SHELDONWOLINANDDEMOCRACY
LucyCanepresentsthe firstfull-lengthstudyofSheldonWolin(1922–2015),an influentialtheoristofdemocracyandprescientcriticof “invertedtotalitarianism” intheUnitedStates.ShetracesthedevelopmentofWolin’sthinkingoversixty years,offeringanoverarchinginterpretationofhiscentralpreoccupationsand shiftsinperspective.Framedaroundthemesoflossandmourning,thisisnotonly anintellectualbiographybutalsoacriticalengagementofWolin’sworkwith democratictheorymorebroadlyandanassessmentofitsvalueforaddressing contemporarycrisesofdemocracy.
CanebringsWolinintoconversationwithothercontemporarytheorists,from ChantalMouffetoEdwardSaid,aswellaswithhisdirectintellectualinfluences.She arguesthathismournfultendenciescontinuetoofferuniqueinsightintothepotential lossoflocaldemocraticculturesinaneraofneoliberalprecarity.Atthesametime,she questionswhetherhispoliticsofmourningcanadequatelygraspthedynamicsof democraticcoalition-buildingorthevalueofnewpoliticalmovementsandideas.
SheldonWolinandDemocracy remediesalackofinterpretivestudiesofthiskey thinker,connectsdivergentstrandsofcontemporarytheory,andaddressesurgent democraticdilemmas.Itisamustreadforallpoliticaltheoristsandothersinthe academyandbeyondwhoseektoconceptualizethefateofdemocracyamidstthe riseofright-wingpopulistmovementsinthetwenty-firstcentury.
LucyCane isVisitingAssistantTeachingProfessorofPoliticalScienceatthe UniversityofDenver,wheresheteachespoliticaltheoryandUSconstitutionallaw. Shehaspublishedarticles,reviews,orchaptersin PoliticalTheory,EuropeanJournalof PoliticalTheory,ContemporaryPoliticalTheory,NewPoliticalScience,TheOxford HandbookofContemporaryClassicsinPoliticalTheory,TheBloomsburyCompanionto HannahArendt,and OxfordBibliographiesOnline
“Thisisthemostthorough,comprehensive,andbalancedaccountofthe workofSheldonWolinavailable.”
JohnGunnell,EmeritusProfessorofPoliticalScience,UniversityatAlbany,State UniversityofNewYork
“Thisimportantbookisorganizedbytheideathattheentiretrajectoryof SheldonWolin’spoliticaltheoryisanimatedby-andcanbeilluminatedbytheperspectiveofloss.Brilliantandbold,alsocomprehensiveandcareful,it sustainsthenecessarybalancebetweendeepappreciationandcriticaldistance andbringsWolin’sworkintoconversationwithotherimportantversionsof radicaldemocratictheory.”
GeorgeShulman,Professor,TheGallatinSchool,NewYorkUniversity
“Indarkandincreasinglyuncertaintimesfordemocracy,therearefewvoices moreimportantthanthatofthelateSheldonWolin.LucyCanedoesagreat servicetodemocratictheoristsanddemocraticcitizensalikewithherdeftand searchinginterpretationofthelongarcofSheldonWolin’scareer.Thisbook isbothathoughtfulappreciationofWolin’smanycontributionstoour understandingofdemocracy,andavaluablecontributioninitsownrightto thecontinuousstruggletocultivatedemocraticspacesandsensibilities.Itisa demonstrationofthedemocratic ‘vocation’ ofpoliticaltheoryatitsbest.”
DavidW.McIvor,AssociateProfessorofPoliticalScience,ColoradoStateUniversity
“CanetracesWolin’sintellectualtrajectorythoroughlyandthoughtfully, includinghisideasaboutpoliticaleducation,hiscritiquesofsocialscienceand ofpostmodernism,andhisscathingappraisaloftheconditionofearly21st centuryAmerican ‘democracy.’ ToreadCane’sbookistogainunique insightintothemindofasingularlyimportant figureinrecentpoliticaltheory andtobeinspiredandstimulatedtocontinueworkingthroughstill-unresolvedproblemsinbothpoliticalthoughtandpoliticalaction.Highly recommended!”
HarlanWilson,ProfessorEmeritusofPolitics,OberlinCollege
“Acomprehensive,informative,andinsightfulstudyofarguablythe mostexceptionalandinnovativeAmericanpoliticalanddemocratic theoristofthepastonehundredyears.”
JohnWallach,ProfessorofPoliticalScience,HunterCollege&TheGraduateCenter, CityUniversityofNewYork
“SheldonWolinwashisgeneration’smostimportantAmericantheoristof democracy.LucyCaneprovidesanuancedappreciationofhiscontribution, itssingularmoodandmatchlessinsights,butalsoasearchingexplorationof itsinternaltensionsandlimits.IndispensableformakingsenseofWolinand whereradicaldemocracymightgonext.”
JamesIngram,AssociateProfessorofPoliticalScience,McMasterUniversity
SHELDONWOLINAND DEMOCRACY
SeeingThroughLoss
LucyCane
Firstpublished2020 byRoutledge
52VanderbiltAvenue,NewYork,NY10017
andbyRoutledge
2ParkSquare,MiltonPark,Abingdon,OxonOX144RN
RoutledgeisanimprintoftheTaylor&FrancisGroup,aninformabusiness ©2020Taylor&Francis
TherightofLucyCanetobeidentifiedasauthorofthisworkhasbeenasserted byherinaccordancewithsections77and78oftheCopyright,Designsand PatentsAct1988.
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthisbookmaybereprintedorreproducedor utilisedinanyformorbyanyelectronic,mechanical,orothermeans,now knownorhereafterinvented,includingphotocopyingandrecording,orinany informationstorageorretrievalsystem,withoutpermissioninwritingfromthe publishers.
Trademarknotice:Productorcorporatenamesmaybetrademarksorregistered trademarks,andareusedonlyforidentificationandexplanationwithoutintent toinfringe.
LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData
Names:Cane,Lucy,author.
Title:SheldonWolinanddemocracy:seeingthroughloss/LucyCane. Description:NewYork,NY:Routledge,2020.| Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex.|
Identifiers:LCCN2020008404|ISBN9780367194154(hardback)| ISBN9780367194161(paperback)|ISBN9780429202285(ebook)| ISBN9780429510908(adobepdf)|ISBN9780429517761(mobi)| ISBN9780429514333(epub)
Subjects:LCSH:Democracy--UnitedStates.|Wolin,SheldonS. Classification:LCCJK1726.C3652020|DDC320.973--dc23 LCrecordavailableathttps://lccn.loc.gov/2020008404
ISBN:978-0-367-19415-4(hbk)
ISBN:978-0-367-19416-1(pbk) ISBN:978-0-429-20228-5(ebk)
TypesetinBembo byTaylor&FrancisBooks
InlovingmemoryofOlga
Acknowledgementsviii
1Introduction:SeeingThroughLoss1
2CrisesofLiberalismandtheSpecterofTotalitarianism29
3TheCenterCannotHold:Memory,Identity,Fugitivity70
4TowardsaPolymorphousDemocracy122
5PoliticalTheory,PoliticalEducation,andtheUniversity158
6Conclusion192
AppendixI:ConversationwithSheldonWolin(25March,2015)200
AppendixII:SheldonS.WolinBibliography207 Index212
CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
ForfeedbackonvariousdraftsofthisprojectIwishtothanktothankNadia Abudi,PeterCane,MaryG.Dietz,JamesFarr,GeorgeShulman,JoanTronto, HarlanWilson,theNorthwesternPoliticalTheoryWorkshop,andtwoanonymousreviewersforRoutledge.IamespeciallygratefultoJaneStapletonfor commentaryontheentiremanuscript.
