Interpretation and Social Criticism

by Michael Walzer

What do social critics do? I How do they go about doing it? Where do their principles come from? How do critics establish their distance from the people and institutions they criticize? Michael Walzer addresses these problems in succinct and engaging fashion, providing a philosophical framework for understanding social criticism as a social practice. Walzer maintains that social criticism is an ordinary activity--less the offspring of scientific knowledge than the "educated cousin of common complaint"-- and does not depend for its force or accuracy upon any sort of high theory. In his view, the social critic is not someone radically detached and disinterested, who looks at society as a total stranger and applies objective and universal principles. The true social critic must stand only a little to the side of his society--unlike Jean-Paul Sartre during the Algerian war, for example, who described himself as an enemy of his own people. And unlike Lenin, who judged Russian society against a standard worked out with reference to other places far away. The "connected" critic is the model Walzer offers, one whose distance is measured in inches but who is highly critical nevertheless. John Locke is one example of the connected critic who argued for religious toleration not as a universal right ordained by reason but as a practical consequence of Protestant theology. The biblical prophets, such as Amos, were also men of their own day, with a particular quarrel to conduct with their fellows; the universalism of that quarrel is our own extrapolation. Walzer explains where critical principles come from, how much distance is "critical distance," and what the historical practice of criticism has actually been like in the work of social philosophers such as Marx, Gramsci, Koestler, Lenin, Habermas, and Rawls. Walzer posits a moral world already in existence, a historical product, that gives structure to our lives but whose ordinances are always uncertain and in need of scrutiny, argument, and commentary. The social critic need bring to his task only the ordinary tools of interpretation. Philosophers, political theorists, and all readers seriously interested in the possibility of a moral life will find sustenance and inspiration in this book.

Genres: Philosophy, Politics, Nonfiction

108 pages, Hardcover

First published March 1, 1987

About the author

Michael Walzer is a Jewish American political philosopher and public intellectual. A professor emeritus at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, he is editor of the political-intellectual quarterly Dissent. He has written books and essays on a wide range of topics, including just and unjust wars, nationalism, ethnicity, economic justice, social criticism, radicalism, tolerance, and political obligation and is a contributing editor to The New Republic. To date, he has written 27 books and published over 300 articles, essays, and book reviews in Dissent, The New Republic, The New York Review of Books, The New Yorker, The New York Times, and many scholarly journals

Reviews

[José Pereira · Rating 4 out of 5]

Walzer is a great writer, one of the very best in analytic philosophy. He’s also a pro heterodox thinker. The way he frames moral theorizing under discovery, invention, and interpretation is fresh and illuminating; his treatment of Rawls especially fruitful.
I’m also partial to his views on moral epistemology and argumentation, I think he points us to the right way. It is unquestionable, however, that he leaves much unsaid. There need to be some standards shaping the method of interpretation and some clearish way to rank new arguments based on it. It’s unclear how he can resist even the mildest accusations of stickiness or status quo bias.

[Lenka Kyselova · Rating 4 out of 5]

Precitane znova po dlhej dobe. Tentokrat je tento tenky Walzer akosi zivsi, reflektujem na nom posledne slovenske roky, nasu zurnalistiku ako takmer jedinu verejne dostupnu ‘kritiku’, v tomto kontexte je to slusna jazda.

[m · Rating 2 out of 5]

This short difficult book did not repay repeated close readings. I like Michael Walzer generally but its not clear to me what he was trying to work out in these three lectures.

[Mitchell Ebbott · Rating 5 out of 5]

Loved it. Absolutely loved it. In this short book, Walzer calls out everything I can't stand in moral philosophy and offers a truly inspiring way forward. I can't recommend this enough.