Customer Reviews

Spheres Of Justice: A Defense Of Pluralism And Equality

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Before critiquing this book, Mr. Walzer should be given some credit. He manages to make a good argument for pluralism, equality, and the like, and avoids the deus ex machina thought experiments a la Rawls (with "original positions") or the like. For that, Mr. Walzer should be thanked.

Now for the problems. Walzer, author of "Just and Unjust Wars" and "On Toleration" (among many others), is trying to defend a certain order of society where differences can be accepted and equality may be ensured. But Walzer's arguments suffer from a major problem - his starting point(s) are left undefended, and indeed sometimes even undefined. The key to his system is "shared meanings," an idea that he has used in other works (like "Just and Unjust Wars" [J&UW]) under various names. What these shared meanings are, Walzer generally avoids saying directly. As he mentioned in J&UW, Walzer tends to avoid the more complex questions of the foundations for morality and the like - he tends, in practice anyway, to be an antifoundationalist. This presents a problem - he gives the reader all these beautifully reasoned arguments for his idea of society, but always leaves the starting-point out. As such, it is hard to make much of his argument, if you may find yourself in disagreement with his elusive first principles.

Walzer argues that he's starting with "shared meanings," and just following out logically what that entails. In practice, this results in a social democratic, left-oriented society. Fine. But one feels a sleight-of-hand is being played. The "shared meanings" are rather vague. Moreover, "shared" by whom? While Walzer gives some discussion to this, the question lingers. Shared by all those in Western society? By those in only one country? By those in one class? By those on the editorial board of "Dissent" magazine? The reader may find that s/he is locked into the "logical result" of premises that were unknown in the beginning.

Having written all that, this is a very important book in political thoery/philosophy. If those are areas you are interested in, you should read this book. While well-argued, I find it less than compelling (for the reasons discussed above). I could be wrong. Read and decide for yourself.

Spheres of Justice was assigned to me but, years later and the class notes long lost, it has become a loyal, dog-eared partner in my life. Walzer's framework provides a powerful tool for non-philosophers to understand, and then speak-up directly and intelligently for equality and democracy. Nonetheless, the sphere-conceit tends mask and mystify the material bases for some of the situations Walzer uses it to address. This book is not a replacement for Mill, Rawls, Locke, Marx, Kant, and Arrow, but it is a huge span in the bridge between theories advocating equality and public policies that can secure it.

One of the major achievements of this is book just how well-written it is. Like one previous reviewer noted, Walzer is much more readable than authors like Nozick and Rawls (not to demean their incredible works). The strength of this book I have found is uneven. Some topics it treats incredibly and others are sorely wanting. Walzer's work is best at showing how justice is not just a political experience but also an economic, social, cultural, religious, and personal one; thus, this book is not just about politics but also about ethics. I recommend the book highly. It's an easy, memorable read for those interested in the topic therein.

Comparing "Spheres of Justice" with other books on distributive justice,(for instance Rawls; "Theory of Justice" and "Political Liberalism") this book by M.Walzer is a page-turner. If the primary goal of a "theory" of justice is a practical one, Walzer makes sense . For most students this book will make it possble to apply ethics to the real world, revealing the veil of ignorance.

This is nothing less than the most important work of political theory written in the last 20 years. Walzer, unlike other post war liberal theorists like Nozick and Rawls, returns political theory to the realm of practical political reality. His propsed theory creates a rational and thoughtful framework to confront many modern social issues.

Finally, Walzer has published a book that challenges the liberal theory of rationality, justice, and the capitalist markets. Although Walzer does have a few inconsistencies, his theory of the individual and the community dwarfs the liberal theory of Rawls.

This book unfortunately reveals the white male author's allegiance to patriarchy and euro-centrism. While the rest of us are combatting these oppressions, others are explaining their way AROUND these problems. I would recommend a more committed social theorist, like bell hooks. We need to hear the voices of the marginalized, not the priviledged white male establishment.