Essentialism vs freedom

Michael Sandel gives an interesting TED Talk on democracy, saying that we should talk more about the deep moral convictions people have to raise the level of debate in democracy. This may be a good idea, but unfortunately his argument for it is questionable.

He starts by asking to whom we should give the best flutes. From a fallibilist point of view this is an odd thing to ask. What makes him think that any person or group, even a room full of very clever TED type people, is fit to decide this question? The question begs for an authoritarian answer: the best flute players should get the flutes. Why? Because the essential nature of the best flutes means they should be played well. But actually it might not be the best idea for the best flute players to get the best flutes. Perhaps some of the best flutes should go to people learning to play the flute to make it easier for them to learn.

However, the worst problem with Sandel’s argument is far deeper than that, it is a structural problem. He talked at one point about the essential purpose of our institutions, but that is a bad way to think about institutions, as Popper pointed out in “The Open Society and its Enemies”. Rather, we should consider what problem our institutions are trying to solve, we should criticise their performance on those problems, ask whether it would be better to solve other problems. We should be willing to change and abolish institutions to serve those ends rather than navel gazing about their essential purpose.

Looking at things this way, there is something very odd about his discussion of the flutes. What constitutes the best flute should depend on the problem we are trying to solve. While some kinds of flutes might be better for solving problem X (e.g. – playing in an orchestra), others might be better for solving problem Y (e.g. – helping people to learn the flute for the first time). People should be free to come up with new flute designs and new ways of manufacturing and marketing flutes and so on. People should also be free to take up flute playing if they want to, to come up with new ways of playing flutes and new ways of helping people to learn the flute. And of course, people should be free to play the flute even if they are not very good at it and have no intention of becoming good at it, if it happens to suit them to do so for some reason. Finally, people should be free to disagree on the relative ranking of different flautists, partly because this is necessary to create knowledge about good flute playing. And if people don’t agree on the relative ranking of flautists who would get to decide who gets the best flutes if we agreed that they should go to the best flautists? Sandel’s essentialism leads him to brush these problems under the carpet, and it sadly noticeable that in a talk about democracy, the words and freedom and openness didn’t get a mention.