Iamfortunatethat,duringtheearlystagesofmyresearch,thelateSheldon Wolingraciouslyspokewithmeabouthisworkandofferedencouragement.Our conversationappearshereasanappendix.IamgratefultoWendyBrownand DeborahOlmanforfacilitatingthisencounter.
IwishtothankmystudentsatStatevilleCorrectionalCenter,BeloitCollege, andtheUniversityofDenverforthinkingthroughmanyideaswithmeoverthe pastsixyears.
ForpersonalsupportandconnectionduringthewritingofthisprojectIam gratefultofriendsandfamily,especiallyAnna,Arif,Carmen,Clare,Dan,Jane, Joanne,Julia,Katie,MarkK.,MarkS.,Nadia,Peter,Sara,andSteve.
Thisbookisdedicatedtothememoryofmygrandma,Olga.Shewasceaselessly curious,brilliantdiscerning,anddeeplyloving.InmyearlytwentiesIsharedwith hermydoubtsaboutmovingfromAustraliatotheUnitedStatesforgraduate school.Shegentlyencouragedmetogo,althoughitwouldmeannotseeingeach otheragain.Tohavebeenlovedbysuchapersonisanenduringblessing.
1 INTRODUCTION
SeeingThroughLoss
TheoreticalPersonaandthePoliticsofMourning
Inalateessay, “PoliticalTheory:FromVocationtoInvocation” (2000),the influentialpoliticaltheoristSheldonWolinoffersarareautobiographicalstatement.This “confessionalnote” reads: “Myformativeexperiencesare:achild duringtheGreatDepression,a flierinWorldWarII,aJewduringtheeraofthe Holocaust,andanactivistduringthesixties – all,exceptthelast,experiences dominatedbyloss.”1 Wolinimpliesthattheseexperiencesbestoweduponhima generalsensitivitytolossthatshapedhisperspectiveondemocracy,andhesuggeststhatviewingpoliticalphenomenathroughamournfullensmayallowone tograspformsofpowerlessnessthatwouldotherwiseremainobscure.Heeven identifiesthememorializationoflossasthemosturgenttaskofpoliticaltheory. Whilethelinein “VocationtoInvocation” quotedaboveisthemostexplicit instanceofautobiographyinWolin’swork,thereleasethefollowingyearofhis long-awaited572-pagebook TocquevilleBetweenTwoWorlds:TheMakingofaPolitical andTheoreticalLife (2001)maybehismostdramaticautobiographicalgesture.Fittingly,inanearlieressayonMichaelOakeshott, “ThePoliticsofSelf-Disclosure” (1976),Wolinassertsthatitisthebookform,ratherthantheessay,thatismost revealingofawriter’ spersona. 2 Indeed,while TocquevilleBetweenTwoWorlds explorestheintellectualtendenciesandjourneyofnineteenth-centuryFrencharistocratAlexisdeTocqueville,theseeffortsappeartobecloselyboundupwith Wolin’sunderstandingofhisownlife’swork.AsAlanRyanargues, “Thebookisan extendeddialoguebetweenWolinandTocqueville,butitisjustasobviouslyan extendeddialoguebetweenWolinandhimself.”3 Becausethetextblurstheline betweenthesetwothinkers,severalcriticalreviewersquestionthevalidityofWolin’ s readingofTocqueville.AurelianCraiutusuggeststhatthebook “isperhapsmorean
assertionofWolin’sownobsessionsandideasaboutcontemporarysocietythana faithfulstudyofTocqueville’swritings,” whileStephenHolmesissuspiciousof “Wolin’sattempttoremakeTocquevilleinhisownimage.”4
WolinreadsTocquevilleasathinker “burdenedwithdispossessionandhaltingly searchingforthemeansofretrieval.”5 InWolin’sview,Tocquevilleistormented byasenseofloss,andperhapsevenconstitutionallyinclinedtofocusonwhathas beenlost.Morespecifically,Tocquevilleispreoccupiedwiththepotentiallossof whathecallspolitical “liberty” inmoderndemocraciesand,inWolin’swords,is engagedin “halting” effortstoretrieveit.ForTocqueville,libertydependsondispersedpowerandinvolvescitizens’ directparticipationinpubliclife.Throughsuch participationcitizensmayrealizebothexceptionalindividualvirtueanddisinterestedpublicspiritedness.Tocquevillefearsthatlibertywillbelostinmodernity insofarasformallydemocraticregimesdescendintoakindofsoftdespotism.Under suchademocraticdespotism,ananonymouscentralizedbureaucracywouldcome tocontrolenervated,individualisticcitizenswhohavewithdrawnintotheprivate sphere.ThisfearplaguesTocquevilledespitethefactthathewas,accordingto Wolin, “the firstpoliticaltheoristtotreatdemocracyasatheoreticalsubjectinits ownrightandthe firsttocontendthatdemocracywascapableofachievinga genuine,ifmodest,politicallife-form.”6
OneofWolin ’scentralclaimsin TocquevilleBetweenTwoWorlds isthat Tocquevilleassociatespoliticallibertywithanearlierformofsociety:aristocracy.Inanaristocraticsociety,individualscoulddisclosetheirexceptional virtuewhilealsounderstandingthemselvesaspartofaninterdependentsocial whole.Forthesereasons, “ [a]ristocracywouldnowbecome[forTocqueville] ametaphorforloss,forthethingspassingoutoftheworld,frommannersto virtue,fromtastetodisinterestedness. ”7 WolindoesnotallegethatTocquevillesoughttorevivethearistocraticpoliticalsystemwholesale,butratherto preservekeyelementsofit.Inotherwords,whenTocquevilleturnsaristocracyintoa “metaphor ” forloss,heseparatesitfromitshistoricalrealityas ahierarchicalsocialstructureinwhic hfewpeoplecanactuallyparticipatein politics.AccordingtoWolin,aristocracyforTocqueville “remainedalive hermeneuticallywhilebeinginterredpolitically.” 8 Itis “ allowedtolingeron, notasasocialclassbutasasymbolofaheroicpoliticsofresistance.”9
Giventhat,accordingtoTocqueville,Americahasnofeudalpastandembracesor perhapsevenfetishizesinnovationandfuturity,onemightexpecttheauthentically politicalvirtuesofaristocracytobelesspresenttherethaninothermodernizing societies.However,afundamentalironyofWolin’sreadingof DemocracyinAmerica is thatTocquevilledoesinfact findincolonialAmerica,andspecificallyintheNew Englandtownship,aparticipatorycultureworthrecommendingtotheFrench.This culturereviveswithinanegalitariansocietytheverycivicvirtueshesupposedly associateswitharistocracy.ThisiswhyWolinmakesthestrikingclaimthat “America hadafeudalpresent” andtitlesakeychapterof TocquevilleBetweenTwoWorlds “FeudalAmerica.”10 When,involume2of DemocracyinAmerica, Tocqueville finds
2 Introduction
thesesalutarycivicpracticestobethreatenedbythecentralizingandhomogenizing trendsofmodernity,heattemptstopreserveorretrievethem.IfWoliniscorrectthat Tocquevilleassociatessuchpracticeswitharistocracy,thelossesheregistershereare notonlyofadistinctlyAmericanheritagebutalsoofanolderformoflife.
