immersion to broad social theory, and he uses the pairing to explain how advanced societies manage poverty, inequality, and marginality. His studies of boxing gyms, urban ghettos, prisons, and welfare offices have reshaped debates about race, class, punishment, and neoliberalism.

Wacquant was born in Nîmes and grew up near Montpellier in southern France. His father worked as a botanist and his mother taught school. Before he entered academic life he held a range of manual jobs, among them construction, industrial painting, farm labor, and automobile repair. That early work shaped a lasting interest in the tie between social structure and lived experience. He studied economics and sociology at HEC Paris, the Université Paris Nanterre, Washington State University, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and the University of Chicago, where he earned his doctorate in sociology in 1994.

Between 1983 and 1985 Wacquant performed his military service in New Caledonia as a functionary of the French colonial research office known as ORSTOM. He has since described the territory, with its tight knot of race, class, and space, as a laboratory that prepared him to read the segregated landscapes he later met in the United States.

A decisive turn came when Wacquant met Bourdieu in Paris in 1980. He became one of Bourdieu’s close students and later a principal interpreter of Bourdieu’s work for English-speaking readers. Their collaboration produced An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology (1992), a volume that introduced a generation of students to habitus, field, symbolic power, and reflexivity. Bourdieu’s demand that sociology expose how power and inequality reproduce themselves stayed at the center of Wacquant’s work.

While in Chicago, Wacquant worked with the urban sociologist William Julius Wilson (b. 1935). The city showed him forms of racial segregation and concentrated poverty far removed from those in France, and that contrast became the seed of his comparative research on American ghettos and European urban marginality.

Wacquant first drew wide attention through an ethnographic experiment. Rather than observe life in a Chicago boxing gym from the side, he trained as a boxer and fought in the city’s Golden Gloves tournament. The resulting book, Body and Soul: Notebooks of an Apprentice Boxer (2004), became a classic of the genre. From it he built what he calls carnal sociology, an approach that treats embodied participation as a route to social knowledge. Observation alone cannot capture social life, he argues, because much of what people know sits in bodily habit, feeling, and practical skill.

His work on urban poverty carried further. In Urban Outcasts (2008) he set the American ghetto beside the marginalized housing estates of France. These spaces amount to more than poor neighborhoods, he argues. Economic restructuring, state policy, and symbolic exclusion turn them into territorially stigmatized zones. His concept of advanced marginality names the concentration of poverty and insecurity in the postindustrial city. Modern urban inequality runs deeper than economic deprivation on his account. It also marks places and populations as socially undesirable.

His most influential theoretical claim concerns the modern state under neoliberalism. He rejects the view that neoliberalism yields a weak state. Neoliberalism reorganizes state power, he argues. He calls the contemporary state a centaur state: liberal and permissive toward corporations, investors, and the affluent, and paternalistic and punitive toward the poor. Deregulation at the top travels with tighter regulation at the bottom.

That argument anchors his book Punishing the Poor: The Neoliberal Government of Social Insecurity (2009). Welfare reform, workfare programs, aggressive policing, and prison expansion form a single system for the management of social insecurity, he contends. Prisons do more than control crime on this reading. They govern marginalized populations cast off by economic restructuring.

A key part of the analysis turns on his distinction between mass incarceration and hyperincarceration. Imprisonment in the United States falls unevenly, he argues, and concentrates among certain groups, above all poor Black men from segregated urban neighborhoods. He prefers hyperincarceration for the way it foregrounds the targeted character of penal growth. The prison, in his account, becomes an instrument for the management of economic exclusion.

Wacquant ties this to a shift from welfare to workfare and prisonfare. Welfare offices discipline recipients into low-wage labor. Penal institutions absorb those who fall outside that labor. The prison becomes a surrogate for the ghetto, he argues, and helps regulate populations treated as redundant in a postindustrial economy.

His most ambitious historical account of race and punishment appears in his theory of the four peculiar institutions that have structured Black subordination in the United States. The first was slavery. The second was Jim Crow segregation. The third was the urban ghetto that formed in northern cities across the twentieth century. The fourth is the present pairing of hyperghetto and prison. These institutions differ in form, he argues, yet they perform related work as they organize, contain, and regulate African American populations across changing political and economic conditions.

Wacquant has also fought what he sees as loose method in the social sciences. In essays such as “Scrutinizing the Street” he challenged influential urban ethnographies by scholars including Elijah Anderson (b. 1943) and Mitchell Duneier (b. 1961). Some ethnographic accounts lean too hard on narrative and moral storytelling, he argues, and fail to link daily encounters to larger structures of power, inequality, and state action. He carried this critique into his recent book The Poverty of the Ethnography of Poverty ([2023] 2025), where he sets out a rationalist approach he calls thick construction, a scientific construction of an ordinary folk construction anchored in the concept of social space.

Beyond race and punishment, Wacquant has written on the sociology of the body, social theory, urban policy, and the legacy of Bourdieu. His work appears in dozens of languages and has shaped sociology, criminology, political science, anthropology, urban studies, and law. He has lectured across Europe, North America, and Latin America and has advised governments and public institutions on poverty, policing, and social policy in France, Argentina, Brazil, Norway, and Sweden, and at the OECD.

His books include An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology (with Bourdieu), Body and Soul, Urban Outcasts, Punishing the Poor, Deadly Symbiosis, The Invention of the “Underclass” (2022), Bourdieu in the City (2023), Racial Domination (2024), Jim Crow: Le terrorisme de caste en Amérique (2024), The Poverty of the Ethnography of Poverty ([2023] 2025), and Rethinking the Penal State (2026), the last drawn from his 2024 Adorno Lectures. His honors include a MacArthur Fellowship, an Alphonse Fletcher Fellowship, election to the Harvard Society of Fellows, and the Lewis A. Coser Award of the American Sociological Association.

Wacquant sits at the crossing of French social theory, American urban sociology, and ethnographic fieldwork. From Bourdieu he took an emphasis on symbolic power and reflexivity. From Wilson he took a concern with race and class in the modern city. From his own fieldwork he took a feel for embodied experience and institutional detail. The result is a body of work that traces how inequality settles into places, institutions, and bodies, and how modern states govern populations through a blend of welfare, punishment, and symbolic classification. Few sociologists have done more to hold the boxing ring, the ghetto, the prison, and the state inside one theoretical frame.

Loïc Wacquant and the Misunderstanding Myth

Pinsof says intellectuals run on one story. The world’s troubles come from misunderstanding, and the people whose work is understanding can therefore save the world. Wacquant tells a harder version of that story. The masses misread the ghetto, the prison, and the poor, and so do most sociologists, and only a correct science, his science, cuts through the folk picture to the structure beneath. He calls the method thick construction, a scientific construction laid over an ordinary one. The ordinary construction is the misunderstanding. The scientist comes to fix it.
Wacquant looks like a poor target for this frame, because he is already half a cynic. He throws out the standard misunderstanding stories about the state. Neoliberalism does not produce a weak state by accident, he argues. The centaur state works as built, liberal at the top and punitive at the bottom. Prisons do not fail to control crime. They govern the populations a postindustrial economy has cast off, and they do this job well. The cruelty is no whoopsie. On these points Wacquant sounds like Pinsof. The system runs as designed, and the people who run it understand what they are doing.
Then the cynicism stops. It stops at the edge of his own coalition, and it never turns around to face him.
Take his stated motive. He wants to expose how power reproduces inequality and to stand with the marginal. Read his conduct in the academic field instead, by the standard he uses on everyone else, and a second account appears. The most cited move of his career is a costly signal. He trained as a boxer, fought in the Golden Gloves, and wrote the book. The training proves commitment, the honest signal of a man who finishes what he starts. The fight proves an authenticity no deskbound rival can buy. Carnal sociology then turns that personal credential into a rule of method: knowledge sits in the trained body, so only those who paid the bodily price may speak. The claim reads as epistemology. It works as a fence around the field, and it keeps the competition out.
Look at how he treats the competition. He went after Elijah Anderson and Mitchell Duneier for soft method and moral storytelling. Pinsof would call this what high-stakes competitors do. They demonize their rivals, deny that they are doing it, and embellish the rivals’ faults. The takedown wears the costume of rigor. Underneath sits the older work of marking territory and lowering a neighbor’s standing to raise your own.
His standing reply to critics carries the misunderstanding myth in its purest form. You have not read Bourdieu. Disagreement becomes the rival’s failure to understand, which converts a contest into a diagnosis and seals the position against any test. The man who cannot be wrong, only misunderstood, has built himself an unfalsifiable claim to authority. This is the move he says the masses make about the world, run now in his own defense.
His politics fit a coalition, and his science feeds it. The centaur state names the enemies the academic left already names: corporations, investors, the affluent, the penal right. The story sets a polluted villain against a pure victim and supplies the footnotes. Pinsof reads partisan hatred as competition over the coercive apparatus of the state, the thing that puts people in cages at gunpoint, and Wacquant writes about that apparatus more than almost anyone alive. He treats his own side as the party of understanding and the other side as the party of greed and false consciousness. The frame asks the obvious question. Why would a contest over the prison and the welfare office spare the sociologist who has staked his career on which side wins it?
The split shows most clearly over stigma. Wacquant says territorial stigmatization is symbolic violence, a misrecognition that good science can correct. The poor and their neighborhoods get marked as undesirable through a false classification, and the sociologist’s job is to undo the error. Pinsof reads stigma the other way. Stigma is strategic, a move in a status contest by people who have incentives, not a confusion they would drop if someone explained their mistake. The classifiers are not misinformed. They are competing. Wacquant needs them to be misinformed, because the misinformed need a corrector, and the corrector is him. Grant that the stigmatizers understand their own interests and the sociologist loses his reason to exist.
So consider the hole. Wacquant has mapped his hole, the ghetto and the penal state, down to the last molecule, across decades of fieldwork, dozens of languages, a dozen books. Pinsof says you can study the hole forever and stay in it. Wacquant half admits this, because his own theory tells him the penal state is functional rather than mistaken. If it is functional, no quantity of correct understanding dislodges it, since no one with power misunderstands it in the first place. The understanding moves nothing on the ground. It moves his standing. The world does not want to be saved, and the centaur state, by his own account, has no wish to reform.
Wacquant also keeps signaling that he is not a meanie. The body on the line, the solidarity with the dispossessed, the moral heat of the prose, all of it reads as the sweetie signal that covers the status game underneath. Even the combat style pays. Each public fight charges him with standing. He spends the standing on the next fight.
Reflexive sociology demands that the scholar objectify his own position in the field, his capital, his interests, his stakes in the game he claims to study from outside. Carry that demand out without mercy and you get this essay. He sharpened the knife and told everyone to use it. The frame only takes him at his word.

