What do you think?
Rate this book
Behalf
In Behalf P. N. Furbank argues that in thinking about society and politics, one needs to start from the proposition that every human being contains within himself or herself the entire potentiality of the human species and that it is therefore wrong to regard cultural differences as innate.
This conclusion, in turn, raises doubts about the concept of pluralism as propounded by political philosophers such as Isaiah Berlin. According to Berlin, societies incarnate sets of values that, while good in themselves, might be incommensurable or incompatible with those of other societies. As Furbank shows, however, the epithets “incommensurable” and “incompatible” fall to pieces under scrutiny. Furthermore, the tacit implication that pluralism is a political concept, rivaling democracy, appears to be an illusion.
Furbank proceeds to consider the question of what it means to act “on behalf” of others. He notes that the apparent strength of “politics of the person”—the ground of feminist, black, and gay politics, with its insistence that everyone should speak with his or her own distinctive voice, unmediated by representation or action on behalf of others—is its freedom from the taint of philanthropy. But he argues that this freedom comes at a high price, which is no less than that of involving the term “politics” in self-contradiction. He concludes that there is seemingly no substitute for what one might call “politics proper” and that this form of politics is by nature on behalf of someone or something not itself—a politics that is, incurably, philanthropic, and, being so, is exposed to all the snares and temptations with which philanthropy is plagued.
This conclusion, in turn, raises doubts about the concept of pluralism as propounded by political philosophers such as Isaiah Berlin. According to Berlin, societies incarnate sets of values that, while good in themselves, might be incommensurable or incompatible with those of other societies. As Furbank shows, however, the epithets “incommensurable” and “incompatible” fall to pieces under scrutiny. Furthermore, the tacit implication that pluralism is a political concept, rivaling democracy, appears to be an illusion.
Furbank proceeds to consider the question of what it means to act “on behalf” of others. He notes that the apparent strength of “politics of the person”—the ground of feminist, black, and gay politics, with its insistence that everyone should speak with his or her own distinctive voice, unmediated by representation or action on behalf of others—is its freedom from the taint of philanthropy. But he argues that this freedom comes at a high price, which is no less than that of involving the term “politics” in self-contradiction. He concludes that there is seemingly no substitute for what one might call “politics proper” and that this form of politics is by nature on behalf of someone or something not itself—a politics that is, incurably, philanthropic, and, being so, is exposed to all the snares and temptations with which philanthropy is plagued.
126 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1999
3 people want to read
About the author
P.N. Furbank
91 books6 followersPhilip Nicholas Furbank was an English biographer, critic and academic. His most significant biography was the well-received life of his friend E.M. Forster.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
December 25, 2013
Furbank's slim volume has the merits of a good conversation. It is an essay which truly assays its topic, i.e., examines and explores without coming to a definite conclusion. It asks the question, what is the proper way to help strangers who make up the vast majority of others in the world? It takes this question as the key concern of humanism, and so also evaluates various disciplines designated as such.
Furbank argues very convincingly that the formalized task of helping others known as philanthropy is flawed by being based on the idea that the benefactor is somehow radically different, and usually superior, to those he or she helps. Philanthropy usually involves coercion and/or the expectation of obligations on the part of the recipient. To counteract such flaws, Furbank offers the hypothesis (from Proust)that the proper premise of any humanism might be "that each human being comprises, potentially, the characteristics of the whole human species." I take the implication of this to be that the best way to help others is to help oneself. This, in effect, depolitcizes the politics of philanthropy. But this is also problematic, for how does one help others when one is focusing on oneself?
With this question unanswered, Furbank rather querulously ends his book. He should write another one to answer it. The short answer is thus: An individual life can only be successful based on the will of the individual to better himself. The best thing you can wish for anyone is that they learn to pull themselves up by the bootstraps. The problem with this is that many will inevitably fail and be left by the wayside. The two possible responses to this situation are the basis for the two political poles of today: laissez faire capitalism and altruism (these being much more precise and unambiguous than popular terms like republican and liberal).
Furbank argues very convincingly that the formalized task of helping others known as philanthropy is flawed by being based on the idea that the benefactor is somehow radically different, and usually superior, to those he or she helps. Philanthropy usually involves coercion and/or the expectation of obligations on the part of the recipient. To counteract such flaws, Furbank offers the hypothesis (from Proust)that the proper premise of any humanism might be "that each human being comprises, potentially, the characteristics of the whole human species." I take the implication of this to be that the best way to help others is to help oneself. This, in effect, depolitcizes the politics of philanthropy. But this is also problematic, for how does one help others when one is focusing on oneself?
With this question unanswered, Furbank rather querulously ends his book. He should write another one to answer it. The short answer is thus: An individual life can only be successful based on the will of the individual to better himself. The best thing you can wish for anyone is that they learn to pull themselves up by the bootstraps. The problem with this is that many will inevitably fail and be left by the wayside. The two possible responses to this situation are the basis for the two political poles of today: laissez faire capitalism and altruism (these being much more precise and unambiguous than popular terms like republican and liberal).
Displaying 1 of 1 review