Republicanism and multicultural democracy

Philip Pettit’s writings about republicanism offer a valuable and distinctive perspective on individual freedom and the nature of a good society. He develops those ideas most fully in Republicanism : a theory of freedom and government. Pettit’s core idea is that we should conceive of freedom as “non-domination” — that is, that an individual is free when he or she is not subject to the arbitrary power of other individuals, groups, or institutions. He emphasizes that non-domination is a more demanding concept of freedom than either “negative” or “positive” freedom as characterized by writers as diverse as John Locke, John Stuart Mill, Isaiah Berlin, or Amartya Sen, because domination can occur even when crude coercion is absent. The threat of constraint or punishment for one’s “free” actions can make those actions and actors unfree, even if coercive means are never invoked. And most pertinently today, a structure of discrimination and negative stereotypes about members of a minority group can present barriers to the free and non-dominated choices and life trajectories of a despised minority — African-American men and women in the American South in the 1950s, Black South Africans during the post-apartheid period, women in a period of male domination and chauvinism, and Jewish men and women in pre-war Poland.

The other idea constitutive of republicanism is the view that the commonwealth, the civil society, or the republic have a value over and above the value of the individual activities of the citizens. Rousseau emphasizes this point in The Social Contract: entering into a unanimous and binding agreement with one’s fellow citizens is fundamentally transforming of each individual. Each is an expression and constituent of the “general will”, and the whole of the political collectivity is a moral presence for all the citizens. To be a citizen is to be civically motivated, to be concerned to bring about the good of the whole (and not solely one’s own particular good). And this civic membership is in turn constitutive of part of the value and satisfaction of the individual citizen. Citizens are morally invested in the wellbeing of their fellow citizens. This set of ideals, once again, is incompatible with a society that embodies persistent forms of social and legal domination of one group by another, because domination is incompatible with equality and dignity for all citizens.

The question of domination is central for Pettit. Here is how he explains this concept.

Domination, as I understand it here, is exemplified by the relationship of master to slave or master to servant. Such a relationship means, at the limit, that the dominating party can interfere on an arbitrary basis with the choices of the dominated: can interfere, in particular, on the basis of an interest or an opinion that need not be shared by the person affected. The dominating party can practise interference, then, at will and with impunity: they do not have to seek anyone’s leave and they do not have to incur any scrutiny or penalty. Without going further into the analysis of domination or indeed interference—we turn to that task in the next chapter—a little reflection should make clear that domination and interference are intuitively different evils. (22)

It is worth noticing how this conception of non-domination converges with Rousseau’s concept of “a free community of equals”. It is fundamental to Rousseau’s concept of a proper “republic” that no citizen is superior to another, none has dominion over another in virtue of property, status, religious authority, or other extraneous characteristic. In a free community of equals, no citizen is enabled to dominate another. This view is celebrated in The Social Contract and the Discourse on the Origin and Foundation of the Inequality Among Men.

Pettit especially praises the theory of republicanism because it provides a basis for articulating “grievances” at a wide range of causes. Whereas the “non-interference” theory of liberty does not provide a basis for articulating a grievance about engrained social hierarchy (squire to tenant), the “non-domination” perspective permits this grievance and many others: patriarchy and male supremacy, racial discrimination, a group’s exercise of unequal economic power over another group, and the many other ways in which entrenched patterns of thought and power give one group influence over the affairs and wellbeing of another group (Republicanism, p. 134).

In particular, Pettit argues that republicanism offers a strong moral basis for articulating the values of a multicultural democracy and the equal dignity of the diverse participants in such a democracy. And he forthrightly defends the idea that a democracy based on “non-domination” will require substantial programmatic efforts at reducing and eliminating the sources of domination that exist among groups in the existing society. He puts his view this way:

The challenge raised by that complaint [by members of minority groups within society] is whether the modern state can be given a rationale and a form that will enable it to serve the interests of those in minority cultures equally with the interests of those in the mainstream. The point that I want to make here, in defence of republicanism, is that if the modern state is orientated around the promotion of freedom as non­domination, then it will have a reason and a capacity to cater for the claims of those in minority cultures. … The lesson of this observation is that so far as membership in a minority culture is likely to be a badge of vulnerability to domination, the members of that culture, and the state that assumes concern for their fortunes, must address the needs of the culture in general. It is not going to be enough to claim to be concerned with individuals in the culture, without any particular reference to what binds them together. (Republicanism, 144, 145)

It might be noted that this conception of a multicultural democracy is itself somewhat limiting. It emphasizes the importance of “counting every voice” within a democracy — certainly an important value. But it doesn’t emphasize explicitly the positive value created by a multiracial, multi-ethnic, and multicultural society and the forms of learning and enhanced fulfillment that are enabled by full and equal relationships with members of groups other than one’s own. At its best a multicultural democracy is more than a social and political setting in which different groups can live peacefully together; it is one in which the lives of all members of society are enriched and enabled by the thoughts, experiences, and values of members of other groups.