The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities

In his 2018 book, The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities, John J. Mearsheimer wrote:

My view is that we are profoundly social beings from the start to the finish of our lives and that individualism is of secondary importance… Liberalism downplays the social nature of human beings to the point of almost ignoring it, instead treating people largely as atomistic actors… Political liberalism… is an ideology that is individualistic at its core and assigns great importance to the concept of inalienable rights. This concern for rights is the basis of its universalism—everyone on the planet has the same inherent set of rights—and this is what motivates liberal states to pursue ambitious foreign policies. The public and scholarly discourse about liberalism since World War II has placed enormous emphasis on what are commonly called human rights. This is true all around the world, not just in the West. “Human rights,” Samuel Moyn notes, “have come to define the most elevated aspirations of both social movements and political entities—state and interstate. They evoke hope and provoke action.”
[Humans] do not operate as lone wolves but are born into social groups or societies that shape their identities well before they can assert their individualism. Moreover, individuals usually develop strong attachments to their group and are sometimes willing to make great sacrifices for their fellow members. Humans are often said to be tribal at their core. The main reason for our social nature is that the best way for a person to survive is to be embedded in a society and to cooperate with fellow members rather than act alone… Despite its elevated ranking, reason is the least important of the three ways we determine our preferences. It certainly is less important than socialization. The main reason socialization matters so much is that humans have a long childhood in which they are protected and nurtured by their families and the surrounding society, and meanwhile exposed to intense socialization. At the same time, they are only beginning to develop their critical faculties, so they are not equipped to think for themselves. By the time an individual reaches the point where his reasoning skills are well developed, his family and society have already imposed an enormous value infusion on him. Moreover, that individual is born with innate sentiments that also strongly influence how he thinks about the world around him. All of this means that people have limited choice in formulating a moral code, because so much of their thinking about right and wrong comes from inborn attitudes and socialization.

Wacquant’s morality is universalist. He wants to dissolve ethnoracial domination. He reads race as denegated ethnicity, a classification that a clear science can dismantle. He calls territorial stigmatization a symbolic violence, a misrecognition that good sociology corrects. On Mearsheimer’s account the sorting that makes the stigma is no error. It is the tribal floor at work. Wacquant himself noticed that the low-status white draws the hardest line against the Black urban poor. Read through this frame, that line is coalitional competition over rank among close rivals, the survival behavior of a social animal, not a confusion that fades once someone explains it. The stigmatizer is not misinformed. He is defending his place.
Then the prison and the ghetto. Wacquant reads the penal turn as class management under neoliberalism, capital warehousing the labor it no longer needs. The frame keeps that reading and sets a deeper floor beneath it. The state is the tribe’s survival vehicle. The in-group uses it to hold and manage a population it has coded as a rival or a danger. Hyperincarceration of poor Black men then looks like the oldest behavior there is, the coalition turning the coercive apparatus on the out-group. This sharpens Wacquant on the targeting and demotes his cause. The penal state runs older than neoliberalism because tribalism runs older than capitalism. The centaur was here before the market.
Then the reformist horizon, where the frame cuts deepest. Wacquant advises governments, writes advocacy, trusts that a corrected sociology can undo the misrecognition. Mearsheimer wrote an entire book against the hope that you can reengineer deep human attachment through enlightenment. That hope is the delusion in his title. The man who maps the hole down to the last molecule then believes that understanding fills it. On the tragic reading the marginal keep getting stigmatized because coalitions always do this to their rivals and to the populations they treat as surplus, and no quantity of correct understanding dissolves the floor. The world Wacquant describes does not want the reform Wacquant prescribes.
Now turn his own concept on him. If reason ranks last, and the value infusion arrives before critical thought, then Wacquant’s egalitarian cosmopolitan morality is a habitus too. The French academic left raised it. Bourdieu’s seminar instilled it. The Chicago and Berkeley sociology of race confirmed it. Wacquant treats the stigmatizer’s morality as socialized, contingent, and open to correction, and treats his own as the clear view that science delivers from outside the game. By his theory he cannot. His solidarity with the dispossessed is a value infusion from his own tribe, the cosmopolitan clerisy, whose path to status runs on universalist signals. He is not standing above the contest. He plays his coalition’s hand and calls the hand truth.

Posted in Sociology | Comments Off on Loïc Wacquant: The Boxer, the Ghetto, and the Penal State

Hans Kelsen and the Science of Law

Posted on June 22, 2026 by Luke Ford

Hans Kelsen (1881-1973) was a principal architect of modern legal positivism and the most widely translated jurist of the twentieth century. He asked a question that sounds simple and resists every easy answer: what makes law law? He refused to ground the validity of law in morality, religion, politics, sociology, psychology, or national tradition. He treated law instead as a distinct normative order governed by its own logic, and he spent six decades building a science of law that aimed to describe that order without smuggling in the values of the describer. The effort reshaped constitutional theory, jurisprudence, political theory, and international law across Europe, the Americas, and Asia.

Kelsen was born on October 11, 1881, in Prague, then part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, into a German-speaking Jewish home. His father came from Galicia, his mother from Bohemia. The family moved to Vienna in 1885, when Kelsen was three, and the city held him for most of his European life. Vienna at the turn of the century produced Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951), and the philosophers who later formed the Vienna Circle, and it gave Kelsen a milieu that prized rigor, system, and the policing of conceptual boundaries.

He attended the Akademisches Gymnasium and read law at the University of Vienna, earning his doctorate in 1906 and completing his habilitation in 1911. He studied for a time under the public-law scholar Georg Jellinek (1851-1911) at Heidelberg, then turned Jellinek’s questions past the limits Jellinek had set for them. In 1905 he converted to Roman Catholicism, a familiar route to professional advancement in the antisemitic climate of the late Habsburg state. He later converted to Lutheranism with his wife, Margarete Bondi, whom he married in 1912. The couple had two daughters.

His first large work, Hauptprobleme der Staatsrechtslehre (1911), broke with the theories that treated the state as a concrete organism standing apart from and above law. Kelsen argued that the state and the legal order amount to the same thing. The state has no mystical existence behind the law. The state is the personification of a legal system, a way of speaking about the unity of norms. That identification became a load-bearing element of everything he wrote afterward.

His reputation rose fast in the final years of the empire. During the First World War he served as a legal adviser in the War Ministry while continuing to write. When the empire collapsed in 1918, he emerged as a leading constitutional thinker of the new Austrian Republic. At the request of Chancellor Karl Renner (1870-1950), he became the principal technical author of the Austrian Constitution of 1920, a document that still governs Austria in large part today. He also helped establish the country’s Constitutional Court and served on it from its founding until 1930.

The court Kelsen designed carried a structural innovation that traveled across the world. Rather than scatter the power of constitutional review among ordinary courts, as the United States does through its scheme of diffuse review reaching back to Marbury v. Madison, Kelsen concentrated that power in a single specialized tribunal with the authority to annul legislation. This centralized model became known as the Kelsenian or Austrian model. Constitutional courts in Germany, Italy, Spain, South Korea, and across the post-communist democracies of Central and Eastern Europe trace their architecture to his design. He gave constitutional democracy a working instrument, not only a theory.

His own service on that court ended in a fight over marriage law, and the fight tells us something about the distance between his formal jurisprudence and the political world it operated in. Catholic Austria forbade remarriage after divorce, yet administrative authorities granted dispensations that allowed such marriages to proceed. Lower courts then treated those dispensation marriages as invalid, and the conflict of jurisdictions reached the Constitutional Court. The court, with Kelsen prominent in its reasoning, upheld the dispensations and overturned the lower courts. The Christian Social Party and the Catholic hierarchy answered with sustained political pressure. A 1929 constitutional amendment recalled every sitting member of the court and reconstituted it through new appointment rules, and the reconstituted court reversed course in July 1930. Kelsen, sympathetic to the Social Democrats though never a party member, could have returned to the bench on a Social-Democratic nomination. He refused. The personal attacks had embittered him, and he accepted a chair at the University of Cologne and left Austria.

The work for which he remains most read is the Pure Theory of Law, the Reine Rechtslehre, developed across decades and set out in a first edition in 1934 and a heavily revised second edition in 1960. The theory earns the word “pure” through what it excludes. Kelsen wanted to isolate the analysis of law from moral philosophy, political ideology, sociology, and psychology, so that legal science might describe what the law is rather than prescribe what it ought to be. He regarded natural-law theories as efforts to dress moral and religious convictions in the robes of objective science, and he wanted jurisprudence cleared of that confusion the way the logical positivists around Rudolf Carnap (1891-1970) wanted philosophy cleared of metaphysics. His own foundations stayed neo-Kantian rather than positivist in the Vienna Circle sense. He drew from Kant the sharp line between the realm of fact and the realm of norm, between is and ought, and he later named Kant’s contrast as the light that had guided him from the start.

At the center of the theory stands a hierarchy of norms, the Stufenbau des Rechts. Every legal rule draws its authority from a higher rule. A municipal regulation draws validity from a statute, a statute from a constitution, a constitution from a presupposed foundational norm. Kelsen named that final source of validity the Grundnorm, the basic norm. The basic norm is no enacted statute and no historical event. It is a presupposition the jurist must adopt to make sense of the validity of the legal order as a whole, the point at which the chain of authorization runs out and the science of law has to assume rather than derive.

He built the structure on a distinction between causality and imputation. Natural science explains events through cause and effect: the stone falls because gravity acts on it. Law connects facts in a different way. If a man commits theft, a court ought to impose a sanction. The link between the act and the sanction comes not from nature but from a norm that imputes the one to the other. This let Kelsen argue that law forms a normative realm of its own, demanding a form of analysis separate from both the natural and the social sciences.

His positivism differed from the versions on either side of him. John Austin (1790-1859) had defined law as the command of a sovereign backed by sanctions. H. L. A. Hart (1907-1992) would later locate law in social practices and in a rule of recognition accepted by officials. Kelsen fixed instead on normative validity. Law is no mere expression of political power and no mere social convention. It is a structured order of norms whose authority flows downward through chains of legal authorization. Against the natural-law tradition descending from Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225-1274), he held legal validity and moral correctness apart. An unjust law can hold full legal validity. To fold legality into morality, he argued, abandons the science of law for political advocacy under another name.

His rivalry with Carl Schmitt (1888-1985) became a defining contest of twentieth-century legal and political thought, and it turned on a single question: who guards the constitution? Schmitt argued in Der Hüter der Verfassung (1931) that the guardian must be the President of the Reich, a neutral political power standing above the parties and capable of decision in the emergency. Kelsen answered the same year in his essay “Wer soll der Hüter der Verfassung sein?” He held that the guardian must be a court armed with judicial review, a limb of the legal order rather than a personalized political will, and he pressed the point that constitutional adjudication, even when it annuls a statute, remains a legal act within the system. The dispute reached back to a 1929 exchange and ran through the Prussian crisis of 1932, and Lars Vinx has since collected and translated the full controversy, which lets English readers follow the argument from Kelsen’s 1929 piece on constitutional adjudication through Schmitt’s reply and Kelsen’s review of it. The contest foreshadowed the long struggle between constitutional democracy and authoritarian rule that followed across the continent.