Tocqueville’saristocraticfamilyhadbeendevastatedbytheFrenchRevolution,sothenotionthathesoughttoretrievearistocracyhassomesurface-level plausibility.However,Wolinprovidesrelativelylittletextualsupportforhisbold claimthatTocqueville “neverceasedattemptingtoreincarnate[aristocracy]asa theoreticalandstructuralprinciple” ofpoliticalparticipation.11 Oneofthestrongestpiecesofevidenceforthisclaimisdrawnfromvolume2of Democracyin America,whereTocquevillestates:
Iam firmlyconvincedthatonecannotfoundanaristocracyanewinthe world,butIthinkthatassociationsofplaincitizenscancomposeveryrich, influential,andpowerfulbodies,inotherwords,aristocraticbodies.Bythis meansmanyofthegreatestpoliticaladvantagesofanaristocracycouldbe obtainedwithoutitsinjusticesanddangers.12
HereTocquevilledoesindeedtiedemocraticpoliticalassociationstothevirtues ofaristocracy.Nevertheless,wemightquestionWolin’sconclusionthatTocqueville “neverceased” tomakesuchstatements.Infact,Tocquevilleoften describesthebenefitsofAmerica’sparticipatoryculturewithoutreferenceto aristocracy,andheseveraltimeshighlightstheirincompatibility.Forexample,he contends, “thelegalbodyistheonlyaristocraticelementwhichcanunforcedly minglewithelementsnaturaltodemocracyandcombinewiththemoncomfortableandlastingterms.”13 Healsodescribestheslave-holdingSouthasdistinctly aristocraticwhilecontrastingitsharplywiththeNewEnglandparticipatoryculturethathereveres.Andhestatesthat “onecanconceiveofnothingmorecontrarytonatureandtothesecretinstinctsofthehumanheart[thanaristocracy.]”14
SowhyisWolinsoinsistentthatTocquevilleconsiderspoliticallibertytobe inextricablylinkedtoaristocracy,giventhedebatabletextualbasisforthisclaim? ThisinsistencecouldbeunderstoodasWolin’sattempttodemonstrate,through Tocqueville,themoregeneralvalueoftakingamournfulperspectiveonpolitical phenomenaandofusingthepastasa “mediatingdevice” tohighlightcontemporarypoliticaldeficiencies.15 “Inlargemeasure,” Wolinclaims,Tocqueville “wasabletoseedifferentlyandfurtherbecauseofapremodernor ‘archaic’ stratumwhichmadehimsupremelysensitivetotheinhospitableaspectsofthe modernworld.”16 BecauseWolinwantstodemonstratethebroadervalueofsuch anapproach,hemayattimesoverstateTocqueville ’ seffortstomournand retrievearistocracy.
Wolinmaybesoinvestedindemonstratingthevalueofamournfulapproach totheorizingbecauseofthecongruencebetweenhisowntheoreticalpersonaand thatwhichheascribestoTocqueville.LikeTocqueville,Wolininsiststhroughout
Introduction
3
hisworkthatlocalpracticesandculturesofparticipationarerequiredtoinvigorate democracyandareatriskofbeinglost.Indeed,he findsthatinthetwenty-first centuryweareonthebrinkofapost-politicaldemocraticdespotismsimilartothe oneTocquevillefeared.ByWolin’sownadmission,therearerealdifferences betweenTocqueville’spoliticalviewpointandhisown.Tocquevilleseesparticipationasanantidotetomajoritytyranny, “abhorscollectiveaction,” and,inhis laterworks,abandonshopethatademocraticformofgovernmentcouldavoid centralizationandaccommodatepoliticalvirtueatall.17 Themoredemocratic Wolinbelievesthatsuchconcernsaboutmajoritytyrannyareoverblown,andhe attemptstoconceivethecollectivewillofthedemos.Healsodeniesthat democracyinevitablyleadstocentralization.Ratherthangivingupondemocracy, Wolinseekstoidentifyamoreauthenticformofdemocracythathasbeeneroded underthebureaucratizationandindividualismofwhatwecall “democracy” today. Nevertheless, TocquevilleBetweenTwoWorlds paintsapictureoftwothinkers –TocquevilleandWolin – whoshareacoretendencytomournthelossofaparticipatoryheritageandattempttoretrieveit.Whereas “Tocquevillewasengagedina lifelongtaskofretrievingarecedingaristocraticpast,” Wolinproposesthattoday’ s theorists “ponderhisexampleand undertakethetaskofretrievingareceding democraticpresentinordertocounteractevenmorenovelformsofdespotism.”18 Wolin’ sembraceofmournfultheoryin TocquevilleBetweenTwoWorlds marks theculminationofapreoccupationwithlossthatbeganwithhis fi rstbook, PoliticsandVision:ContinuityandInnovationinWesternPoliticalThought (1960),if notevenearlierwithhis fi rstpublishedessaysontheconservatismofRichard HookerandDavidHume.19 When PoliticsandVision was fi rstpublished,the disciplineofpoliticaltheorywaswidely consideredtobeincrisis.Inthepreface tothe fi rstedition,Wolinsetshimselfthetaskofdelineatingandrecoveringa traditionoftheorizingdatingbacktoantiquity,inorder “ atleast[to]succeedin makingclearwhatitisweshallhavediscarded. ”20 Accordingly,hegoesonto o ff eraseriesofreadingsofcanonicalthin kers,whichtogetherportraypolitical theoryasacontinuoustraditionofdisc ourse.Asbecomesincreasinglyclearin the fi nalchaptersofhisbook,Wolinassoci atesthistheoreticalcrisiswitha broadermodernlossofwhatthroughouthiscareerhecalls “thepolitical.” De fi ning “thepolitical ” broadlyasanassertionof “whatis ‘ common ’ tothe entirecommunity,” heclaimsthatsuchcollectivevisionhaslargelybeenlost amidsttheintellectualandpoliticaltriumphofliberalindividualism.21 Heultimatelysuggeststhattheliberaldisavowalofcollectivitycouldhavetotalitarian consequences,aspeople “ resorttoeventhemostextrememethodstore-assert thepoliticalinanageoffragmentation. ”22
Inhisdiagnosisofmodernpoliticalillsin PoliticsandVision, Wolinalsoclaims thatmodernityinauguratesan “ageoforganization” characterizedbycentralized formsofbureaucratic,economic,andtechnologicalpower.Large-scaleorganizationsleaveintheirtrail “uprootedpopulationswithadeepsenseoflonelinessand bewilderment.”23 Itisespeciallythisaversiontocentralizedpower,ratherthan
4 Introduction
theconcernaboutaliberaldisavowalofcommonality,thatalignsWolin’scritique ofmodernitymostcloselywithTocqueville’s.ForWolin,centralizedorganizations erodethelocalbasesofpowerthatwouldallowforpoliticalparticipationandso furtherunderminemodernity’spromiseofanauthenticallydemocraticlife.He appliesthiscritiqueofmodernpowertobothliberalandtotalitariansocieties, whichhavekeyorganizationalfeaturesincommon.Therefore,inbothhiscritique ofliberalindividualismandhisdiagnosisoftheageoforganization,Wolinprovocativelyquestionsthedichotomybetweenliberalismandtotalitarianismthatwas oftenassumedinthepostwarperiod.Foradvancingthispowerfulcritiqueofmidcenturytechnocraticliberalism,andchampioningtheongoingrelevanceofpolitical theory, PoliticsandVision isoftencreditedwithrevivifyingthediscipline.24
While PoliticsandVision pleadsforanegalitarianre-envisioningofpolitical life,itdoesnoto ff eraspeci fi cpoliticalvisionbeyondavaguecalltorenew practicesofcitizenship. 25 HereWolinstillconceives “ thepolitical ” rather abstractly,ashehasyettodevelopthekindofreferencepointforwhathas beenlostthatTocquevillesupposedlyfoundinaristocracy.However,Wolin soonfoundinspirationforamoreconcretevisionofthepoliticalinthepopular movementsofthe1960s,especiallyhis fi rst-handexperienceofstudentmovementsattheUniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley.26 Thepopularmovementsof thesixtiesindicatedapathoutofboth liberalindividualismandtheageof organizationthroughgrassrootsparticipation.InlinewithTocqueville’svalues, theyseemedtogeneratepoweratthelo callevel,allowedforindividualsto performvirtue,andacknowledgedint erdependency.Buttheyalsoembodied Wolin ’ smoreradicallydemocratic,collectiveaspirations.At fi rst,themovementsofthesixtiesappearedtodisclosesomethingnovelandcreative.As Wolinwouldlaterrecallin “VocationtoInvocation,” theactivismofthesixties washisonlyformativeexperiencenotdominatedbyloss.Afterthehorrorsof theGreatDepressionandWorldWarTwo,hebegantoseehope.However, Wolin ’ sinitiallyhopefulreadingofthenoveltyofthesixtieswouldsoonbe transmutedintoabackward-lookingnarrativeofloss.