Let’s now see how these ideas about republicanism intersect with the rationale for organizational programs enhancing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). In the past twenty years universities and businesses have introduced a variety of programs under this banner that are designed (in part anyway) to reduce and eliminate the barriers experienced for various groups in our society due to discrimination and negative stereotypes. Consider two specific examples: the well-known social phenomenon of “stereotype threat” (link) that Claude Steele and others have explored; and the persistent life disadvantages created for poor children and young adults by inadequate public schooling in urban centers (link).

Steele’s central finding as a social psychologist is that a widespread belief in society and in schools that the X group generally cannot perform as well as the Y group on a certain kind of task (a stereotype) causally brings about poor performance in members of the X group. Instead of the stereotype deriving from the facts, the facts of unequal performance derive from the stereotype. So what can be done? One possibility is to explicitly recognize the workings of this mechanism within schools, and to educate teachers about the harmful effects that follow from even veiled expressions of the stereotype. Suppose an engineering professor often begins the semester with a speech saying, “I see there are a few women students in the class. I know this will be a challenging class for you, and I want you to know that my teaching assistants and I are available to you to clarify things you don’t understand”. We may assume the professor’s intentions are good; but according to Steele’s research, the effects on some of the female students may be significant. So the professor would be well advised to learn to emphasize his or her availability in different terms, without reference to the gender of the students in the class. This suggests the value of programs in “hidden-bias” training for faculty and staff. And we might go a bit further: if the engineering college faculty is 90% male, the signal to female students seems to be that “engineering is not a profession for women”. So the college should make special efforts to recruit highly talented female faculty.

Now consider the second example: the barriers created for black and brown students who are heavily concentrated in urban neighborhoods with relatively less effective public schools, due to persistent residential segregation (link). How should selective universities address the fact that black and brown students from low-income families are persistently under-represented in their incoming classes? A program that has often been adopted is a university-funded supplementary instruction program for low-income districts in their state or region. The idea is that the university can help talented high school students close the attainment gap that exists between them and typical suburban high school students through intensive programs of this kind. This would have two positive effects: it would increase the preparation level of these low-income-neighborhood students so they are competitive for admission in selective universities; and it would potentially increase the confidence in a cohort of under-served students that the host university is indeed an attainable and attractive destination for them. These effects would increase the number of under-served students — black, brown, and white — who attend selective universities, and it would reduce the barrier that exists for residents of segregated neighborhoods and cities when it comes to college attendance. This would be one step in the direction of securing a more free and equal society, from the point of view of non-domination.

Now let’s return to “non-domination” and Pettit’s republicanism. These reparative policies are urgently needed, and many others as well, in order to eliminate the social barriers that have the effect of establishing relations of “domination” among specific groups in society. Moreover, policies and programs like these are not performed out of “charity” or noblesse oblige. Rather, measures like these are needed as a matter of reparative justice to all free and equal citizens — in the first case, in order to reduce the barriers created to female students’ ability to enter an engineering curriculum and to thrive in the profession; and in the second case, to begin to address the barriers to full educational development created by continuing racial segregation. In each case the policy is intelligently designed to reduce domination of one group in a democratic society by another group. And in this way the DEI policies currently under attack are specifically needed if we are to achieve the idea of a “free community of equals” in a multicultural and multi-racial society.

The micro and the social

In his influential article "A definition of physicalism" (1993) Philip Pettit attempts to formulate a consistent and coherent account of physicalism as an ontology of the world.

I believe that we can define a possibly true, substantive doctrine which holds, roughly, that the empirical world 'contains just what a true complete physics would say it contains'. (213)

The resulting view is offered as an attempt to identify the "furniture of the empirical world". Can there be a corresponding theory of the "furniture of the empirical social world"?

His statement in the follow-on reply to criticisms of this essay in "Microphysicalism without contingent micro-macro laws" (1994) is helpful.

“Physicalism – better, perhaps, microphysicalism – is the doctrine that actually (but not necessarily) everything non-microphysical is composed out of microphysical entities and is governed by microphysical laws; and this, in a sense which means that the non-microphysical facts supervene contingently on the microphysical” (1994: 253).