The rise of National Socialism drove Kelsen from Europe. His Jewish ancestry and his liberal constitutional commitments marked him for the nationalist and authoritarian movements gathering force in Germany and Austria. After Adolf Hitler took power in 1933, Kelsen lost his Cologne chair and went into exile. He taught at the Graduate Institute in Geneva, held a post at the German University in Prague between 1936 and 1938, and emigrated to the United States in 1940.

In America he rebuilt a career that opened slowly. He delivered the Oliver Wendell Holmes Lectures at Harvard Law School in 1942, took wartime work in Washington on European questions through the help of figures such as Roscoe Pound (1870-1964), and in 1945 became a full professor in the department of political science at the University of California, Berkeley, where he taught until his retirement and beyond. He served as a visiting professor of international law at the United States Naval War College in the early 1950s. Among his Berkeley students sat Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, later prime minister of Pakistan. He never recovered the public prominence he had held in Vienna, yet he became a leading authority on international law in the English-speaking world.

International law moved to the center of his mature thought. Kelsen rejected the old doctrine that sovereign states stand beyond legal constraint. He defended legal monism, the claim that domestic law and international law form parts of one legal order rather than two sealed systems. A jurist might in principle construct that order so that either the national or the international level held primacy, but Kelsen leaned toward the primacy of international law, with national constitutions drawing their validity within a wider international frame. Peace Through Law (1944) and The Law of the United Nations (1950) carried the program forward. He pressed for international institutions capable of holding state power to account, defended the legal standing of the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals, and held, against the realists of his day, that international law might grow into a working order for the keeping of peace.

For all the reputation he carried as a cold formalist, Kelsen built a substantial democratic theory, set out in On the Essence and Value of Democracy and in later essays including Foundations of Democracy. He grounded democracy in a kind of epistemic humility. No man and no group holds the whole truth, and so political institutions ought to let rival convictions live side side and settle their differences through compromise, tolerance, and majority rule under the protection of minorities. Democratic procedures earn their value through their handling of disagreement rather than through any guarantee of correct outcomes. The relativism he avowed in moral and political questions and the absolutism he sought in the science of law sit together in his work as two faces of the same refusal to let private conviction pass for objective knowledge.

He revised his own foundations to the end. The status of the Grundnorm gave him the most trouble. Early on he treated the basic norm as a transcendental presupposition, a condition for the very possibility of legal cognition. Stanley L. Paulson has periodized Kelsen’s career into a constructivist opening, a strong neo-Kantian phase through the mid-1930s, a weaker neo-Kantian phase to 1960, and a skeptical or empiricist turn after 1960, and the late writings bear out the last shift. In the posthumous Allgemeine Theorie der Normen (General Theory of Norms), published in 1979 through the Hans Kelsen Institute that the Austrian government had founded in Vienna for his ninetieth birthday, he came to treat the basic norm as a useful fiction rather than a necessary presupposition. A jurist who had built a tower of validity on a single assumed stone now described that stone as a fiction the science adopts because it cannot do without one.

The criticisms arrived early and have not stopped. Legal realists, the critical legal studies movement, and many later constitutional theorists deny that law can be cut free of politics and morality, and they argue that legal reasoning carries social values and political commitments at every turn. The purity Kelsen sought, on this reading, hides choices rather than removing them. Even his hardest critics tend to grant the clarity and the reach of his system. Few jurists have shaped the modern understanding of law as far.

Hans Kelsen died in Berkeley, California, on April 19, 1973, at the age of ninety-one, leaving close to four hundred works behind him in more than two dozen languages. The constitutional courts he helped invent now sit at the center of democratic government across much of the world. The debates he opened over judicial review, legal validity, the relation of law to morality, and the place of national law within an international order continue under his terms. Scholars embrace him, revise him, or reject him, and in each case they argue on ground he cleared.

Hans Kelsen and Stephen Turner on the Normative

Stephen Turner (b. 1951) has spent a career arguing that a certain class of explanation in philosophy and social theory rests on a posit that does no work. The posit goes by many names: the normative, the rule, the shared meaning, the collective ought, the presupposition that makes a practice possible. Turner’s claim, set out at length in Explaining the Normative (2010) and worked out earlier in The Social Theory of Practices (1994), holds that these entities explain nothing the habits, dispositions, and expectations of individual men could not explain on their own, and that they survive in the literature because they serve the theorist who needs a domain to defend. Of every thinker Turner takes as a target, Hans Kelsen is the cleanest specimen. Kelsen did not assume the autonomy of the normative as a working convenience. He made it the founding axiom of a science and built the structure as an explicit system, open to inspection.

Turner builds the case in four steps. The first concerns the line between fact and norm. Normativists hold that statements about what ought to be cannot reduce to statements about what is, and they treat the ought as a property of a special kind, not a natural property such as mass or frequency. The second concerns necessity. Normativists defend the ought by transcendental argument: to make sense of practice X, they say, you must presuppose norm Y. Turner answers that the must is conditional. The argument shows only that if you choose to redescribe X in normative terms, then you need Y to complete the redescription. It never shows that Y exists or that the redescription tracks anything in the world. The third concerns the collective. Normativists locate the norm in a community that shares it, and Turner asks how a shared object gets into individual heads, and finds no account of the transmission that does not collapse back into ordinary learning. The fourth concerns the work. Strip the normative vocabulary away and the explaining gets done by what men are disposed to do and to expect, taught by training and corrected by reaction. The norm adds a word, not a cause.

Kelsen built each of these features into the foundation of his jurisprudence and called the result a science. He took the line between Sein and Sollen, is and ought, from Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), and he held it harder than Kant did. Legal validity, for Kelsen, is a normative property. It does not reduce to power, obedience, or belief. A norm holds validity when a higher norm authorizes it. The regulation draws validity from the statute, the statute from the constitution, the constitution from a presupposed basic norm at the top of the hierarchy, the Grundnorm. The basic norm is no statute and no event. It is the presupposition the jurist adopts to treat the whole order as a system of valid norms rather than a record of who compelled whom.

Read through Turner, the Grundnorm is the transcendental argument in its purest dress. Kelsen says the jurist must presuppose the basic norm to understand legal validity at all. Turner’s reply writes itself. The must holds only for a jurist who has already decided to describe coercion as authority and command as valid norm. A historian content to say that officials issue orders and most men comply has no need of the posit and loses no fact by dropping it. Kelsen has not found a foundation under the law. He has stated the price of admission to his own vocabulary and presented the receipt as a discovery about the world.

The hierarchy shows the strain. Each norm needs a higher norm to make it valid, and the question of validity runs upward without end. Kelsen stops the regress by placing a norm at the top that no further norm authorizes and that the jurist presupposes. A regress closed by stipulation is the standard sign, in Turner’s account, of a theory that has mistaken a feature of its own grammar for a feature of its subject. The law does not run out of authorizations and then reach a silent foundation. The theorist runs out of authorizations because he chose to explain validity by authorization, and he plugs the gap with a posit rather than give up the picture that produced it.

Kelsen conceded the point that undoes him, and he conceded it early. The basic norm, he allowed, may be presupposed only for a coercive order that is by and large effective, an order men in fact obey. Here the empirical fact and the normative posit stand side by side, and Turner’s question becomes unavoidable: which one does the work? The efficacy does the work. The habits of obedience, the expectations of officials, the reactions that follow a breach, all of it is present and causal and observable, and the validity sits on top as a second description of the same events. Kelsen built a wall between is and ought, then allowed that the ought may be presupposed only where the is cooperates. The dependence runs one way, from the normative onto the factual it claimed to stand apart from.

The basic norm has no clear owner either. Kelsen does not say the citizen presupposes it, or the legislature, or the court. He says the jurist presupposes it, the scientist of law who wants to render the material as a system. That places the validity of the whole order inside a single scholar’s act of redescription. A property meant to bind everyone turns out to be a stance adopted by the man writing the treatise. Turner’s question about how a shared norm enters individual heads gets an honest answer from Kelsen, though not the answer Kelsen wanted. The norm enters one head, the theorist’s, and stays there.

Kelsen walked himself to the edge of all this and, near the end, looked over. In the Allgemeine Theorie der Normen, the General Theory of Norms published after his death, he stopped calling the basic norm a presupposition and called it a fiction, a fiction in the sense Hans Vaihinger (1852-1933) gave the word in Die Philosophie des Als Ob, a device the science adopts because it cannot proceed without one and that answers to nothing. This is the concession Turner predicts and seldom receives. The normativist, pressed on what his posit refers to, answers at last that it refers to nothing and gets kept for the work it does. A fiction retained for its use is a theory held for reasons other than its truth. Kelsen, more candid than most who build on the autonomy of the normative, said so in print and signed it.

The Turner reading does not say Kelsen described an empty field. Jurists do reason as he says they reason. They treat lower rules as answerable to higher rules, they speak of validity and authorization, they carry on as though a silent norm sat above the constitution. Kelsen mapped that talk with a care no one has matched. His error lies in the next step, where the map of how jurists speak becomes the discovery of a realm they speak about, and the vocabulary of validity hardens into a science of a thing. Take the realm away and the description survives. What remains is an account of how a profession reasons, and of how an order of habit and expectation gets redescribed, by men trained to redescribe it, in the language of the ought. The Grundnorm names the moment the redescription runs out of higher ground. Kelsen spent fifty years calling that moment a foundation and ended by calling it a fiction. On the second word Turner and Kelsen agree.

Hans Kelsen and Stephen Turner on Convenient Beliefs

Stephen Turner reads beliefs the way a sociologist of knowledge reads them, by asking what work they do for the men who hold them. A belief counts as convenient when its grip on a man owes more to what it secures for his position than to the evidence behind it. The analyst sets the truth question aside for a moment and asks a different one: convenient for whom, and why does the belief travel to these men and not to others. Turner takes the lineage from Max Weber (1864-1920), from Weber’s account of the carriers of ideas and the elective affinity between a doctrine and the situation of the stratum that adopts it. An idea finds its carriers where it pays.

Kelsen built the most disinterested theory of law on record. He purged jurisprudence of morality, religion, politics, and national tradition, and he presented the result as a science indifferent to the interests of anyone who might use it. Run the convenient-beliefs question over that science and a pattern surfaces. The beliefs Kelsen held with the most force are the beliefs that pay best for a man in his position.

Consider the position. Kelsen was a German-speaking Jew born in the last decades of a dissolving empire. He converted to Catholicism in 1905 and to Lutheranism afterward, each time for advancement under a regime that closed doors to Jews. He was a liberal in a century turning against liberalism, a cosmopolitan in an age of blood and soil, a jurist by trade, and in the end a man expelled from one national order after another. A doctrine that grounds law in the morality of the majority, the faith of the majority, or the spirit of the Volk leaves a man in that position exposed at every turn. Whoever owns the dominant morality owns the law, and the outsider holds his standing at the owner’s pleasure.