Foronething,Wolincomestoassociatethemovementsofthesixties increasinglywithanolderheritagethatheseekstoretrieve.Ratherthanviewing Americanpoliticalhistoryasuniformlyliberal,heconceivesthesixtiesasthe fleetingresurgenceofacontrapuntaltraditionofparticipatorydemocracydating backtothecolonialperiodandchampionedbytheantifederalists.Becausehe conceivesthistraditionashavingbeenatoddswithcentralmoderntrends towardscentralizationandcorporatecapitalism,hereferstoitas “archaic.”27 The prospectsofarchaicdemocracy,heclaims,weredealtmajorblowsbythecentralizingtendenciesoftheConstitutionandtheCivilWarandfurthercurtailedin thetwentiethcentury.28 Inthe1980s,Wolinoffersthisfeatofimaginative recoveryasanalternativenarrativeoflossandretrievaltocompetewiththerightwingconservatismofRonaldReagan.Ofcourse,inorderforWolinplausiblyto associateactivismofthesixtieswiththecolonialperiodandtheantifederalists,he
Introduction 5
mustemphasizecertainelementsofthesemovements – theassertionofcommon vision,andthediscoveryofpossibilitiesfordecentralizedaction – overtheir counterculturalandradicallyanti-racistelements.Whileearlierhehaddelineated atheoreticaltraditioninresponsetopoliticaltheory’sdisciplinarycrisisin Politics andVision,henowdrawsonanunconventionalreadingofthesixtiestocrafta losttraditionofdemocraticpracticeinresponsetowhatheperceivesasAmerica’ s democraticdeficits.
Wolin’sinitiallyhopefulreadingoftheparticipatorycultureofthesixties becomesadditionallymournfulwhenheclaimsthatitwasquicklymarginalizedby anideologyof “politicaleconomy” andtheever-growingpowerofcorporations andthestate.Inthe1980sheidentifiesa “crisisincollectiveidentity” asthe fleetinghopesofthe1960sfade.29 Whileattimesinsubsequentyearsherecognizes thepersistenceofparticipatory cultures,by2004heconcludes: “thedemoshas beenhammeredintoresignation. ”30 Thus,justasTocquevillesimultaneously mournsAmerica ’ sowndistinctiveparticipatoryheritageandthevirtuesofan aristocraticworldthatprecededit,Wolinmournsboththesixtiesandtheolder traditionofAmericandemocra cythatitsupposedlyrevived.
Wolin’stendencytomournthelossofthepoliticaland,morespecifically,the lossofAmericanparticipatorytraditions,wouldpersistoveralongcareerin whichhenevershiesawayfromattemptingtocomprehendprofoundchangesin stateandcorporatepower.IwillargueinthisbookthatWolin’smournful approachtopoliticaltheorydoesindeedofferuniqueinsightsintothefailingsof liberalism,allowinghiminsomeways “toseedifferentlyandfurther.”31 However,thisbookisalsoanimatedbytheconvictionthatsomemodesofmourning arehealthierthanothers.Wolinmayultimatelybeunderstoodtopointtowardsa generativepoliticsofmourning.However,hedoessoonlybyengagingattimes inpathologicalmodesofmourningandattempting,withpartialsuccess,to overcomethem.
LossinContemporaryDemocraticTheory
BeforeoutliningtherisksthataccompanyWolin’spoliticsofmourning,Iwillindicatebrieflywhatmaybethedistinctivepromiseofhisfocusonloss,bothinrelation toothercontemporarydemocratictheoryand,inthenextsection,inrelationto contemporaryAmericanpolitics.HisappealtoAmerica’ s “archaic” democraticpast enableshimtoilluminatethepotentialvalueofdecentralizedpower.Morebroadly, ithighlightstheimportanceoflocalmemories,cultures,andpracticesfordemocracy. TheseelementsofwhatHannahArendtcalls “socialtexture” constitute,according toWolin, “manifoldoriginsofpower” thatcultivategenuineself-governance.32 WhileWolinilluminatesthelocaltexturesofdemocracythroughaTocquevillian narrativeofAmerica’sexceptionalparticipatorypast,theyaresignificantelementsof democraticempowermentmoregenerally.YetpoliticaltheoristsoftheLeft,particularlythoseemergingfromcontinentalintellectualtraditions,tendtoneglectthem.
6 Introduction
Theydosodespiteattemptingtomovebeyondliberalindividualismanddeepenour understandingofdemocracy.
Forexample,IwillarguethatErnestoLaclauandChantalMouffedonotstress decentralizedpowerorlocalmemories,cultures,andpracticesintheirtheoryof radicaldemocracy.33 Theyfocusonpromotingnewformationsofthepopular willatasymboliclevelandtendnottotakeastanceoncentralizationortostress thevalueofhistoricalcontinuity.NordoesmodernistJürgenHabermasstress localmemories,cultures,andpracticesinhisdeliberativetheoryofdemocracy. Whileheappreciatesthatdemocraticdeliberationalsooccursinaninformal publicsphere,histheoryultimatelyfocusesonlarge-scaleinstitutionsandaspires toarationalisticuniversality.34 ThemournfulvisionoflocalismthatWolin advancesinthe1980sfurthercontrastswithJacquesRancière’scommitmenttoa formless,anti-institutionalpolitics.35 WhileWolin’slocalistvisionalignswith Rancièreinitsantagonismtowardsmajorinstitutions,itemphasizesculturesand practicesthattakerootandendureovertimeratherthanmomentsoftransgression.Wolindoeslaterembraceamoretransgressiveaspectofdemocracythat resemblesRancière’spolitics.However,heneverrelinquisheshisdistinctive attachmenttolocaltradition.