What is the analogy for the trivial fact, “no social structures without human beings embodying them”? Let's call the corresponding view “bare ontological dependence” (BOD). Here is a formulation of BOD constructed to be exactly parallel to Pettit's definition of microphysicalism:

“[Bare ontological dependence] … is the doctrine that actually (but not necessarily) everything [at the social level] is composed out of [existent human individuals with specified features of mentality, psychology, and cognitive capacity] and is governed by [psychological and neurophysiological] laws; and this, in a sense which means that the [social-level] facts supervene contingently on the [micro-individuals]”.

Is this a credible and defensible conception of the relation between individual human actors and "social entities"?

This formulation entails, apparently, that “the features of the social institution are constituted and governed by the micro-psychological characteristics of the individual actors who constitute it” and the social “supervenes” upon those micro-individuals. This in turn implies the supervenience maxim: “no difference at the social-structure level without some difference at the micro-individual level”. It also specifies a clear sense in which “micro-particles” have primacy over ordinary physical objects and "individuals" have primacy over "social entities"; their properties “fix” the behavior of the macro-objects. The corresponding statement for "bare ontological dependence is then that "actors" have primacy over ordinary "social" objects; their properties "fix" the behavior of the macro-social-objects.

Pettit's application of these formulae to the world of physics, chemistry, and planetary motion is reasonable enough. And part of the plausibility of the view in the case of physics is that the microphysical particles can be said to have properties that are fixed and independent from the macro-level ensembles that they constitute. However, this is not the case in the situation of "socially situated individuals" who constitute "ongoing social structures and practices". Rather, there are reciprocal causal relations up and down, or back and forth, across the levels that make the ideas of "constitution" and "fixing" no longer compelling. And this implies in turn that there are no trans-historical, universal "regularities" of human behavior that might constitute the bridge between individual actions and social entities.

Further, because of the contingency of some historical sequences (for example, the invention of monotheism or the discovery of the heavy plow), and given the path-dependency of some structural or institutional outcomes, there is no reason to expect that a common beginning point of unsocialized or pre-socialized individuals (a state of nature) would gradually develop, by perhaps unknown behavioral laws, into the establishment and articulation of specific social structures. And if we accept the point that it is sometimes the case that "different structures elicit different kinds of human mentality", then we are brought face to face with contingency all the way down: contingent structures and contingent social individuals.

So Pettit's line of thought in defining physicalism is quite implausible when applied to the social world. It is true that "the Ford Motor Company" could not exist if there were not actual human beings occupying roles within and outside the company. It is not true, however, that "the 'social' world is governed by forces or regularities that [empirical psychology] is best equipped to describe" (the analog to Pettit's statement about micro-particles). The mental characteristics and processes of the actors involved in a social entity or set of social arrangements are themselves in fact shaped by past social arrangements to which the actors have been exposed. So if the foundational body of empirical knowledge is "empirical psychology" (as JS Mill indeed believed) then we must reject the view.

One of Pettit's claims about the relation between microphysical things and macrophysical things is fundamentally a reassertion of the supervenience relation between levels: "No macrophysical difference without a microphysical one" (216). How does this proposition fare when applied to "macro-social entities" and "micro-individual states"? It corresponds to this assertion: "No macro-social difference without a micro-individual one". Unfortunately, this seems to be a trivial statement when applied to the social realm. Any two social states differ at the micro-level, for the most trivial of reasons: they are different states, with different individuals, and different individuals have different action-plans and beliefs. So whether S1 and S2 are "different" or "the same" in their macro-descriptions, it is trivially true that they will differ in their micro-composition. Consider these three facts: "The price of soybeans on the Chicago Board of Trade on May 1, 2025, is 1,060.50"; "The price of soybeans on the Chicago Board of Trade on May 1, 2024, is 1,000.00"; "The price of soybeans on the Chicago Board of Trade on May 1, 2023, is 1,060.50". Each sentence describes a structural fact: the circumstances of supply and demand on the specified day led to an equilibrium price as quoted. But none of the structural facts described here corresponds to a single set of individual actors doing the same things for similar reasons. The actors have changed, their motivations have changed, their habits have changed, and their styles of dress have changed. The pathways that led to the same structural equilibrium in 2025 and 2023 were no doubt different in multiple ways; and likewise, the actors and the pathways that led to different equilibria in 2025 and 2024 were different as well. Even if we were to perform a massive experiment in "experimental economics" and assemble 1,000 traders on May 1, 2023, and then again on May 1, 2025; control the information to which they are exposed in the preceding twelve hours; and ask them to buy and sell as they normally would, there will still remain idiosyncratic differences between the series of thoughts and actions undertaken on the two days. And the same will be true of the experiment when we model 2024 and 2025: there will inevitably be vast numbers of individual-level differences. So the supervenience condition is vacuous. There are always differences across cases at the micro-individual level.