The purity thesis answers that exposure better than any rival doctrine could. Kelsen held that legal validity flows from formal authorization and from nothing else, that a norm is valid because a higher norm permits it, all the way up to a presupposed basic norm that references no god, no nation, and no creed. A law stays valid whether or not it tracks the majority’s morality, because morality never entered the test. For a man who would lose under every identity-grounded theory of law, no doctrine pays better. Kelsen lived the purity thesis as rigor and method. The frame notes that it also worked as shelter. The belief that law owes nothing to the believers who staff it is the convenient belief of the man whom thicker theories would push out.

His own life supplies the template. The double conversion shows a man who treated the profession of belief as adjustable to circumstance, who held the content of a creed apart from the function it served for his career. The theory then performs the same separation at the level of jurisprudence. It cuts the content of law away from the social interests of those who make and study it. A reader need not call this cynical to call it convenient. The separation that organized his life organized his science.

The relativism carries the same signature. In his democratic theory Kelsen grounded tolerance in the claim that no man and no group holds the whole truth, so the state should let rival convictions live side by side and bar any one of them from the seat of coercion. A creed that forbids absolute truth from grounding the state is the convenient creed of the man who would lose a contest over whose absolute truth governs. Carl Schmitt, sure of the friend-enemy decision and the substance of the Volk, has no use for it and discards it. Kelsen, who stands on the wrong side of any Volk, builds the prohibition into metaphysics and calls it humility. The doctrine may be sound. Its appeal tracks the situation of the men it protects.

The guardian question shows the pattern at its sharpest. Schmitt argued that the President of the Reich should guard the constitution. Kelsen argued that a court should. Each man named the institution his own kind controls. The theorist of executive decision wants the executive. The jurist wants the bench. The centralized constitutional court does double work as a convenient belief, since it seats the professional jurist at the center of constitutional life and arms the liberal against capture of the political branches by a majority he fears. The choice of guardian tracks the location of the chooser.

The international primacy thesis closes the set. Kelsen leaned toward the view that national constitutions draw their validity within a wider international order, that the sovereign state is not the last word in law. A man driven across four borders has reason to hold that law outranks the nation that expelled him. The stateless jurist and the doctrine of legal internationalism find each other by elective affinity.

The Kelsenian court moved into the constitutions of post-authoritarian Germany, post-fascist Italy and Spain, and the post-communist states of Central and Eastern Europe, and it moved because it served the men who built those orders. Elites emerging from dictatorship wanted an instrument to bind the majorities of the future, and a counter-majoritarian court armed with the power to annul legislation is the convenient belief of those who distrust the demos. The doctrine traveled along the line of its usefulness.

Kelsen spent a career insisting that the analyst keep social function out of the description of law, that interest and circumstance have no place in a science of norms. The convenient-beliefs frame puts the function back and finds his own commitments the cleanest case it could ask for. The purity thesis is the convenient belief of those who lose under impurity. The man who worked hardest to bar interest from the study of law held a set of beliefs whose fit to his interest his own theory would have to file under everything he wanted excluded.

Hans Kelsen and Pierre Bourdieu on the Juridical Field

Pierre Bourdieu wrote the sociology of the juridical field to dissolve a quarrel between two readings of law. The formalist reading treats law as a closed system that develops by its own logic, sealed from the social world. The instrumentalist reading treats law as a screen for the interests of the dominant class. Bourdieu rejected both and put the field in their place, a structured arena of jurists competing for the power to say what the law is. In “The Force of Law” he named the formalist tradition as the first of the two errors his field analysis supersedes, and the pure theory of law stands as the limiting case of that tradition, formalism carried to its furthest point. Hans Kelsen is the purest specimen the juridical field will ever produce, and the reason is exact. The field rests on a collective misrecognition of its own social grounding, and Kelsen took that misrecognition, which the field needs to keep tacit, and built it into an explicit philosophical system.

A field becomes autonomous through long social labor, and its autonomy stays partial. The juridical field works to present itself as self-grounding, governed by reason and text alone, indifferent to the economic and political forces around it. Bourdieu treats that self-image as a social achievement and a flattering overstatement. Kelsen takes the self-image and makes it ontology. The purity of the pure theory, no morality, no politics, no sociology, no psychology, is the field’s autonomy claim raised to a first principle. Where the ordinary jurist practices the autonomy and half-believes it, Kelsen theorizes it, codifies it, and signs his name to it.

The Grundnorm is the codified form of the field’s refusal to look at what holds it up. The chain of validity runs from regulation to statute to constitution, and then it must stop, and Kelsen stops it with a presupposed basic norm that points to nothing outside the law. The thing the basic norm declines to name, in Bourdieu’s reading, is the state, the monopoly of legitimate force, the social order of obedience that the field depends on and converts into the language of pure validity. Kelsen conceded that the basic norm gets presupposed only for an order men in fact obey. The social ground shows through the formalism for a moment there, and the vocabulary of validity covers it again.

Law’s force, in Bourdieu’s account, is symbolic power, power that works because men take it for legitimate reason rather than for the violence it carries. Kelsen built the field’s finest instrument for that conversion. His theory of the sanction names the coercion at the center of every legal norm, the official directed to apply force, and then recasts it as the cool imputation of a consequence to a condition, an operation of logic drained of its social weight. The pure theory hands symbolic power its cleanest alibi, a way to present the violence of the state as the necessity of a system.

Kelsen’s path reads as the accumulation of the capital the field rewards and the making of a habitus disposed to see formal autonomy as the natural order. He entered a faculty whose gatekeepers shut out Jews, and he converted twice to clear the way, managing the symbolic capital a man needed to rise where birth and confession counted against him. Barred from the capitals of the right blood and the right church, he mastered the most field-specific capital on offer, technique and doctrine, and outbuilt everyone at it. The disposition toward system and purity fits the position of the man who had to earn his entry by the field’s own coin.

The contest with Carl Schmitt over the guardian of the constitution reads as a struggle for the dominant principle of vision in the field, and for the boundary between the juridical field and the political. Schmitt pressed the political principle, the sovereign decision, and named the President as guardian. Kelsen defended the field’s autonomy and its monopoly, and named the court, staffed by jurists, trained in the corps, speaking the field’s own language. Each man championed the field where his own capital ruled. The debate is a boundary war over whether jurists or politicians hold the power to define the constitution’s keeper.

Bourdieu marks the competition inside the field between the theorists, the professors and the doctrine, and the practitioners, the judges who decide. Kelsen occupied both poles and consecrated the first. He was the professor who also drafted the constitution and sat on the court, and he made the professor’s product, the system, the ground on which the practitioner’s authority rests. The pure theory elevates the very position its author held.

The line from Vienna to Cologne to Geneva to Prague to Berkeley is the test of capital under transfer. Kelsen’s juridical capital was bound to a language and a national doctrine, Austrian public law, the German-speaking science of the state, and exile forced its conversion into a more portable form. In America the European symbolic capital converted at a loss, and he never recovered the standing he had held in Vienna. He turned toward international law, a sub-field less tied to any one nation, where his capital traveled with less friction. The thinning of his American profile is the cost of carrying field-specific capital across a border.

The spread of the centralized constitutional court is the juridical field enlarging its jurisdiction. Constitution after constitution, in post-fascist and post-communist states, installed the instrument that hands jurists the power to annul the acts of the political field. Bourdieu would read the diffusion as the field exporting its nomos and universalizing its own principle of vision. Kelsen’s design is the field’s most effective tool for growing at the expense of the political field, the autonomy claim turned into working machinery across the world.

Kelsen denied to the end that law depends on social forces, and that denial is the misrecognition, which means the reading must be imposed against the subject’s flat refusal rather than drawn from his testimony. Bourdieu knew the shape of this problem better than most, since his reflexive sociology demands that the analyst objectify his own position too. A Bourdieusian account of Kelsen has to admit what it is doing. The sociologist who strips the jurist’s autonomy is himself competing for the power to say what the law is, the sociological field reaching into the juridical field to seize its self-description. The quarrel between Kelsen and Bourdieu is the last instance of the thing Bourdieu studied, a struggle between fields over who holds the legitimate principle of vision on the law. Kelsen answered from inside the juridical field and built a science to keep the answer there. Bourdieu answered from outside and built a science to take it away.

Hans Kelsen and David Pinsof on the Misunderstanding Myth

David Pinsof argues that intellectuals share a flattering story about the world. The story holds that the world’s troubles come from bad beliefs, from ignorance, bias, misinformation, and confusion, and that the cure is better understanding. Pinsof calls this the misunderstanding myth, and he names its appeal in “A Big Misunderstanding.” If every trouble traces to a failure of understanding, then the men whose trade is understanding become the most important men alive. They save the world by doing their jobs. Pinsof denies the premise. Men are savvy coalitional animals who understand what they have an incentive to understand, and most of what looks like confusion is strategy. The fights that tear up the world run on status, allies, and the coercive apparatus of the state, and no amount of clarification touches them, because the fighters were never confused.

Few intellectuals fit the myth more closely than Kelsen, because Kelsen built his life’s work out of clarifications. He treated the central conflicts of legal and political thought as confusions a science could dissolve. Natural lawyers confuse law with morality. Sovereigntists confuse the nation with the last word in law. Political theorists confuse the state with a living organism. The man who fails to keep is and ought apart has made a category mistake, and the pure theory exists to correct it. Kelsen is the clarifier in his purest form, the jurist who believed that the disorders of law would yield to a mind that saw the structure clearly.

Run the frame over the founding move and the strain shows at once. Kelsen held that natural law smuggles morality into law under cover of a confusion between fact and norm, and he spent decades trying to teach the distinction. Pinsof’s reply is short. The natural lawyer is not confused. Grounding law in morality is a weapon, and a useful one, since it lets a man call the law invalid when it crosses his side and valid when it serves them. The confusion Kelsen kept trying to clear up is a posture men adopt because it pays. He kept correcting a confusion that was a tactic.

The democratic theory carries the same error. Kelsen grounded tolerance in the claim that no man holds the whole truth, and he expected that political conflict would soften once men understood the limits of their own conviction. Pinsof would say the men fighting over the state are not confused about whether they hold the truth. They want the state. Their certainty is a tool of the fight, and it rises and falls with the stakes rather than with the evidence. Kelsen offered them humility. They wanted the apparatus.

The contest with Carl Schmitt shows the myth at its edge, since Schmitt stood closer to Pinsof’s view than Kelsen ever did. Kelsen treated the guardian of the constitution as a question with a correct answer that clear reasoning settles, and he reasoned his way to the court. Schmitt did not reason his way anywhere he did not already want to go. He wanted the executive to decide because the decision is where sovereign power lives, and his side stood near it. Kelsen offered Schmitt a seminar on the concept of the constitution. Schmitt came close to stating his pursuit in plain terms, in the vocabulary of the exception. The man Kelsen treated as confused understood the game better than the man correcting him.