AlthoughIwillattempttoshowthatWolin’spoliticsofmourningmakesthis distinctivecontributiontodemocratictheory,itisneverthelessimportantto acknowledgethatothercontemporarytheoristshavebeenanimatedbylossina differentsense.TheoristsoftheLeftalwaysfaceachallengeincraftinginclusive politicalvisionsthatmovebeyondliberalindividualism.Aclass-basedMarxist approachmayoncehaveheldoutthepromiseofaclearframeworkforsolidarity. However,thisapproachhasbeensignificantlychallengedbythecollapseofselfidentifiedMarxistgovernments,increasingrecognitionofracial,gendered,and otherantagonisms,andthepostmoderndiscreditingofmetanarratives. 36 So, especiallysincethe1980s,theoristsoftheLefthavesoughttoarticulatecollective aspirationsthatacceptthelimitsofconventionalMarxistnotionsofclassand cometotermswiththedecenteringpotentialitiesofso-calledidentitypoliticsand postmodernism.Indeed,manytheorists,includingHabermas,Laclau,and Mouffe,explicitlyframetheirprojectsasresponsestotheexhaustionofMarxism. Theaccelerationofneoliberalismsincethe1970shasonlyheightenedconcerns amongstpoliticaltheoristsoftheLeftaboutthedeclineofcollectiveactionand politicalantagonism.WendyBrown,JacquesRancière,ChantalMouffeand othershaveidentifiedageneralconditionof “post-democracy” or “post-politics” inwhichcitizenshavebecomesoaccustomedtothinkofthemselvesasindividualsmakingchoicesinamarketplacethattheyareunabletothinkincollective terms.37 Globalizationandtheincreasingpoweroftransnationalcapitalalsomean thecomplication,ifnoterosion,ofthestateforminwhichdemocracyhasbeen understoodtooperate.Accordingly,Brownidentifiesneoliberalismnotonlywith thelossofthedemocraticimaginaryofrulebythepeoplebutalsowiththeloss ofitsnecessaryform.38
Introduction 7
Thereisobviousoverlapbetweensomeofthesecontemporarytheorists’ attempts toconfrontthedeepeningpoliticalvacuumofaneoliberaleraandWolin’spersistent diagnosesofthedeclineofthepoliticalunderliberalism.Moreover,likeBrownand others,Wolincomesinhislaterworktorecognizetheerosionoftheconstitutional stateforminaglobalizederaasalossfordemocracy.39 However,Wolindiffersfrom manyothercontemporarytheoristsinthathedoesnotprimarilymournthelossofa MarxistframeworkofanalysisbutratherthelossofadistinctlyAmericanheritageof participatorydemocracy.WhileWolinbecomesincreasinglysympatheticwithMarx andcriticalofcapitalism,heunderstandstheparticipatorytraditionshemournsas offeringanalternativeanti-capitalistpoliticsthatisdistinctlyAmericaninitsskepticismtowardscentralizedpower.40 UnlikeconventionalMarxism,Wolin’sTocquevilleantraditionsarenottiedtoaprogressivistreadingofmodernhistorybut,onthe contrary,areconceivedasalwayshavingbeenatoddswithcentraltrendsofmodernity.Certainly,somepost-Marxistthinkers,suchasLaclauandMouffe,havea moreambivalentviewofmodernitythan,say,Habermas.But,whileLaclauand Mouffemaynotwholeheartedlyembracemodernistprogressnarratives,theydonot therebyembracethe “archaic,” localisttraditionsthatWolinelevates.Wolin’sdeep commitmenttolocaltraditionisrootedinhisearlycritiqueofthe “ageoforganization” anddistinguisheshimfrommanyothercontemporarydemocratictheorists. Wolin’sappealtolocalAmericantraditionsenableshimtoilluminatecontemporarydemocraticdilemmasinauniqueway.Foronething,Wolinprovides ausefulcorrectivetoformsofAmericanliberalismthatrelyunquestioninglyon federalpowerandespeciallythecourts.Hisworkpointstothepossibilitythat decentralizedpowermayactuallyserveprogressivecausesandempowerthevulnerable.Morebroadly,hisconcernaboutthelossofstablewaysoflifespeaksto therapidsocialdislocationandeconomicprecaritythathasbeenproducedin recentyearsbydeindustrializationandaneoliberalideologyofmarket flexibility. Wolin’slongstandingemphasisontheimportanceofcultivatingrootsand meaningatthelocallevelonlybecomesmorerelevantinthisneoliberaleraof instabilityanddisorientation.Otherrecentcritiquesofour “post-political” momentidentifyagenerallossofcollectivevisionamidstliberalindividualism andseeknewbasesforsolidarity.Buttheymaynotalwayssufficientlyappreciate thedemocraticimportanceofbeingrootedinatimeandplace,offeelingat homeintheworld.
The2016ElectionandtheDisavowalofLoss
HavingbrieflyindicatedageneralcontributionWolinmaymaketodemocratic theoryinaneoliberalera,Iwillnowsuggesthow,morespecifically,hiswork mayilluminaterecentpoliticaldevelopmentsintheUnitedStates.Whereasvariouspoliticaltheoristshaveatleastbeenattentivetothepotentiallossofprogressivepoliticalvisionoverrecentdecades,theliberalpoliticalestablishmentin theUShasattimeslargelydisavowedsuchnarrativesofloss.Sincethe1970s,the
8 Introduction
DemocraticPartyhastakenanincrementalandjuridicalapproachtominority rightswhilelargelycomplyingwiththeRight’sneoliberaleconomicandmilitary agenda.Betweenthetwomajorpartiestherehasbeenbroadbipartisansupport forpoliciesthatinoperationcontributetosocialdislocationandinequality,from neoliberaltradedeals,tocharterschools,tomassincarceration.Despitetheoffshoreoutsourcingofmanufacturing,thecasualizationofwork,andentrenched economicandracialinequalities,prominentmembersoftheDemocraticParty haveneverthelesscontinuedtopromotenarrativesofongoinghistoricalprogress. SuchnarrativeswerefurtherbolsteredbytheelectionofBarackObama,the country’ s firstblackpresident,in2008and2012.Attimesduringher2016run forPresidentoftheUnitedStates,HillaryClintonexemplifiedtheoverconfidenceanddetachmentofthisliberalfantasythateverythingisgettingbetter allthetime.Shedeclaredthat “Americaneverstoppedbeinggreat” whiledismissingsupportersofDonaldTrump’ seffortsto “makeAmericagreatagain” asa “basketofdeplorables.”41
Trump’svictoryoverClintonpromptedmuchhand-wringingamongshocked liberalsandLeftists,whohadassumedthathispoliticalinexperienceandbrazenly racistandmisogynistrhetoricwoulddisqualifyhimforthepresidency.Inorderto reflectsoberlyonfactorsthatmayhavecontributedtoTrump’svictory,itis important firsttoacknowledgethathedidnotgeneratealandslideswingtowards theRepublicanParty.Infact,TrumplostthenationalpopularvotetoClintonby asigni ficantmarginandonlywontheelectionbecauseoftheElectoralCollege systemanditsswing-statebias.Trumpmayalsohavebenefittedfromthe RepublicanParty’svotersuppressioneffortssinceits2010sweepofstatelegislaturesandthecurtailmentoftheVotingRightsActinShelbyCountyv.Holder (2013.)Hehadotheradvantagesaswell,includingthecyclicadvantageoffollowingatwo-termDemocraticpresident,intensemediaattention,andanFBI investigationandsexismagainstClinton.Insum,therewerenumerousfactors contributingtoTrump’svictoryotherthananybrillianceofhispoliciesor rhetoric.Nevertheless,givenjusthowignorantandoffensivetomanyheshowed himselftobeduringthecampaign,onemightstillwonderhowsomanypeople werepersuadedtovoteforhim.Morebroadly,thequestionremainsofhowthe RepublicanPartycontinuestowinelectionsdespitepursuingpoliciesthatmateriallyharmmostworkingpeopleanddespiteongoingdemographicchangesthat favortheDemocrats.