It is pertinent to observe that some physical processes are path dependent as well, which means that the initial states of the micro-particles by themselves are not sufficient to "determine" the outcome. Rather, the outcome depends in part on the process of transition from one state to another. Suppose a physicist observes two vessels of pure water over a bunsen burner. One container is boiling vigorously, while the other, at the same observed temperature, is not boiling. The difference is that the first vessel was heated quickly while the second was heated slowly. The process made a difference in the outcome, even though the micro-constituents were indistinguishable. But this is the relevant point: there is a difference in the two states of containers of water, even though there is currently no difference in the states of the micro-particles.

Pettit considers a possibility that he considers to be inconsistent with his understanding of "physicalism":

Another [opponent of physicalism] will be the person, perhaps difficult to imagine accepts microphysical composition but thinks that the composition involved is not necessarily conservative: it allows, without further need of explanation, that two entities that are composed in the same way, and of the same materials, may yet differ intrinsically from one another. (217)

Pettit appears to think this is an absurd contention; how could these two macro-entities differ, without any difference in the composing microphysical parts?

Let's ask first what Pettit means by the phrase "composed in the same way". One natural reading is asynchronous and structural. A bar of iron may consist of precisely the same number of iron atoms, but the arrangement of the atoms is coherent in the first case and incoherent in the second arrangement. In that case the first iron bar has a property that the second bar lacks; it is "magnetic". And yet the two bars consist of exactly the same kind of microphysical parts. The solution in this case is that the arrangement of the parts makes a difference; when the iron atoms are coherently aligned, their magnetic fields aggregate to a macro-scale magnetic field.

The second possible meaning of "composed in the same way" is diachronic and historical. To be "composed in the same way" is to have undergone precisely the same set of processes of material transformation, heat transfer, application of pressure, etc. From the short explanation of path-dependent processes above, we know that differences in physical processes of material transformation can indeed lead to differences in macro-physical outcome for ensembles of precisely similar microphysical constituents; in the current case, one process leads to a magnetic bar of iron, while the second process leads to a non-magnetic bar.

Now return to the relation between individuals and social structures. Is it possible for two ensembles of individuals to be exactly similar in the current psychological characteristics of the individuals involved in the two cases but to nonetheless differ in some important way at the macro-social level? Much turns on how finely we expect to interpret "exactly similar" here. But suppose we assume an abstract conception of the individual's psychology along these lines: each individual wants a situation where he or she can satisfy as many preferences as possible, while avoiding catastrophic failures. And each individual has a set of "social emotions" that permit the emergence of social relationships based on trust and mutual solidarity. Now consider two thought experiments involving the emergence of a "wannabe" strong man dictator in the political system. In the first instance the potential dictator has the good fortune that his first efforts at taking power are generally unopposed because individuals recognize his intentions but find resistance to be too risky; as the dictator gains followers and successes this population becomes more passive; and after ten years the dictator is applauded and supported throughout much of the population. In the second instance the dictator has bad fortune. A few of his supporters are overly willing to use violence against dissidents and resisters, which stimulates a higher degree of alarm in ordinary citizens; a few of the ordinary citizens recognize the discontent present in others and form relations of trust. These "trust" circles expand over time and incidents of resistance become more frequent; the dictator and his supporters become more willing to turn to violent suppression; the dictator's violence tips more citizens into trust circles of their own; and after ten years the dictator's hold on power is precarious. His rallies are attended by his own militias and inner circle; but acts of resistance continue and proliferate.

The two scenarios begin and end with the same kinds of actors -- persons with their own interests and a capacity for forming social relationships. And yet the properties of the two regimes at the end of the experiment are quite different. This seems to correspond to the terms of Pettit's original reductio ad absurdum: different macro-arrangements constituted by the same kinds and arrangements of microparticles. What differentiates the two cases is the contingency, path dependence, and "triggering" of individual capacities that occurred during the processes involved in the two scenarios. In the first case, no events arose to trigger and encourage the emergence of trust networks; whereas in the second case, there were such events. The historical processes in the two cases were different, and the properties of the ensemble continued to evolve in different directions. The social capacities of the individuals were present in both scenarios, but they were only triggered in the second scenario.