The frame turns on its author too. Kelsen named the court as guardian, and the court is where the jurist’s power sits, the liberal’s safeguard against a majority he feared. His clarifications served a side as surely as Schmitt’s decisions did. The difference lies in the telling. Schmitt described his pursuit close to the bone. Kelsen dressed the same pursuit as science and seems to have believed the dress. Pinsof’s account of why intellectuals reach for the myth fits here. Cynicism reads as ugly, and a refined man cannot see his life’s work as a coalitional weapon, so he tells himself the nobler story, that he serves clarity and the law serves no one. The stated motive is a pure science. The deeds armed a coalition.

The frame meets one fact it cannot fold in cleanly. The purity thesis cuts against Kelsen’s own side at the place a coalitional animal can least afford to lose. Purity grants full legal validity to an unjust law, which hands validity to the statutes of the men who drove Kelsen out. A jurist playing only for his coalition does not build a theory that certifies his enemy’s law as valid law. Here Kelsen looks less like a primate wrapping interest in science and more like a man holding a conceptual commitment past the point where it served him. The misunderstanding myth says intellectuals never do this. Kelsen, at this one seam, did.

Pinsof ends on a hard line. The world does not want to be saved, and the study of human nature is the study of the hole we are stuck in. Kelsen’s life reads as a long test of that line. He built the most carefully reasoned constitutional order of his century and watched men who understood it well tear it down. He kept believing that better understanding would help. It did not help in Vienna, where the people who ended the republic were not confused about what they were ending. They knew the constitution, and they wanted it gone. Kelsen treated a war of motives as a failure of understanding, and the war did not care what he understood. The deepest clarification of his career is the one his own life supplies, against his intent. The men he spent fifty years trying to set straight were never lost.

The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities

In his 2018 book, The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities, John J. Mearsheimer wrote:

My view is that we are profoundly social beings from the start to the finish of our lives and that individualism is of secondary importance… Liberalism downplays the social nature of human beings to the point of almost ignoring it, instead treating people largely as atomistic actors… Political liberalism… is an ideology that is individualistic at its core and assigns great importance to the concept of inalienable rights. This concern for rights is the basis of its universalism—everyone on the planet has the same inherent set of rights—and this is what motivates liberal states to pursue ambitious foreign policies. The public and scholarly discourse about liberalism since World War II has placed enormous emphasis on what are commonly called human rights. This is true all around the world, not just in the West. “Human rights,” Samuel Moyn notes, “have come to define the most elevated aspirations of both social movements and political entities—state and interstate. They evoke hope and provoke action.”
[Humans] do not operate as lone wolves but are born into social groups or societies that shape their identities well before they can assert their individualism. Moreover, individuals usually develop strong attachments to their group and are sometimes willing to make great sacrifices for their fellow members. Humans are often said to be tribal at their core. The main reason for our social nature is that the best way for a person to survive is to be embedded in a society and to cooperate with fellow members rather than act alone… Despite its elevated ranking, reason is the least important of the three ways we determine our preferences. It certainly is less important than socialization. The main reason socialization matters so much is that humans have a long childhood in which they are protected and nurtured by their families and the surrounding society, and meanwhile exposed to intense socialization. At the same time, they are only beginning to develop their critical faculties, so they are not equipped to think for themselves. By the time an individual reaches the point where his reasoning skills are well developed, his family and society have already imposed an enormous value infusion on him. Moreover, that individual is born with innate sentiments that also strongly influence how he thinks about the world around him. All of this means that people have limited choice in formulating a moral code, because so much of their thinking about right and wrong comes from inborn attitudes and socialization.

Kelsen is the liberal rationalist. The pure theory treats law as a universal science, valid for any society and indifferent to the nation, the faith, the tradition, or the tribe that happens to live under it. The Grundnorm references no god and no people. The hierarchy of norms runs on logic. The is-ought distinction is a triumph of disciplined cognition. Kelsen asked men to understand their law as a structure of valid norms resting on a rationally presupposed foundation. Mearsheimer’s anthropology says men do nothing of the kind. They hold their law because they were raised inside a community whose attachments and sentiments reached them long before any norm did.

Kelsen built his structure out of reason and set it on the one footing Mearsheimer ranks last. The citizen does not obey the constitution because he has traced the chain of validity to a presupposed basic norm. He obeys because his family and his nation infused him with a sense of the rightful order before he could weigh it, and because the sentiments he was born with incline him toward his own group. The pure theory describes how a jurist reasons about validity. It says nothing about why a man stands when the anthem plays, and on Mearsheimer’s reading that prior, pre-rational attachment is the thing holding the legal order up.

Kelsen left a door open here, and Mearsheimer walks through it. Kelsen conceded that the basic norm gets presupposed only for a coercive order that men in fact obey. He treated the obedience as a precondition and the validity as the science. Mearsheimer reverses the weight. The obedience is the whole event, and it comes from socialization into a national community, and the formal validity is a rationalization a trained jurist lays over a tribal fact. The real basic norm, on this account, is no presupposition the scholar adopts. It is the prior reality of the group, the value-infusion that precedes the citizen and shapes him.

The collision reaches back to Kelsen’s first large book. In Hauptprobleme der Staatsrechtslehre he denied that the state is a real organism standing behind the law and called it the personification of the legal order, a way of speaking about the unity of norms. Mearsheimer’s anthropology puts the concrete social community at the center of everything. The nation is no figure of speech. It is the prior fact, the thing men are born into and die for, and the law runs downstream of it. Kelsen spent his opening move dissolving the very entity Mearsheimer’s account treats as primary. The man who said the state is only law meets the man who says the group is the root of all of it.

The hardest blow lands on the internationalism. Kelsen leaned toward the primacy of international law, held that national constitutions draw their validity within a wider legal order, and built the hope of peace through law in Peace Through Law and The Law of the United Nations. This is the liberal universalism of The Great Delusion in legal dress, the belief that a rational cosmopolitan order can bind nations whose first loyalty runs to the group. Mearsheimer’s verdict is flat. The nation comes first, survival in an anarchic order trumps any norm, and the great powers honor international law when it suits them and drop it when survival is at stake. The dream of binding states by a presupposed legal order is the central delusion, and Kelsen dreamed it with more rigor than anyone.

The century gave Mearsheimer his evidence. The constitution Kelsen designed fell to men whose loyalty ran to a Volk, not to a hierarchy of norms, and the international order he hoped for never held a great power that meant to break it. Carl Schmitt had pressed a version of this against Kelsen in their own time, insisting that the concrete political community and the friend-enemy decision sit beneath all legal form. If Mearsheimer is right, Schmitt won the argument about human nature even as Kelsen won the argument about institutions, since the courts spread while the anthropology held.

Mearsheimer makes an empirical claim about what moves men and nations. Kelsen makes a conceptual claim about the logical form of legal validity. The two can both stand. Kelsen could grant every word of the anthropology, agree that socialization and sentiment drive obedience, and still hold that the science of law describes the structure of norms rather than the causes of compliance. He bracketed sociology on purpose and would call Mearsheimer a sociologist of law working a neighboring field. The pure theory survives in its sealed room. What Mearsheimer takes is not the room’s internal logic. He takes its windows. He shows the room has no view onto the forces that decide whether any legal order lives or dies, and he shows that Kelsen’s hopes for those forces ran the wrong way.

Two facts keep the verdict from going all the way to Mearsheimer. Kelsen’s democratic theory already grants part of the case. His relativism holds that reason cannot adjudicate between rival value-commitments, which concedes that men reach their convictions by routes other than argument, close to what Mearsheimer says about the value-infusion. Kelsen then bet that institutions could contain the conflict reason cannot resolve. Mearsheimer bets the institutions break when the group is roused. The second fact is that Kelsen’s court has lasted. Centralized constitutional review took hold across the postwar liberal democracies and has held power to account in them for decades, which a flat anthropological pessimism has to explain. Mearsheimer can answer that the courts endure only where a settled national community already underwrites them, that the social substrate carries the institution rather than the institution overriding the substrate, and the answer has force. The court rests on the tribe even where it checks the tribe.

So, what then for Kelsen, if Mearsheimer is right. The pure theory keeps its logic and loses its reach. As a description of how jurists reason it stands, sealed and exact. As an account of what holds a legal order together it fails, because the holding gets done by socialization and group sentiment the theory refused to name. And the great hope, the binding of nations by law, reads as the finest version of the delusion the title warns against. Kelsen built the most rigorous monument to legal reason in the modern age and set it on the weakest of the three foundations man stands on. The monument is real. The ground was never what he thought it was.

Posted in Law | Comments Off on Hans Kelsen and the Science of Law

Ken Minyard and the Los Angeles Morning

Posted on June 22, 2026 by Luke Ford

Ken Minyard (b. 1939) spent the better part of thirty-five years at KABC-AM (790) and helping define the personality-driven, locally rooted style of talk that dominated Southern California airwaves before national political programming took over the format. He is best remembered for three successive partnerships, each of which carried the KABC morning slot for years, and for a manner on the air that favored conversation and reassurance over confrontation.
Minyard was born in McAlester, Oklahoma, and entered radio at thirteen. He went college at San Francisco State. He married in 1958, had two children, and then divorced.
In 1969 Minyard joined KABC as host of his own issues-oriented program. The station was then under the management that built it into one of the country’s first successful all-talk operations, and it gave Minyard the platform from which his career grew. In 1973 KABC paired him with Bob Arthur, and the partnership became the foundation of his reputation.
Robert “Bob” Arthur (1921-1997), born Joseph Arthur Prince and raised in Kansas, had come up as a newsman, working at KTLA and KNX before joining KABC, and he carried the nickname “Mr. News.” His pairing with Minyard produced The Ken and Bob Company, which ran from 1973 to 1990. The show coined the phrase “EGBOK,” short for “everything’s gonna be OK,” and the slogan entered Southern California speech. The program held the top of the Los Angeles morning ratings for most of its run and rarely fell below third place. In 1988 it staged the first live broadcast from a float in the Rose Parade. The chemistry rested on Minyard’s commentary and easy curiosity set against Arthur’s dry delivery and news authority. In 1986 the two men received a joint star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame in the radio category.
Arthur left the show in 1990. Accounts differ on the tone of the departure, with some describing a retirement and others reporting that management forced him out over his age. Minyard carried the program alone for a short stretch and then asked Roger Barkley to join him.
Barkley (1936-1997) brought his own large reputation. For twenty-five years he had formed half of Lohman and Barkley, the comedy team whose morning show ran on KLAC, KFWB, and KFI and built a cast of recurring characters and a fictional town called Pine City. That partnership ended in 1986. When Barkley joined KABC in 1990, the pairing of two established morning stars made news in the Los Angeles market. The Ken and Barkley Company aired from 1990 to 1996 and, like its predecessor, ranked at or near the top of morning drive for much of its run.
The market changed under them. FM talk shows multiplied and the morning competition grew sharp, and by 1996 the ratings had slipped. KABC removed Barkley. Minyard later said Barkley took it hard and that the station had demanded the change. Barkley was diagnosed with cancer the following year and died in December 1997, within months of Arthur’s death the same spring. Both of Minyard’s signature partners were gone by the end of 1997.
Minyard continued. In 1996 KABC paired him with Peter Tilden, a younger host who brought a more satirical edge to the morning slot. The new program kept Minyard’s accessibility but could not hold the audience, and KABC released both men in 1998 as the ratings fell. Minyard then went to KRLA, where he hosted a syndicated program with his son Rick Minyard for roughly eighteen months, a rare instance of father and son sharing a talk microphone. In November 2001 KABC brought him back, this time alongside Dan Avey, a return that reflected the audience’s lasting attachment to him. On October 15, 2004, Minyard announced his retirement on the morning show, closing thirty-five years on Los Angeles radio.
His career ran outside radio as well, though on a smaller scale. He appeared regularly on the syndicated Dinah Shore television program across two seasons in the 1980s, made a guest appearance on the Fox sitcom Married… with Children, and took a small part in the 1988 film The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad! In 1986 he hosted an unsold pilot for a television revival of the old joke-telling game show Can You Top This? These projects drew on his radio celebrity rather than building a separate one.
The substance of Minyard’s work lay in his approach to the form. He described himself as a “Bobby Kennedy liberal,” and he kept his programs civil and broad rather than partisan. The shows ran on local concerns, human interest, traffic, food, and the texture of Southern California life, with recurring contributors such as traffic reporter Jorge Jarrin and auto expert Leon Kaplan. He guided listeners through the region’s hard mornings, from earthquakes to the unrest of the early 1990s, and his steadiness in those hours strengthened the bond he had built with commuters over decades. He resisted the move toward shock formats and ideological combat that reshaped talk radio in his later years, and his retirement in 2004 marked, for KABC and for the city, the close of an era in which a morning host functioned as a daily companion rather than a partisan.

