This is part two of this interview, in which Michael talks about why he is an antifoundationalist in matters of social justice, and you should be too. Ari still isn’t talking in this part. I promise he was there, and he shows up in the next bit.
Also, as promised or threatened, the wiggling remains for now, though after reading all your complaints I tried to come with more creative uses of animation in the latter bit of the video.
Please, as before, comment on form and/or substance.
11 comments
May 10, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Giblets
Giblets wants to live on Wiggly Neptune.
May 10, 2008 at 10:12 pm
bitchphd
PK likes the cartoon, but says, “what is he talking about?”
May 12, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Colin
Is wiggling a brute fact or a social fact?
May 12, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Colin
The crickets are great, though. For the next one maybe intermittent frog chirps, or the occasional distant coyote when Steve Fuller is mentioned.
May 12, 2008 at 12:08 pm
eric
Evidently it is a social fact and one on its way to deconstruction.
May 12, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Michael Bérubé on privilege. « The Edge of the American West
[...] 12, 2008 in our thing by eric Part three of this conversation (part 1, part 2). About privilege, rhetoric, and when it’s okay to tell your students you’re gay [...]
May 13, 2008 at 4:47 am
Bérubé deliver us from evil | stuart noble
[...] morning I came across this terrific explanation from Michael Bérubé, in an interview (part two) given by the two guys who run one of my favorite history blogs. See parts one and three here and [...]
May 13, 2008 at 1:22 pm
charlieford
I’m not sure I approve of the idea of anti-foundationalism.” I mean, I know some foundations are dicey–Heritage for example. Others, like the John and Catherine MacArthur Foundation, or the Ford Foundation, seem pretty good. So why should we generalize about all foundations just because of a few bad apples? It just seems wrong.
May 13, 2008 at 3:06 pm
eric
You’ve busted us, charlie. We’re just foundationist, is all.
May 13, 2008 at 5:01 pm
charlieford
Reprehensible! Next, you’ll be saying they should have their own headquarters!
May 14, 2008 at 6:16 am
Sam C
Interesting chat, but I don’t buy MB’s take on anti-foundationalism. His ‘in a nutshell’ claim is that humans make our own ethics, our own social justice. But any number of thinkers – Hobbes, Kant, Mill, Rawls – would agree with that. MB (sorry if I’ve got the wrong end of the stick here) seems to think that this implies the strong claim that it’s arbitrary what we make up: there’s nothing against which we can measure our inventions. But there are reasons for and against particular ethics, just as there are reasons for and against claims about Neptune. And among those reasons are brute facts. Berube mentions, for instance, the (brute, causal) facts about how social institutions affect his son’s chance of a good life. That one set of institutions would make people’s lives better than another set is a good reason for adopting the first.
I’m tempted to say: Humans make their own ethics, but not just as they please.
This may well turn out to be an unfair attack on what was, after all, a short conversation; and I haven’t read any of MB’s stuff outside the web. But I’d be interested to know what his response is, if he’s around…