What all of this suggests is fairly simple: the idea of "physicalism" as a fundamental model of ontology is not a suitable framework for thinking about social ontology. The individuals who "constitute" social arrangements are not analogous to the microparticles that Pettit considers; rather, they are actors whose states of agency are altered dynamically by events, processes, and structures that emerge historically, and the inherent contingency and path dependence of the social world guarantee that no version of foundationalism or individualism will suffice for social ontology.

Why "DEI"?

The current war on DEI has proven to be unrelenting and highly destructive to the independence, academic freedom, and inclusiveness of American universities. And yet the values that gave rise to DEI initiatives throughout the country in the past two decades are deeply grounded in fundamental American values of equality, freedom, and community. How did we get to the place where DEI is regarded as extremist and alien?

First, some background. DEI is a slogan; it stands for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. The fundamental idea is that the basic institutions of a multicultural and multiracial democracy should actively embody the facts of social and cultural diversity of the population; they should welcome all comers in a spirit of democratic equality; and they should actively strive to create environments that are genuinely welcoming to people from all aspects of American society. Unlike elitist institutions of the 1920s, universities should not be places where economic, religious, or racial elites have primacy, and people from other groups are only marginally welcome. Instead, an institution in a democratic society, including especially universities, should actively embrace the equality, dignity, and worth of all its participants.

Given the history of discrimination in our society -- discrimination based on religion, ethnic origin, gender, race, and other social or cultural characteristics -- any thoughtful observer will realize that full democratic equality requires more than slogans, more than banners, and more than "celebrations of global diversity". Democratic equality requires active work on the part of citizens, leaders, and institutional participants to remake the culture and systems of the institution in ways that deliberately turn back the impulse of discrimination and disparagement across identity groups. If Chicagoans have the view that down-staters are backward, conventional, and generally not very innovative, then banks, labor unions, and universities in Chicago are likely to reflect those assumptions without any special effort on the part of "hate groups" to bring this about. It reflects what we might call "cultural-assumptions discrimination". So special efforts would be required to change the mentality and culture of all the participants, to un-do the workings of these forms of "implicit bias". And if down-state urban school systems are typically underfunded and under-performing relative to their counterparts in the affluent Chicago suburbs, then down-state urban students are likely enough to be under-represented at "merit-based" elite institutions in Chicago. This would be an example of "structural discrimination". And it implies that "affirmative" efforts would be needed in order to give down-state urban students an equitable opportunity of access to the elite university.

And what about inclusion, welcome, and equal dignity and respect for the individuals and groups who wind up participating in the institution? If the biased assumptions that color the perceptions and expectations of Chicagoans and down-staters alike persist in the institutional environment of the elite university, then we may expect that consequential inequalities of respect, dignity, and worth will persist into the institutional environment as well. This will have the effect of reproducing locally the group separation and disparagement that exists in the broader society. Active efforts at the local level -- in the classroom, in the residence hall, in the eating club or Greek organization -- will be needed in order to change the way that eighteen-year-olds think about themselves and their classmates, without falling into the traps of orthodoxy, political correctness, or ineffectual scolding.

Is there any doubt that cultures of discrimination, disparagement, and bias continue to exist in American society? Of course not; the persistence of these attitudes and behaviors are all too evident, even when expressed in indirect and "socially acceptable" ways. So people who are committed to full democratic equality as a goal, even though not a current reality, are forced to face the question: what kinds of social messages, programming, and educational initiatives can be imagined that have a real effect on each individual's private culture of bias and acceptance? Doing nothing means allowing patterns of bias and discrimination to continue indefinitely; enacting a program of "mandatory hidden bias training" may seem to be too prescriptive for an institution that respects the autonomy and dignity of its participants. So neither action seems right.

This is the problem that commitments to DEI are trying to solve: to find avenues through which inter-group antagonisms and suspicions, usually based on ignorance, can be relaxed in favor of an acceptance of difference and an eagerness for learning from people different from oneself. And significantly, participants in DEI initiatives have often made use of careful empirical research in various disciplines of the social and behavioral sciences. We might describe this as a challenging project of social engineering. Or more appropriately, we might describe it as the work of establishing and securing a robust multicultural inclusive democracy. And we have plenty of examples of leaders who understood the importance and difficulty of this challenge, including Nelson Mandela, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Barack Obama.