EGBOK

At five in the morning the AM booth is a small bright room at the end of a dark hall. A clock with a sweep hand. A microphone on a boom. A board of faders and a rack of cart machines loaded with jingles and spots. Above the door a red bulb. When it burns, a man’s voice reaches a few hundred thousand cars on freeways that feed a city not yet sure the day can be survived. For seventeen years Ken Minyard and Bob Arthur sent three words into that dark. Everything’s gonna be OK. They cut the words to a slogan, EGBOK, and the city said it back to them at gas pumps and breakfast counters. The slogan outlived the show. That is the whole career in a seed, and it is also a problem worth opening.
Ernest Becker held that every culture is a hero system, a set of rules for earning the sense that a life counts in a scheme larger than its own death. The hero system tells a man what to do to qualify for significance and how that significance will outlast him. Religion grants it through the soul. Nations grant it through the flag and the line of descent. Work grants it through the structure that stands after the builder lies down. Becker’s hard claim is that all of it runs on a single fear, the animal’s knowledge that it ends, and that the fear is held off by symbols promising the man he is more than meat.
Set Minyard inside that claim and a small thing turns large. The morning man does not raise the cathedral or carry the colors. He hands out, by the hour, the reassurance Becker says culture exists to supply. His product is the denial, sold retail, five mornings a week, between the traffic on the eights and a spot for a Cadillac dealer in Glendale. The commuter merges onto the Hollywood Freeway in the half-light with a stranger’s death behind every set of brake lights, and a voice he has heard for a decade tells him the city is still here and so is he. The voice does not argue this. It assumes it. Assumption is the gift.
What kind of hero wins by seeming to do nothing heroic? Minyard’s bid for the thing Becker calls symbolic immortality runs opposite to the usual route. He does not build a monument. He becomes a habit. To be woven into the routine of a city is to live in its body, recalled later by people who cannot recall a single thing he said, only that he was there at six while the coffee perked and the kids found their shoes. He earns permanence by dissolving into the ordinary. The achievement hides inside its own modesty.
The record helps here by failing. Minyard’s childhood sits close to blank in the public account, the birthplace contested, the start in radio unconfirmed. The morning man arrives with no recorded morning of his own. Becker named the deepest wish the causa sui project, the wish to be one’s own father, self-grounded and self-made. A man with no documented origin and a microphone stands most of the way there. He is pure present tense. The hour turns over and he begins again, the same warm voice, no yesterday clinging to it.
Sacred words do not carry one meaning. They carry what the hero system needs them to carry, and OK is a sacred word. Turn the dial on that same dark freeway and the word changes shape on every frequency. On the all-news station OK is a number. The jobless rate held, the count from the overnight came in low, the Sepulveda Pass is clear. Reassurance arrives as arithmetic, and the listener relaxes by the decimal. Spin the wheel and the morning business report offers a different OK, the futures green before the bell, no margin call yet triggered, and inside that hero system reassurance is the most dangerous feeling a man can have, the comfort that gets a position carried one day too long and blown to nothing. Spin again and the Christian broadcaster preaches the opposite of EGBOK. This world is not OK and was never built to be. The peace Minyard sells before the traffic is the very complacency the preacher warns against, a soft lie that keeps a man from the only OK that holds, which waits on the far side of this life and not within it. To the preacher, Minyard is a kindly anesthetist working the wrong patient.
Step off the dial and the word splits wider. In a trauma bay near dawn OK means vitals holding, a blood pressure that has stopped falling, and nothing about the day, the city, or the soul. Down a corridor in a hospice OK has been emptied of survival altogether. The nurse who says he is OK now means he is not in pain while he dies, and the family learns to hear the word as mercy rather than promise. To a man who left a regime and a war behind him, OK is a roll call after shelling, a head count, the lie you tell the wounded to keep them still until the truck comes. And to the organizer who reads the morning city as a field of arranged sleep, EGBOK is the enemy itself, the broadcast opiate that floats the commute on a cushion of false calm and sends the worker to his bench unangered. Reassurance, in that system, is theft. The same three words that make Minyard a friend make him, to the revolutionary, a thief of the only thing that might wake a man up.
This is why the morning man stays gentle and stays local. A hero system survives by keeping its sacred terms unexamined inside the house. Minyard keeps the talk on traffic, food, the kids, the chopper over the Cahuenga Pass, the small repairs of the day. He calls himself a Bobby Kennedy liberal and then declines the fight that name might pick. He resists the turn the medium takes around him, because the turn runs on a rival hero system pitched at the same dial.
The shock jock denies death by a different theology. Where Minyard soothes, the transgressor offends, and the offense is the immortality. Howard Stern built a national audience on the premise that the hero is the man who says the forbidden thing out loud and is remembered for the wound. Two metaphysics share one band. The companion wins by being repeated. The provocateur wins by being quoted. One promises the listener he is safe. The other promises him he is alive because he is shocked. FM carried the second voice into Minyard’s market through the early 1990s, and the books began to slip, and the morning that runs on the assumption of order found itself competing against the morning that runs on the thrill of its breach. Minyard once put the trade plainly. Talk radio is tough. You won’t work forever.
Then the hero system met the thing it exists to deny. Arthur left the chair in 1990, pushed out by men who decided he had aged past use. Minyard brought in Roger Barkley, who knew the whole arithmetic of partnership and loss, having outlasted Lohman and once heard himself blamed for ruining the other man’s career. In September 1996 the city tuned in on a Monday and Barkley was gone, removed over a weekend at the station’s demand, and Minyard kept the chair and changed the format and said the day was fine. Within fourteen months both men were dead. Arthur in the spring of 1997, Barkley that December, the two voices that taught a city to say everything’s gonna be OK silenced inside a single year while the third voice stayed on the air and said it again at six.
Hold that picture, because Becker’s whole argument lives in it. The man whose work is the denial of death buries, in twelve months, the two partners who built the denial with him, and goes to the booth the next morning and performs it for everyone else. The sacred word gets tested against two literal corpses, and the test is not whether Minyard believes the word. The test is whether he can keep saying it. He keeps saying it. The hero system does not require sincerity. It requires continuance. The red light burns, the cart fires, the city merges into the half-light, and the voice does the only heroic thing the form allows, which is to show up and assume the day.
On October 15, 2004, after thirty-five years on Los Angeles radio, Minyard told the morning audience he was done. He was a popular man retiring on his own terms, brought back to KABC twice by listeners who would not let the voice go. He had his star on Hollywood Boulevard, won in 1986 beside Arthur, and a city’s worth of people who say to this day that they grew up on Ken and Bob. The symbolic immortality is real. It is also thin, and Becker would press the thinness. The form retired with the man. AM personality radio, the companionable local morning, gave way to national political talk, the transgressor’s grandchildren, syndicated and angry and bound to no city’s freeways. The vehicle that carried Minyard’s denial of death died at about the hour he stepped out of the chair. He sold a city the assurance that everything would be OK for thirty-five years, and the city believed him, and the one buyer he could never reach was time, which took the partners, then the format, then the morning itself.
The light above the door goes dark. That is the last EGBOK. It does not promise anything past the end of the hour, and it never did. The gift was always the hour.