PerhapsDonaldTrump’selectoralcampaignwassuccessfulinpartbecauseit harnessedanarrativeoflossandredemptionthatresonatedwithmanyvotersand whichwaslargelydisavowedbyhisopponent.Pittedagainstlong-time WashingtonoperativeClinton,Trumpeffectivelytappedintovoters’ understandablesenseofincreasingpowerlessnessandvowedtotransferpowerfroma distantcentralgovernmentbacktothem.Hethendeclaredathisinauguration thatitwould “berememberedasthedaythepeoplebecametherulersofthis nationagain.”42 Inonesense,Trump’spromisestodraintheswampandreturn
Introduction 9
powertothepeopleechomessagesthatRepublicanshavebeeneffectively exploitingfordecades.43 TrumpdepartedfromRepublicanorthodoxy,however, inmorevividlyrecognizingtheinstabilityandhopelessnessgeneratedbyneoliberaltradedealsandtherecessionof2008.Inhisinauguraladdress,hebleakly observed “thisAmericancarnage.”44 Mostthreateninglyforestablishment Republicans,hequestionedrelatedaspectsofneoliberaltradepolicy.Ofcourse, Trump’sclaimtobeleadingarevoltagainstelitesisironicgiventhegreateconomicprivilegeandeducationalopportunityintowhichhewasborn.Moreover, aprotectionisttradepolicyfordecliningindustriesdoeslittletoaddresseconomic precarityortoempowerordinarypeoplepolitically,especiallywhenitiscombinedwithattacksonunions,taxcutsfortherich,andcontinuedneglectof publiceducation.Nevertheless,whiletherealityofTrump’spresidencymaybe thefurtherembraceofcorporaterule,hisrhetoricoflostpower,roots,andhope waspowerful.Unsurprisingly,thisnarrativeplayedespeciallywellinrustbelt swingstatessuchasMichiganandWisconsin,whichClintonneglected.
WhilesomeofthegriefharnessedbytheTrumpcampaignmaybelegitimate,hispoliticsofmourningalsosto kedresentmentoverthelossofwhite andmaleprivilegeandvalidatedurgestodominateminoritiesandwomen. Again,theRepublicanPartyhaslongdrawnsupportfromitsdisproportionately maleandpredominantlywhitebasebycraft ingnarrativesoflossthatfusecriticismoffederalbureaucracywithraci alandgenderedresentment.However, Trump’ spresidentialcampaignwasmoreexplicitinitsracismandmisogyny thanothers,drawingsupportfromeve nthemostextremewhitesupremacist elementsofsocietywhofeara “whitegenocide.” 45 Trumpisalsodistinctivein that,becauseheappealstoconstituencieswhohavelostoutinprocessesof globalization,hise ff ortstoshoreuptheethnicboundariesofthenationhave focusedonimmigrants,especiallythos efromLatinAmericaandtheMiddle East.SomeofTrump ’svotersmayonlyhavetoleratedthesecrudelyracistand misogynisticelementsofhisplatformforthesakeofembracinghiscriticismof theWashingtonestablishmentandfrankacknowledgmentofeconomicprecarityandpoliticaldisempowerment.Forothers,however,Trump’ sun fi ltered disrespectfornon-whiteimmigrantsandwomenmayactuallyhavebolstered hisimageasapoliticaloutsiderandblendedseamlesslyintotheirconcernsabout lostpower,roots,andhope.
BecausetheTrumpcampaignfusedconcernsabouttheneoliberalerosionof democraticpowerandstablewaysoflifewithconcernsaboutthelossofsocial hierarchies,theremayhavebeenatemptationintheaftermathofhisvictoryto spurnanysuchmournfulappealtoAmericandemocracy’sgoldenage.Yet,as someprogressiveshaverealized,itwaspartlythefailureofliberalismtoreckon withthegenuinelossesincurredinthecontemporaryerathatcreatedthepolitical opportunityseizedbyTrump.Withoutanalternativepoliticalvisionthatfrankly acknowledgesthecostsofgrowingstateandcorporatepower,neoliberaleconomicpolicy,andrelatedformsofculturalloss,itisnotpossibletojudgehow
10 Introduction
manyvoterscoulddecoupleageneralsenseofdisempowermentfromwhiteand malesupremacistrage.
AlthoughWolindidnotlivetoseetheTrump2016campaign,hisworkmayhelp usbothtounderstandandtomovebeyondrecentdevelopmentsinAmericanpolitics.InstrivingtoretrieveAmerica’slosttraditionofparticipatorydemocracy,he offersapoliticsofmourningthatcontrastswithwhatmanyperceivetobetheliberal arroganceoftheDemocraticPartyestablishmentanditsnotionsofprogress.Tobe sure,unlikeClinton’scampaignrhetoric,manyotherpoliticaltheoristsoftheLeft suchasMouffeandBrownalsosucceedinilluminatingthelossofaprogressive, collectivevisionandthetransformationofthemodernstateinaglobalized,neoliberalera.However,asnotedearlier,Wolin’snarrativeofAmerica’slostdemocratic pastgoesfurtherincritiquingtheerosionofstablewaysoflifeinadditiontothe generalpoliticalvacuityofliberalism.Throughthis “archaic” narrativehedemonstratesthatthecontinuityoflocalpractices,cultures,andmemoriesiscrucialfor democraticempowerment.Butheseekstodivorcethistraditionalismfromany defenseofracialorgenderedprivilege.Insofarashisworkbemoansonlythoselosses thatimpedeanegalitariandistributionofpower,itmaybeunderstoodtoprovidean alternativetoright-wingconservatismandeventoundercuttheapparentpolarizationofAmericanpoliticalculture.
SeeingThroughLoss:InsightsfromPsychoanalysis
WhileWolin’spoliticsofmourningmaybegenerativeinthewaysIhavejust indicated,itisnotwithoutrisks.Certainly,assoonasWolinappealstoademocraticheritagerootedinthecolonialperiod,heseekstodifferentiatethisbackward-lookingpoliticsfromtheright-wingconservatismpopularizedby figures fromBarryGoldwatertoReagan.HedismissesReagan’ssupposedcommitment todecentralizedpowerasa “hoax” thatdoesnothingtoreturnpowertoordinary people.46 Meanwhile,healleges,themoralandreligiousconservatismofthe NewRightamountsto “pseudotraditionalism” that “leave[s]theentirestructure ofpower,inequality,hopelessness,andgrowingrepressionwhollyuntouched.”47 Becauseright-wingconservativesallegedlydonotcometotermswithwhat Wolinconsiderstobethegenuinelossoflocalrootsanddemocraticpowerin modernityandpostmodernity,helaterreferstotheir “religiousfundamentalism” and “patrioticfundamentalism” as “blockedgrief.”48 DonaldTrumpdiffersfrom Reaganiteconservativesinhislackofdemonstratedreligiouscommitment,in offeringnoplantodecentralizepower,andinquestioningaspectsofforeignand tradepolicy.However,giventhatTrumpneverthelessusesawhiteandmale supremacistvisionofAmericandemocracy’sgoldenagetopursuepoliciesthat enhancecorporatepower,wecouldimagineWolinsimilarlyconsideringhis politicsadistortedformofmourning.
