There is no denying that the entries on this site remain committed to Arendt’s emphatic call to “think what we are doing.” Admittedly, I find myself agreeing with a lot of what the contributors have to say here. But I would like to invite (or perhaps urge) Berkowitz to rethink some of his concluding remarks.

Notwithstanding his otherwise insightful analysis on the “crisis” in higher education, I nevertheless take some issue with it. What I find deeply problematic about the article lies in the passage quoted above. The belief that “not everyone wants or needs to read Kant closely” is a sweeping generalization to make. To whom exactly is Berkowitz referring in using the term “everyone”?

As a former SJSU student, I was fortunate enough to participate in a political theory course modeled after Sandel’s lecture series on ‘Justice’. Prior to taking this course, I never had the occasion to read any of Kant’s works. Coming from an immigrant working-class family, whose parents never heard of the German philosopher(!), I had no real desire to take Kant or political theory, for that matter, seriously. But all that changed.

“Passionate thinking,” to use Arendt’s words, came alive in that classroom. The course was co-taught by two exemplary professors who were unwavering in their commitment to the exercise of critical thinking. They served as interlocutors with whom students could engage in debates on dilemmas both timely and timeless. The point to recognize here is that the reading materials–often canonical texts from the Western philosophical tradition–became the point of departure for every conversation. No doubt engagement with those texts proved instrumental in stimulating thoughtful discussions. A sort of “fusions of horizons” materialized between the texts and the students, and to preclude future generations from that type of meaningful exchange is profoundly troubling.

I am not suggesting that the only way to instantiate a flourishing democracy is to read the works of rarefied philosophers.[1] What I am suggesting, however, is that if taken to its extreme, the sentiments echoed in Berkowitz’s arguments might possibly lead to the elimination of required general education courses in the humanities. The consequences of this would prove far-reaching insofar as it would work to occlude students from developing and augmenting their critical capacities, a crucial component for a responsive and reflective citizenry.

In The Human Condition and elsewhere, Hannah Arendt provides a radically unique conception of popular sovereignty grounded in her recovery of the twofold meaning of the verb ‘to act’. There, she tells us that the term action initially conjured up images of beginning, of generating spontaneous movement, and of leading.[2] Archein, the Greek word that denoted this initiatory act, was coupled with the Greek prattein, which had to do with moments of completion or achievement, and of carrying something through.[3]

My point in drawing attention to this distinction is that a possible dimension of ruling may lie in this ability to remain attentive to political solicitations from the outside.[4] That includes holding political elites accountable for their actions, and recognizing political events deserving of either praise or blame. Ultimately, citizens in a democratic regime occupy the seat of the judge. And I believe that learning how to rule in this Arendtian sense can begin, among other places, in the physical classroom.

I value and admire what Berkowitz has to say. I only ask that he give pause to reflect on some of the implications of his conclusions. The professors, the students and the reading materials in the philosophy and political science departments at SJSU all played a formative role in my undergraduate experience. And we need to ensure that those creative spaces–like the California State Universities–remain open and accessible to posterity.

– a concerned undergrad

***

1. But we should, at the very least, introduce these materials to students!
2. Arendt, Hannah. The Human Condition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1958. 189.
3. Ibid.
4. Markell’s essay on Arendtian rule has influenced my understanding of the archein/prattein distinction.

Alberto Cavalli