This goal is indeed worth struggling for, and its roots did not begin twenty years ago when the phrase "Diversity, Equity, Inclusion" came into use. Rather, its roots go back to some of the most morally perceptive theorists of democracy itself -- not chiefly the classical liberal theorists like Hobbes and Locke, for whom a democratic society is simply an instrument through which rationally self-interested citizens pursued their own interests in their own ways, but in the more substantive theories of philosophers like Jean-Jacques Rousseau. It was Rousseau who formulated the idea that all citizens contribute equally to the "general will" and to the wellbeing and freedom of the whole of society; it was Rousseau whose views could be summed up in the phrase, "a free community of equals". And it was Rousseau who argued unflinchingly for the equal freedom, dignity, and worth of all human beings. This is what the slogan "Diversity, Equity, Inclusion" is all about and what its advocates are trying to achieve.

A conversation with Gemini about Orwell's Road to Wigan Pier

In previous posts I've been fairly skeptical about the value of ChatGPT as a research tool (link). In recent weeks I've been exploring Google's Gemini 2.0 Flash and Gemini Deep Research, and I'm cautiously more impressed. There are two core shortcomings of an AI tool based solely on large language models and massive training: lack of specific sources of factual knowledge and inability to provide references or sources for the statements the chatbot makes. The Gemini products address both problems. Gemini accesses a very broad range of factual knowledge -- partly through live internet searches, and perhaps partly through a knowledge graph of previously processed data sources.

Here is an extended trial of Gemini's capacities that I carried out in March, 2025. It is a query-response dialogue with Gemini Flash 2.0 to test the ability of the tool to answer a series of questions about the content, composition, and context of George Orwell's book The Road to Wigan Pier. The results were surprisingly good and factually detailed. The queries are provided by me, and the responses are unedited texts produced by Gemini Flash 2.0 in response to the queries. As a further pedagogical exercise I have digitized the text as spoken audio in my own voice using a digital reading tool and used it as a soundtrack for a YouTube video, with period photographs as visual content. The results can be viewed here:  https://youtu.be/pqr--ExiryI. 

It strikes me that the AI-generated text provided here provides an informative and thought-provoking introductory lecture for students who will be reading this book and discussing it as a piece of social criticism and commentary. The responses are thought-provoking because they provide useful pieces of information on a topic that can be pursued further -- for example, concerning the disagreements that arose between Orwell and his publisher, Victor Gollancz. And the response to the query "Does Orwell respect the poor and working people he describes?" is especially on the mark, and the response to the question whether miners have higher levels of solidarity than other groups of workers is also impressive. However, the text does not suggest an "intelligent" reader of Orwell's text. In fact, the final entry in the dialogue concerning the source of Orwell's description of the young woman and the frozen drain pipe demonstrates that Gemini does not have access to the text of the book at all. Rather, Gemini is serving as something like a careful "reviewer and compiler" of secondary sources on the book (encyclopedia articles, an occasional book review, an occasional academic blog entry, ...), with an impressive ability to pull themes and observations from various sources into a single coherent response to the query. It is notable as well (from the fact that Gemini provides documentation of its claims) that Gemini has only limited access to academic sources of knowledge in compiling its responses. It is functioning more like a real-time compiler of Wikipedia entries on a subject rather than a self-directed researcher.

Dialogue with Gemini Flash 2.0 about the content and context of George Orwell's Road to Wigan Pier

DL: What are the main findings of Orwell’s “Road to Wigan Pier”?

"The Road to Wigan Pier" is a non-fiction book by George Orwell, published in 1937. It is divided into two parts. The first part documents his sociological investigations of the bleak living conditions among the working class in Lancashire and Yorkshire in the industrial north of England before World War II. The second part is a long essay on his middle-class upbringing and the development of his political conscience, questioning British attitudes towards socialism.

Here are some of the main findings of the book:

• The appalling living conditions of the working class: Orwell provides a stark and detailed description of the poverty, unemployment, and squalor endured by the working class in the industrial north of England. He writes about overcrowded and unsanitary housing, the dangers of coal mining, and the constant struggle for survival.
• The psychological impact of poverty: Orwell argues that poverty not only causes physical hardship but also has a devastating effect on people's mental and emotional well-being. He describes the sense of hopelessness, despair, and resentment that he encountered among the working class.
• The need for socialism: Orwell concludes that socialism is the only way to address the social and economic problems facing Britain. He argues that it is necessary to create a more just and equal society, where everyone has access to basic necessities and opportunities.
• A critique of middle-class socialists: Orwell criticizes middle-class socialists for their lack of understanding of the working class and their patronizing attitudes. He argues that socialists need to connect with the working class and address their concerns in a genuine way.