The Beat on the Eights

Randall Collins (b. 1941) argues that the smallest engine of social life is the interaction ritual, and that it runs on four things present at once. Bodies in one place. A boundary that keeps others out. A single focus of attention all parties share. A mood that climbs as they share it. When the four lock and find a rhythm, the ritual throws off three products. Solidarity in the group. A charge in each person that Collins names emotional energy. And a symbol that stands for the whole and holds its charge as long as the group keeps handling it. Profane the symbol and the group turns on the offender with righteous anger. Starve a man of the ritual and his emotional energy drains toward flatness and retreat. Men go where the charge is. They return to the rooms that fill them and avoid the rooms that empty them, and the sum of those returns, run forward across years, is a life and a society both.
A booth at KABC at a quarter to six meets the four conditions before a word goes out. Two men sit at a board. Headphones on. A cough button under the thumb. Cart machines racked and loaded, the jingles cued. A clock with a sweep hand on the wall and a red bulb above the door. Bodies in one place, the first ingredient, met in the most literal way the medium allows. The glass and the closed studio make the boundary, the in-group of two against the dark hall. The clock and each other hold the focus. The mood begins to climb as the second hand comes around toward the top of the hour.
Then the rhythm. Ken sets a line and Bob takes it on the half beat, dry, and the timing is the whole of it. The listener at home hears two men who seem to read each other’s breath. Collins gives that feel a hard name. Rhythmic entrainment. Two nervous systems falling into a shared cadence, turn and answer, the micro-coordination of bodies that no script supplies and no memo installs. Chemistry is this and nothing more occult than this. When the entrainment runs clean the charge flows both ways and out the transmitter. When it stutters the charge dies in the room. Ken and Bob entrained, and the entrainment is the reason a city said their slogan back to them for a generation.
A problem sits inside the praise. Collins is strict about bodies in one place, and he is skeptical that a ritual carries far through a wire. The booth holds two men. The audience is half a million strangers scattered across freeways that never see each other. How does a ritual built for a dyad become a ritual for Los Angeles? The morning form solves the distance with two devices, and the solution is the craft.
The first device is the clock. Everyone tuned to 790 hears the same traffic on the eights at the same instant, the chopper over the Cahuenga Pass, the slowdown at the Sepulveda Pass, the count read out while a thousand men sit in the same backup. The simultaneity manufactures an imagined assembly. No one is in the room, and yet everyone is in the hour, focused on one point at one moment, which is most of what Collins asks of a shared focus. The freeway becomes a dispersed congregation that never learns it is one.
The second device is the portable sacred object. EGBOK leaves the transmitter and rides in the listener’s mouth. He says it at the gas pump to a stranger filling the next car, and the stranger nods and says it back, and the two of them run a small ritual on the concrete with the symbol Minyard handed them at six. The charge does not stay in the booth. It recharges off-air, in micro-rituals between people who never met the man, and it comes back primed the next morning when they return to hear the voice that minted the coin. A sacred object lives by circulation. EGBOK circulated through a metropolitan area for seventeen years, and every gas-pump exchange paid a little energy back up the chain.
Cut to the man in the car. He drives to a job where he takes orders and gives none. Collins has a cold finding here. The order-taker loses emotional energy across his day, drained by every instruction he receives and cannot refuse, while the order-giver gains it. The morning voice reaches that man before the draining starts and lends him a charge to carry in. The companion does not lecture him and does not sort him. The companion entrains him, gentles him into the hour, sends him onto the off-ramp fuller than he merged. The product is not information. The product is emotional energy, delivered on a schedule, and a man will defend the source of his charge the way he defends little else. That is why a habit becomes a thing men grow fierce about, why grown listeners brought Minyard back to KABC twice and say to this day that they were raised on Ken and Bob. They are not recalling content. They are crediting the source of a charge they felt every working morning of a decade.
The partnership ledger reads clean once emotional energy is the unit of account. Bob fused because the entrainment held. Roger Barkley fused for the same reason and from deep stock, a man who had run the morning rhythm with Al Lohman for twenty-five years and brought a trained sense of cadence to the chair in 1990. The booth synchronized again and the books stayed high. Peter Tilden ran cold. Satire keeps a different beat, sharper, angled at the listener rather than alongside him, and the two men never settled into a shared cadence the audience could entrain to. The ritual went flat. The charge thinned. The ratings fell, and KABC released both men in 1998. The pairing with his son ran colder still, and the format explains the chill before any question of talent arises. An afternoon syndicated slot has no morning clock, no metropolitan simultaneity, no freeway congregation focused at one instant. Strip the clock and you strip the imagined assembly, and a ritual with no shared focus throws off no charge. The slot could not entrain a city because the city was not assembled to be entrained.
Then the chain broke at the root. FM multiplied through the early 1990s, and the audience that had faced one point at one moment came apart into a hundred private streams. The listener stopped sharing a focus with the man in the next lane. He began to listen alone, and soon he began to listen sorted, tuned to the station that flattered his team. Collins lets us see what replaced the morning ritual, because the new talk runs a ritual too, a different one. Its charge comes from righteous anger at an out-group, the power ritual that bonds a crowd by naming an enemy and profaning him together. That ritual needs no shared metropolitan focus and no warmth. It needs a target. Minyard’s morning ran on the opposite supply, on a mood the whole dial once held in common, and once the dial fragmented the common mood had nowhere to form. He could not out-anger the angry, and he would not try. He had called himself a Bobby Kennedy liberal and kept the talk on traffic and food and the small repairs of the day, which was the right craft for a ritual of solidarity and the wrong weapon for a ritual of contempt. He saw the engine failing and said so in the plainest terms the trade allows. Talk radio is tough. You won’t work forever. Read through Collins, that is a man watching the chain that fed him come apart link by link.
On October 15, 2004, after thirty-five years, Minyard told the morning audience he was done, and the red bulb above the door went dark. The ritual ended with the man, and the form ended close behind him, the companionable local morning giving way to the syndicated anger that needed no city to assemble. One thing outlived the transmitter. The sacred object kept its charge. People who never sat in the booth and cannot name a single thing the man said still say everything’s gonna be OK to each other at gas pumps and breakfast counters, a coin minted at a board at dawn and still in circulation, a charge running down a chain whose first link is long off the air.

The Boulevard Star

Pierre Bourdieu (1930-2002) holds that cultural life takes place in fields, structured spaces of position where players compete for a capital the field alone makes valuable. Each field runs between two poles. At the autonomous pole stand the producers who work for the regard of other producers, who honor craft and treat the chase for money as a kind of disgrace, where the man who refuses the market wins the only prize that counts inside the house. At the heteronomous pole stand the producers who serve outside demand, who measure themselves by sales and audience size and take the market’s verdict as the verdict. Most fields tilt one way or the other. Commercial radio tilts hard toward the heteronomous pole, since the books rule and the advertiser pays, and the ratings book is the field’s hard currency. The interesting players are the ones who hold an autonomous position inside a heteronomous field, who win craft honor in a house built for the cash register. Minyard is one of these.
Two poles ran through Los Angeles morning radio, and Minyard took one by declining the other. At the craft pole stands the companion, the man whose value lies in a respect that other broadcasters extend, who is called civil and intelligent by the trade and treated as a practitioner of something hard to do well. At the attention pole stands the transgressor, the shock jock, who serves raw demand and takes audience size as the whole of the argument. Both men fight for the same band and the same dollar. They are not doing the same job by different means. They occupy opposed positions in one space, and each position defines itself against the other. The companion is everything the transgressor refuses to be, and the field needs both poles to exist, since the warmth reads as warmth only against the offense, and the offense reads as daring only against the warmth.
Habitus comes first in any Bourdieu reading, the set of durable dispositions a man carries in his body from where he started, the feel for the game that looks like nature and is history. Minyard’s warmth presents as habitus. It does not present as technique. The voice carries an unforced small-town ease that no program director installs by memo and no consultant teaches in a seminar, the disposition of a man who seems to have been formed somewhere plain and kind and to be giving it away without effort. The field reads that ease off the voice and credits it as native. Here the record turns useful by staying blank. Minyard’s origins sit close to undocumented, the birthplace contested, the childhood unrecorded. The field consecrates a habitus the biography cannot confirm. Bourdieu would press exactly there, because the naturalization of an arbitrary thing is the field’s signature move. A disposition that might have been cultivated reads as a gift of birth, and the reading is the value. The warmth works because it does not look like work.
Now the capital. Minyard accumulates the kind Bourdieu calls symbolic, the recognition and prestige that the field’s authorities confer, and he accumulates it at the craft pole where the transgressor cannot reach. He holds social capital too, the durable relations that produce returns, the bond with Arthur and then with Barkley, the bench of contributors, the traffic man and the auto man who give the morning its furniture of trust. And he holds, for most of his run, the field’s hard currency, the ratings, the top of the book for the better part of twenty years. For a long stretch the two capitals move together. The craft honor and the numbers point the same way, and a man who holds both looks unassailable.
The position itself is a stance, a thing Bourdieu calls a position-taking. Minyard calls himself a Bobby Kennedy liberal and then declines to spend the label, keeps the morning on traffic and food and the small repairs of the day, refuses to sort the audience into teams. Read as a stance in the field, the refusal is a bid for the autonomous pole, a disavowal of the cheap heteronomous play that would trade craft honor for a hotter number. The disavowal earns him symbolic capital. The trade reads as integrity, and integrity is the autonomous pole’s coin. The trouble waits in the convertibility. Symbolic capital banks well when the field holds steady. It converts poorly into the field’s hard currency once the field restructures and the hard currency is all the station will accept.
The body enters as capital that depreciates, and the field shows its hand on the aging man. Arthur is pushed out in 1990 by management convinced he has aged past use. Barkley is removed over a weekend in 1996, the city tuning in on a Monday to find him gone at the station’s demand. Read these as the field withdrawing consecration from bodies that have lost their market position. The heteronomous pole prizes the demographic the advertiser will buy, and an old voice depreciates against it no matter how clean the craft remains. The men’s symbolic capital, the respect and the long service, cannot stop the withdrawal, because symbolic capital does not pay the advertiser. Minyard outlasts both partners and survives on the same terms they failed, an autonomous-pole player kept on only so long as his number still serves the heteronomous demand. He is living on borrowed convertibility.
FM multiplies through the early 1990s and the audience fragments. The single dominant position that a top morning man once held breaks into a hundred contested slots, and the heteronomous logic intensifies as the competition sharpens. The dominant currency shifts toward the pole Minyard refused. Attention by provocation becomes the winning play, and the craft honor he banked at the autonomous pole loses its rate of exchange. He cannot out-attract the transgressor and will not try, since trying would spend the symbolic capital that is the point of his position. KABC pairs him with Peter Tilden, the books slip, and the station releases both men in 1998. A man rich in respect and short on the only currency the restructured field will spend gets moved off the board.
He comes back. KABC returns him to the morning in November 2001 beside Dan Avey, and the return reads as the field acknowledging a consecration it could not quite retire, a value the audience refused to let lapse. On October 15, 2004, after thirty-five years, Minyard leaves on his own terms, a thing the field rarely grants and a sign of capital held to the end. The clearest fixing of that capital sits in the concrete of Hollywood Boulevard, the star he won beside Arthur in 1986, the field’s institutions stamping his value into the ground where it cannot be revised. A star is consecration made permanent, prestige set in terrazzo, the autonomous pole’s prize in its most literal form. It marks a man whom the field judged worthy by its own internal measure of craft.
The boulevard fixes Minyard’s value at the craft pole at the moment the field is abandoning the craft pole for the pole of pure attention. His consecration is real and his capital is real, and the field that issued both moved on to a place where neither would trade. The companion holds his star on a street walked by tourists while the morning he practiced gives way to the syndicated transgressor, the heteronomous pole victorious across the band. He kept his honor and lost the exchange rate. That is the position he chose, and the choice was sound by the only measure he respected, and it cost him the field.