Yet,althoughWolinattemptstodifferentiatehispositionfromthe “blocked grief” ofright-wingconservatisminthisway,hispoliticsofmourningisproneto
Introduction 11
someofthesameproblems.InlightofWolin’sreferenceto “blockedgrief” and otherallusionshemakestopsychoanalysis,Iwanttodrawonthepsychoanalytic traditiontohighlightsomeoftherisksandpotentialitiesofhisownapproachtotheorizingdemocracy.49 Contemporarypoliticaltheoristshavebecomeincreasingly interestedinthefertileparallelsbetweendilemmasofdemocracyandpsychoanalytic conceptionsoflossandmourning,suchasthoseofferedbySigmundFreudand MelanieKlein.InadditiontoFreudandKlein,Iwilldrawonthelesser-known psychoanalystsNicolasAbrahamandMariaTorok.Freud,Klein,Abraham,and ToroktogetherprovideconceptsthatbothilluminatetherisksofWolin ’ s “ archaic ” theoryofdemocracyandenableus toassesstheextenttowhichhe overcomesthoserisks.Iwillreferbackto thispsychoanalyticlensperiodically throughtherestofthebook,whilea lsoelaboratingthestakesofWolin ’ s mournfulpoliticsfromdi ff erentangles.
Inplumbingthedistinctionbetweenhealthyandpathologicalformsof mourning,psychoanalystshavelongtakentheirbearingsfromFreud’ s “ MourningandMelancholia ” (1917).AccordingtoFreudinthistext,mourningbecomestheillnessofmelancholiawhenthereisan “identi fi cationofthe egowiththeabandonedobject.”50 Thesubjectisthenunabletoworkthrough unresolvedcon fl ictwiththelostobjectandthisnegativityisinsteadturned inward,sothattheyexperiencenotonlythedejectioncharacteristicof mourningbutalsoextremelylowself-regardanddelusionalexpectationsof punishment.Incorporatingalostobjectinthiswayis,accordingtoFreud,a formofnarcissism.Whereasinhealthymourningthesubjectworksthroughthe lostattachment,freeshimselffromit,andultimatelyreplacesit,melancholiais anunre fl ectiveandatworstinterminablecondition.
Mourningandmelancholiaareoftenreactionstothelossofalovedperson,but,as Freudexplains,theycanalsobereactionsto “thelossofsomeabstractionwhichhas takentheplaceofone,suchasone’scountry,liberty,anideal,andsoon.”51 The psychoanalyticdistinctionbetweenhealthyandpathologicalmourningmaythereforehelpustodiagnosethepathologiesofright-wingconservatism,insofarasitseeks toembodyandreviveamonolithiclosttraditionratherthantakingamorereflective posturetowardsthepast.Yet,whileWolinisquicktodismissright-wingconservatismasblockedgrief,theLeftcanalsobepronetomelancholia.Alreadyin 1931,WalterBenjamincondemnsthe “left-wingmelancholy” ofintellectualswho lamentthelossofradicaltraditionsbyidentifyingwhollywiththem.Inthefaceof real-worldpoliticalconstraints,suchidentificationbecomesa “negativisticquiet,” a fatalismthatcanonlybeaffordedby “thosewhoaremostremotefromtheprocessof production.”52 Morerecently,theoristssuchasWendyBrownandElizabethAnker drawonBenjamintoponderhowtheoristsmightrespondhealthilytotheexhaustionofMarxismwithoutsuccumbingtomelancholia.53
WhilethesetheoristsareconcernedwithhowhealthilytomourntheexhaustionofMarxism,onemightsimilarlyquestionwhetherWolinexhibitsamelancholicrelationshipwithAmerica’sdemocraticpast.Whenhe firstintroduceshis
12 Introduction
visionofaparticipatoryheritagestretchingfromthecolonialperiodtothesixties, heconceivesitasamonolithictraditioncalled “thebodypolitic.” In “ThePeople’ s TwoBodies” (1981)heevenreifiesthistraditionintoaunified “identity,” a “body” oftheAmericandemosthatheidentifieswithandseekstoretrieve wholesale.54 AccordingtoWolin,thisdemocratictraditionhaslongstruggled againstanantidemocratictendencyof “politicaleconomy,” whichpromotescentralization,corporatepower,andrapideconomicandtechnologicalchange.He considerstheNewRighttobefundamentallycommittedto “politicaleconomy,” andthisiswhyhedismissesitsrhetoricaboutdecentralizingpowerasa “hoax,” anditstraditionalismas “pseudotraditionalism.”
IndichotomizingAmericanpoliticalcultureinthisway,Wolinadvancesan implausiblyneatreadingofAmericanhistory.Foronething,America’spridein localself-governanceanditsfaithinlaissezfairecapitalismcouldbeunderstoodto bebornoutofthesameethosofself-reliance.Foranother,thelocaltraditions thatWolinmourns,fromtheantifederaliststothesixties,areboundupwith sexismandracism.Forthisreason,localism’srecordondeliveringanegalitarian distributionofpowerinAmericaisatbestmixed.Althoughthereareopportunitiesforprogressivelocalismtoday,anycalltodevolvepowertostateandlocal levelsmustneverthelessaddressthehistoricalrolethefederalgovernmenthas playedinconstrainingracism.TomournAmerica’sparticipatorypasttherefore requiresamorecomplexprocessofworkingthroughthanWolin’smelancholic identificationwith “thebodypolitic” allows.
Startinginthelate1980s,Wolindoesattempttoovercomethecrudenessof thismelancholicvisionofAmericandemocracy.Wemightevaluatetheseefforts throughtheworkoflaterpsychoanalysts,whoelaborateuponFreud’sdistinction betweenhealthyandpathologicalmourning.Tobeginwith,Klein’ s “Mourning anditsRelationtoManic-DepressiveStates” (1940)isusefulinshowinghow healthymourningrequiresthesubjecttoworkthroughtheirambivalence towardsthelostobject.55 Alldeepattachmentsinvolveambivalenceand,whena lovedobjectislost,itisnormalforthesubjecttobedestabilizedastheygrapple withthe “good” and “bad” theysawinit.Themourningsubjectoftenundergoesaprocessof “splitting,” wherebytheylocatethebadelementsofthelost objectindemonizedexternalobjectsfromwhomtheyfearpersecution,while idealizingandpiningforthegoodaspectsofthelostobject.56 Inhealthy mourning,thisisresolvedwhenthesubjectreconstituteswithintheirpsychetheir internalversions, “doubles,” ofthegoodandbadaspectsofthelostobject. Reconstitutingthegoodinnerobjectallowsthesubjecttoself-soothe,while acceptingthebadalongsideitpreventscyclesoffearandguilt.Whenthesubject canintegratetheseconflictingelementsofthelostobjectandseethatobjectin theround,theymayachievepsychicreparationandharmony.Thesubjectfailsto mournhealthilyandisinsteadpronetomelancholiaandspecificallymanic depressionwhen,asaresultofchildhoodtraumaorneglect,theyareunableto recoveragoodinnerobjectalongsideabadoneinthisway.