"The Road to Wigan Pier" is a powerful and influential book that has had a lasting impact on British society. It is a valuable historical document that provides insights into the social and economic conditions of the 1930s. It is also a timeless work of political commentary that raises important questions about class, inequality, and the role of government.

DL: How did the Great Depression affect the conditions Orwell describes?

The Great Depression, which lasted from 1929 to 1939, had a devastating impact on the world economy, and Britain was no exception. The industrial north of England, where Orwell conducted his research for "The Road to Wigan Pier," was particularly hard hit.

Here are some of the ways in which the Great Depression affected the conditions Orwell describes in the book:

• Increased unemployment: The Depression led to a sharp rise in unemployment in the industrial north. Many factories and mines were forced to close down, leaving thousands of people without work. This exacerbated the poverty and hardship that Orwell witnessed.
• Lower wages: Even those who were lucky enough to keep their jobs often faced pay cuts. This made it even more difficult for working-class families to make ends meet.
• Worsening living conditions: The Depression made it even harder for people to afford decent housing. Overcrowding and unsanitary conditions became even more widespread.
• Increased poverty and hardship: The combined effects of unemployment, low wages, and poor living conditions led to a dramatic increase in poverty and hardship. Many people were struggling to survive, and some were even facing starvation.

Orwell's book provides a powerful and poignant account of the impact of the Great Depression on the lives of ordinary people. He shows how the economic crisis led to widespread suffering and despair. However, he also highlights the resilience and strength of the working class in the face of adversity.

"The Road to Wigan Pier" is a valuable historical document that sheds light on the social and economic conditions of Britain during the Great Depression. It is also a timeless work of political commentary that raises important questions about inequality and the role of government.

DL: What does Orwell have to say about the private ownership of coal mines?

In "The Road to Wigan Pier," George Orwell vividly portrays the grim realities of coal mining in the industrial north of England. While he doesn't explicitly advocate for nationalization in this book, his descriptions and analysis strongly suggest his belief that private ownership of coal mines was a major source of the problems he witnessed.

Here's what Orwell highlights about the private ownership of coal mines:

• Dangerous and exploitative conditions: Orwell describes the appalling conditions in the mines, with frequent accidents, lung disease, and back-breaking labor. He emphasizes that the mine owners prioritized profit over the safety and well-being of the workers.
• Low wages and job insecurity: Miners faced low wages and constant fear of unemployment. Orwell points out that the private owners had immense power over the lives of the workers, who had little bargaining power.
• Neglect of communities: The coal mine owners often neglected the communities where the miners lived. Orwell describes the squalid housing, lack of sanitation, and overall poverty in these areas.
• Inefficiency and waste: Orwell argues that private ownership led to inefficiency and waste in the coal industry. He suggests that a more rational and planned approach would benefit both the workers and the country as a whole.

While Orwell doesn't explicitly call for nationalization in "The Road to Wigan Pier," his critique of private ownership aligns with his socialist views. Later in his life, he became a strong advocate for public ownership of key industries, including coal mines. He believed that this would ensure fairer treatment for workers, improve efficiency, and serve the public interest.

DL: Who were some of the large owners and companies in the coal industry at that time?

Unfortunately, "The Road to Wigan Pier" doesn't specifically name the large owners and companies in the coal industry at that time. Orwell focuses more on the general system of private ownership and its effects on the workers and communities.

However, we can look at the historical context to understand who some of the major players were:

• Large landowners: Many coal mines were owned by large landowners who had inherited the land and the mineral rights beneath it. These landowners often leased the mines to operating companies.
• Industrialists: With the rise of industrialization, wealthy industrialists invested in coal mines to fuel their factories and other businesses. Some of these industrialists became major coal mine owners themselves.
• Mining companies: Specialized mining companies emerged, focusing solely on the extraction and sale of coal. These companies often owned multiple mines and employed large workforces.

Some of the prominent names in the British coal industry during the early 20th century included:

• The Marquess of Bute: A major landowner in South Wales with significant coal mining interests.
• The Londonderry family: Another aristocratic family with extensive coal mines in County Durham.
• Companies like Guest Keen and Nettlefolds: Large industrial conglomerates with diverse holdings, including coal mines.

It's important to remember that the coal industry was highly fragmented, with numerous owners and companies of varying sizes. This made it difficult to pinpoint a definitive list of the "large" owners, as the landscape was constantly shifting.

While Orwell doesn't name specific owners, his critique of the private ownership system sheds light on the broader power dynamics at play. He highlights how the pursuit of profit by mine owners, whoever they may be, often came at the expense of the workers' well-being and the communities they lived in.

DL: Does Orwell respect the poor and working people he describes?