Nothing to Pass On

The obituaries might reach for magic. They might say Ken Minyard had a gift, an ear, a feel for the morning that no one could teach and no one could replace. They might call the thing between him and Bob Arthur chemistry, and they might leave the word there, unexamined, as if it named a substance the two men shared and carried into the booth. The trade tells the same story about itself. Warmth cannot be taught. Timing cannot be installed. A man either has the morning in him or he does not, and the ones who have it hold a knowledge that lives below speech, passed from veteran to veteran by proximity and never by rule. This is the romance of tacit knowledge, and Stephen Park Turner (b. 1951) spent a career taking it apart.
Turner’s target is the idea that a group shares a hidden content, a set of tacit rules or skills or presuppositions that sits beneath the surface and gets handed around. In The Social Theory of Practices he presses one question against the whole tradition, from Durkheim through the readings of Wittgenstein, and the question is fatal. By what route does the shared thing travel? If a practice is real and held in common, there must be some way the same content gets from one head into another, and Turner finds that no account supplies it. There is no collective store from which men download a common skill. What the romance calls shared tacit knowledge has no path by which to become shared. So Turner draws the deflationary conclusion. The shared object does not exist. What exists is individuals, each one habituated by his own history, each carrying his own dispositions built from his own long feedback, and the habits of different men sometimes mesh well enough to throw off the appearance of a common practice. The sameness is imputed after the fact. It was never downloaded, because there was never anywhere to download it from.
Turn that on the chemistry of Ken and Bob and the substance dissolves. The two men did not share a thing. Each arrived at the board with his own habits, formed over years Turner would call individual and uncopyable, Arthur the newsman with his dry economy, Minyard with whatever ease his undocumented life had laid down in him. Across seventeen years they calibrated to each other, each adjusting his own habits in answer to the other’s responses, a million small corrections running both ways until the two separate sets of dispositions interlocked so tightly that a listener heard one fused thing. The interlock is real. The shared substance is not. Two nervous systems, each habituated alone, learned to mesh through feedback, and the mesh is the only thing the word chemistry ever named. Take one man out and the mesh is gone, and nothing transfers to the next chair, because the interlock lived in the fit between two particular histories and not in either man’s possession.
This is why no program director could install the morning by memo, and Turner explains the failure better than the romance does. The romance says warmth is too deep to teach, a sacred knowledge that resists words. Turner says there is no content to teach in the first place. A man cannot hand another man his habits, because habits are the causal residue of one life and do not detach from it. The new host does not lack a secret the veteran withholds. He lacks the history that built the veteran’s dispositions, and history does not transmit. You can copy a script and a format clock and a jingle package. You cannot copy the thing that made the copy land, because that thing was never an object sitting somewhere available to be moved.
Arthur fused because two long-habituated professionals calibrated to each other over a long time. Barkley fused for the same reason and faster, a man who had run a morning interlock with Al Lohman for twenty-five years and brought a set of dispositions already trained to adjust, so that when he sat down with Minyard in 1990 the mutual calibration found its fit. Then Peter Tilden ran cold, and the romance reaches again for the loss of magic. Turner needs no magic and no loss. Tilden’s habits, built for satire, angled at the listener and primed for the sharp turn, never settled into a mesh with Minyard’s habits, which were built to run alongside the listener and to soften. Two histories that did not interlock. No blame in it and no mystery, only the contingent failure of two separately formed habit-sets to fit. The pairing with his son ran colder, and the same account holds without any judgment of the men. There was no shared craft that the son failed to inherit, because there was no shared craft to inherit. There were only Minyard’s habits, his own, fitting some partners and not others, the way one man’s gait falls into step with one walking companion and not the next.
EGBOK gives the romance. The slogan looks like tacit social knowledge made audible, a reassurance Minyard performed by following rules he could not state. Turner denies the rules. Minyard followed no buried code that told him how to comfort a city. He had a habit that produced a reassuring effect, laid down by years of doing the morning and noting what came back, and the listener met it with his own habit of uptake, formed by his own years of listening. The meaning they are said to share is an imputation laid over two separate habituations that happen to fit. Minyard’s everything’s gonna be OK was his. The listener’s was the listener’s. Nothing passed between them but sound, and the fit between his habit of saying it and their habit of hearing it did the rest.
The blank record turns useful one more time, and against the grain of every prior reading. The childhood undocumented, the start in radio unconfirmed, the origin a hole in the page. The romance treats such a gap as a lost key, the missing biography that would explain the gift. Turner treats it as beside the point. Even a full record of the feedback that built Minyard’s habits would show a unique causal path and not a transferable content. Knowing exactly how the dispositions formed would not let anyone install them in a second man, because the knowing and the having are different things, and only the having does the work. The missing childhood hides no secret, because there was no secret of the transmissible sort to hide.
So the format’s end reads without elegy. The standard account mourns a lost art and a man no one could replace. Turner removes the art and keeps the man. Nothing was lost when Minyard left the chair on October 15, 2004, because there was no stored possession to lose, no skill-object that died with the practitioner. There were habits, his, exercised for thirty-five years in a particular room against a particular clock beside particular partners, and when FM fragmented the audience and the format dissolved, those habits had nowhere left to interlock. They did not die. They stopped being exercised, the way a key stops turning when the lock is gone. The competence the obituaries call irreplaceable was never the kind of thing that could be replaced or kept, because it was never a thing at all.
One item did pass on, and the contrast carries the whole argument. EGBOK survives. People who never sat in the booth say it to each other still, and they can say it because a phrase is a copyable object and travels with no trouble at all. The phrase moved through a city and outlived the man. The skill that made the phrase land moved nowhere, sat in no store, transferred to no successor, and ended when its conditions ended. Turner tells us why the slogan lives and the craft does not. The slogan was always an object. The craft never was.

The We Without the They

A city wakes in the dark to a sound that should not be there, the ground gone liquid under the bed, the power dead, the phone dead, and a man reaches for the one thing in the house that still works, a radio running on batteries, and turns the dial toward a voice he knows. Jeffrey C. Alexander (b. 1947) gives us the apparatus to see what happens in that moment, when a frightened man in the dark finds Ken Minyard already talking, already calm, already telling him the city is still there. The moment is the high payout of this frame, and it also marks the frame’s edge, because Minyard spent thirty-five years performing the thing Alexander says a society reaches for only in crisis, and he performed it without the engine that Alexander says drives the reaching.
Alexander begins from a refusal. An event does not carry its own meaning. Facts do not speak. A break-in at a hotel sits inert for two years and then becomes the gravest peacetime crisis in the republic’s history, and the facts barely change across that span. What changes is the telling. Society tells the event, and the telling runs along a ladder Alexander takes from Parsons. At the bottom sits the level of goals, the mundane traffic of interest and power, the profane in Durkheim’s sense. Above it sit norms. Above those sit values, the sacred and elemental commitments that hold the order together. Routine life stays at the level of goals, and stays there precisely when no one feels the goals threatening anything higher. A crisis begins when attention jumps the ladder, when a man stops thinking about his goals and starts fearing for his values, and the whole public climbs with him. Alexander calls the climb generalization, and he names it the center of the ritual process.
Set Minyard’s ordinary morning against that ladder and the craft comes clear. He keeps the morning at the level of goals on purpose. Traffic on the eights. The chopper over the pass. Food, the kids, the small repairs of the day, the auto man and the traffic man and the weather. He keeps it profane, in the exact technical sense, because a city that feels its values threatened every morning cannot merge onto the freeway and go to work. The deliberate smallness of the ordinary morning is the gift. He holds the talk at the bottom of the ladder so the listener does not have to climb.
Then the ground moves before dawn, or the city burns in the spring of 1992, and the listener climbs whether he wants to or not. Attention jumps from goals to values, from the commute to the question of whether the city itself will hold. Here Minyard’s role changes, and the morning form turns, for a few hours, into the thing Alexander studies. The voice creates what Victor Turner called communitas, a sudden shared belonging that erases the ordinary separations, and it does so through a wire, across a metropolis of strangers who cannot see one another. The hours become sacred time. The man in the dark stops being one frightened person and becomes part of a we, and the voice that assembles the we is the voice that has talked to him at six every working morning for a decade. He believes it because he already knew it. Minyard performs solidarity, and the city fuses around the performance, and then, when the aftershocks fade, he walks the city back down the ladder to goals, to the report on which freeways have reopened and which markets have power. He is a master of controlled generalization. He takes the city up only as far as the crisis demands and brings it back before the climb does harm.
The going up is easy in a crisis, because shared fear fuses an audience to a speaker on its own. The hard work is the ordinary morning, and that is where Alexander’s theory of performance pays the most. A modern performance, he argues, runs on parts that have come apart. The actor, the script, the staging, the means of production, the audience, all separated, all visible as machinery in a way they never were in the face-to-face rituals of small societies. Success means fusing the parts back together so completely that the audience forgets the machinery and reads the performance as sincere. Fail, and the audience sees acting, sees manipulation, sees a man working an angle. The morning booth is machinery laid bare. A board of faders. Cart machines loaded with jingles and sold spots. A format clock. Two men reading breaks between commercials a salesman placed. The achievement is that none of it reads as machinery. EGBOK leaves the transmitter and lands in the car as a friend’s reassurance, not as a slogan a station manufactured to sell a Cadillac dealer in Glendale. The fusion is so total the listener never suspects a performance is underway. That invisibility is the whole of the craft, and it explains the partnership ledger one more time. Peter Tilden’s satire angled at the listener rather than alongside him, and satire shows its own seams, points at the gap between the line and the truth, and the pointing breaks the fusion. The audience saw a performance. With Bob Arthur and with Roger Barkley the fusion held, and the city saw two friends.
Alexander’s civil ritual runs on conflict. Watergate generalizes because a center is felt to be polluted, because countercenters mobilize against it, because the public sorts the actors onto a grid of pure and impure and then purges the impure through a long rite. The trauma process runs the same engine. A carrier group projects a claim of injury, names the pain, names the victim, names the enemy who caused it, and broadcasts the claim until a wider public takes the wound as its own. Pollution drives the climb. The binary code, the sacred set against the profane, the clean set against the unclean, is the thing that generates the heat. And Minyard refused all of it. He performed the solidarity and skipped the pollution. He gave the city the we and never supplied a they. He called himself a Bobby Kennedy liberal and then declined to spend the label, declined to name an enemy at the center, declined to sort his audience into the pure and the impure. He ran, in effect, perpetual reaggregation, the calm that Alexander says comes after the rite, the national healing that Gerald Ford performed when he told the country its long nightmare had ended. Minyard performed that healing every morning for thirty-five years, the reaggregation with no crisis of pollution before it, solidarity at room temperature, a we that needed no enemy to cohere.
This made him decent and it doomed his form. The broadcasters who displaced him are carrier groups in Alexander’s exact sense. They perform a trauma every morning. They name a polluted center, code an enemy as impure, project a claim of injury to an audience already primed to feel it, and run permanent generalization at the level of a values war that never descends to the calm of goals. Partisan talk is the pollution ritual turned into a daily format, the binary code stamped out hour after hour, and it runs hot because pollution is the engine of heat. Solidarity against a named enemy generates more of it than solidarity against nothing. Minyard could bind a city in a real crisis because the earthquake or the fire supplied the threat from outside. He could not manufacture a threat on a calm Tuesday, and he would not. The successors manufacture one every Tuesday. Alexander ends the Watergate essay with a line that reads, against Minyard, as an epitaph for his whole kind of morning. Scandals are not born, they are made. So are the daily enemies of the talk that replaced him. Minyard made friends and refused to make enemies, and the field went to the enemy-makers, because the enemy-makers ran the engine and he had unplugged it.
He left the chair on October 15, 2004, a civil performer in a medium turning toward permanent trauma. His true civil sphere was the rare morning when the ground moved and a frightened city in the dark needed a voice to tell it the we still held. He gave it that, and the giving was real, the solidarity unforced, the communitas not manufactured but found in the shared fear of an actual crisis. The rest of the time he performed the same belonging at low heat and hid the performance inside an old friend’s warmth. He built a we that never required a they, which is the reason it was good, and the reason, once the they-makers arrived with their daily pollution and their hot binary code, that it could not hold the morning against them.

Posted in Radio | Comments Off on Ken Minyard and the Los Angeles Morning