Introduction 13
Understoodinpoliticalterms,Klein’sworksuggeststhatthehealthymourning ofpoliticaltraditionsinvolvesfacinguptothenegativeandpositiveelementsof thosetraditionsandallowingtheseelementstoco-existwithinthecontemporary democraticimaginary.WolindoesnotachievethisinhisearlyvisionofAmerica’ s participatorypastbecause,likebothTrump’spresidentialcampaignandtheleftwingintellectualscondemnedbyBenjamin,thisvisionseekstoembodyamonolithiclosttraditionwithoutsufficientlyacknowledgingitsmixedlegacy.However, WolinsoondevelopsamoreconsciouslyambivalentrelationshiptoAmerica’ s participatoryheritage,notingitsinegalitarianbaggageaswellasitsdemocratic promise.In ThePresenceofthePast (1989),heconcedes, “religiousfundamentalism, ‘moralism,’ andracial,religious,andethnicprejudicesbelongtothesamehistorical cultureastraditionsoflocalself-government … andsentimentsofegalitarianism.”57 Hethendistinguishesradicaldemocracyfromnationalismbyitsinsistencethat “everyoneis ‘in.’”58 Toensurethatdemocracyisinclusive,heencourages remembranceof,andreflectionon,thehistoricalinjusticesandhierarchiesthat Americandemocracyhasallowed.JustasKleincounselsustorememberalost personwiththeirmultiple,conflictingpersonalitytraitsandbehaviors,Wolin comestoviewAmerica’slostparticipatorycultureasmulti-sided.
Nevertheless,althoughWolin’ sKleiniane ff orttorememberandre fl ecton themixedlegacyofAmerica ’sparticipatorytraditio nsisanimprovementupon hisearliertheorizationofdemocracy,wemightstillquestionwhetheritfacilitatesthetransformationofpoliticalculturethatsuchrealizationsdemand. Klein ’ sunderstandingofhealthymourningisquestionableinsofarasitinvolves rebuildinganalreadyestablishedinnerw orldratherthantransformingtheself. Certainly,Kleindoesnotrecommendthatthesubjectincorporateoridentify withthelostobjectinanunmediatedway,asFreudclaimsoccursinmelancholia.But,whereasforFreudthehealthymournerfreesthemselffromthelost objectandultimatelyreplacesitwhenmourningisover,Kleinputsmore emphasisontherestorationorretrieva lofelementsthathavebeenlost.Indeed, forKlein, “everyadvanceintheprocessofmourningresultsinadeepeningin theindividual’ srelationtohisinnerobjects. ”59 Similarly,Wolincontinuesin ThePresenceofthePast toattempttoembodyandretrievethecollectiveidentity ofthebodypolitic,evenasheacknowledgestheinegalitarianaspectsof America’ sparticipatorypast.AccordingtopsychoanalystsAbrahamandTorok, thesubjectwhofollowsKleininreconstitutingthisfantasyworldofinner objectsrisksfailingtorecogni zefullythelossofalovedobject, “alossthat,if recognizedassuch,woulde ff ectivelytransformus. ”60 AbrahamandTorokshowthat,inordertomournhealthily,wemustnotonly viewlostobjectsambivalentlybutalsoembraceself-transformation.Theyelaboratetheirdistinctiveunderstandingofhealthymourningbydrawingapprovingly onSándorFerenzci’sconceptof “introjection” andcontrastingitwith “incorporation.”61 Forthem,healthymourningor “introjection” involvesdeeply acceptingthatthelostobjectisgoneand “reclaim[ing]asourownthepartof
14 Introduction
ourselvesthatweplacedinwhatwelost.”62 Inasense,then,theyreturncloserto Freud’sconceptionofthehealthymournerwhoworksthroughlossbyfreeing herselffromalostobject.However,theirunderstandingofhealthymourningas introjectionfurtherstressesthesubject’sgrowthandtransformation,anenriching and “broadening” oftheegothatoccursthroughthisprocess.63 Asiscommonin psychoanalysis,AbrahamandTorokusetheexampleoftheinfant’slossofthe mother’sbreasttoexplicatefurthertheirtheoryofmourning.WhereasforKlein thelossofthebreastisbornebyfantasizinga “goodmother” withinthepsyche, AbrahamandTorok’smodelofintrojectionisrootedin “learningto fillthe emptinessofthemouthwithwords.”64 Byputtingtheoriginaloralvoidinto words,theinfantcanmediateandmitigatethelossofthebreastinadistinctly creativeway.And,becauselanguageissharedwithotherswhohavealsoexperiencedloss,introjectionisanintersubjectiveratherthanpurelyintrospectiveprocess: “Introjectingadesire,apain,asituationmeanschannelingthemthroughlanguage intoacommunionofemptymouths.”65 Thenotionthatintrojectionestablishes “verbalrelationshipswiththespeakingcommunityatlarge” illuminatesAbraham andTorok’sclaimthathealthymourningleadstoa “broadening” oftheego.66
Incontrasttotheself-transformative,intersubjectiveprocessofintrojection, AbrahamandTorokunderstandmelancholic “incorporation ” tooccurwhenone failsfullytorecognizethevoidleftbyalostobjectandinstead “introduc[es]allor partofaloveobjectorthingintoone’sownbody.”67 “Inordernottoacceptor ‘swallow’ aloss,” thesubject “fantasize[s]swallowing(orhavingswallowed)that whichhasbeenlost,asifitweresomekindofthing.”68 Whileincorporationmay appeartobea “magical ‘ cure ’” forloss,itactuallyamountstoarefusaltomourn, arefusaltoreclaimasourownthepartofourselvesthatweplacedinwhatwe lostandbeginthe “painfulprocessofreorganization.”69 Incontrasttothecommunicabilityofintrojection,thefantasyofincorporationputsallorpartofthe lostobjectintoapsychic “crypt” sothatitbecomesanincommunicable “intrapsychicsecret.”70
ItwouldbeunfairtodismissKlein’sconceptionofhealthymourningas coterminouswiththeextremesof “cryptophoria” sinceitdoesinvolveaworking throughofambivalencethatisatleastpartlycommunicablethroughremembranceandreflection.Hergoalofintegratinggoodandbadaspectsofalost objectcouldperhapsevenbeunderstoodasapreconditionforthekindof transformationthatAbrahamandTorokrecommend.Nevertheless,Klein’ sprocessofreconstitutinganinnerworldofobjectsisultimatelymorerestorativeand lesscreativethantheprocessofintrojection.Thisisevidentinthecontrast betweenKlein’sclaimthathealthymourning “deepens” theindividual’srelation toitslostobjectsandFerenczi’scharacterizationofintrojectionas “akindof diluting” ofthisrelation.71
Wolin’sKleinianefforttointegratehisambivalentattachmentstoAmerica ’ s participatorypastfailstofacilitatethetransformationofAmericanpoliticalculture,whichremainsbesetbywhiteandmalesupremacistelementsthatarenot
Introduction 15