Yes, despite his sometimes critical observations, Orwell clearly respects the poor and working people he describes in "The Road to Wigan Pier." Here's how that respect manifests:

• He portrays their humanity: Orwell goes beyond simply documenting their poverty and hardship. He shows the resilience, humor, and dignity of the working-class people he encounters. He emphasizes their humanity, even in the face of dehumanizing conditions.
• He acknowledges their struggles: Orwell doesn't shy away from depicting the harsh realities of their lives, from the dangers of coal mining to the squalor of their living conditions. He acknowledges their daily struggles for survival and the systemic forces that keep them in poverty.
• He challenges stereotypes: Orwell actively challenges the common stereotypes and prejudices against the working class. He refutes the idea that they are lazy, ignorant, or inherently different from other people. He emphasizes their fundamental decency and their capacity for intelligence and compassion.
• He advocates for their rights: Orwell's critique of the private ownership of coal mines and his support for socialism stem from a genuine concern for the well-being of the working class. He advocates for their right to a decent standard of living, fair wages, and safe working conditions.
• He recognizes their value: Orwell acknowledges the vital role that working-class people play in society. He recognizes their labor, their contributions to the economy, and their importance to the social fabric of the nation.

While Orwell may sometimes express his own middle-class biases and discomfort with certain aspects of working-class culture, his overall portrayal is one of deep respect and empathy. He sees the working class as fellow human beings who deserve dignity, justice, and a better life.

DL: What does Orwell have to say about the importance of coal in the modern world?

In "The Road to Wigan Pier," George Orwell highlights the crucial role of coal in powering the modern world of his time. He emphasizes just how dependent society was on this fuel source. Here's a breakdown of his key points:

• Foundation of modern life: Orwell states that "our civilization... is founded on coal." He stresses that coal is essential for everything from powering factories and generating electricity to running transportation systems. He argues that most people don't realize how much their daily lives rely on the coal industry.
• Essential for industry: Orwell points out that coal is necessary for "all the arts of peace," meaning all aspects of industrial production and manufacturing. He also notes its importance in wartime, as it fuels the production of weapons and other war materials.
• The miner's crucial role: Orwell describes the coal miner as "second in importance only to the man who ploughs the soil." He emphasizes that the miners are the foundation upon which the entire industrial society is built. He calls them "a sort of caryatid," referring to the sculpted figures that support a building, symbolizing how the miners carry the weight of modern civilization on their shoulders.
• A hidden world: Orwell observes that most people are unaware of the harsh realities of coal mining. He describes it as "a sort of world apart which one can quite easily go through life without ever hearing about it." He suggests that this ignorance allows people to benefit from the products of coal mining while remaining detached from the suffering of the miners.

Overall, Orwell's observations highlight the paradoxical nature of coal's importance. While it was essential for modern life, the industry was also marked by exploitation, dangerous working conditions, and social inequalities. He brings to light the hidden costs of industrial progress and the need for a more just and equitable system.

DL: Do miners have a higher level of group solidarity than other groups of workers?

That's a great question that gets at the heart of some of Orwell's observations in "The Road to Wigan Pier" and beyond. While he doesn't explicitly make this comparison in the book, it's certainly a theme that emerges from his writing and his broader social commentary.

Here's what we can glean about miners and group solidarity:

• Dangerous and shared experience: Coal mining is an inherently dangerous job, requiring teamwork and mutual reliance. This shared experience of risk and hardship naturally fosters a strong sense of camaraderie and solidarity among miners. They depend on each other for safety and survival, creating bonds that extend beyond the workplace.
• Community and identity: Mining communities are often close-knit and isolated, with a strong sense of shared identity. This reinforces the bonds between miners, as their work and their social lives are intertwined.
• Historical struggles: Miners have a long history of labor struggles, fighting for better wages and working conditions. These collective struggles have further strengthened their sense of solidarity and collective action.

Comparing to other workers:

While Orwell doesn't directly compare miners to other groups, we can consider some points:

• Other industrial workers: Many other industrial workers in the early 20th century also faced harsh conditions and engaged in labor movements. They likely shared a similar sense of solidarity, though perhaps to varying degrees depending on the specific industry and circumstances.
• Modern workers: In today's economy, with the decline of traditional industries and the rise of service sector jobs, the nature of work and worker solidarity has changed. Some argue that the sense of collective identity and shared struggle has diminished in some sectors, while others point to new forms of solidarity emerging in different contexts.

Orwell's perspective:

Orwell's writings suggest that he recognized the unique level of group solidarity among miners. He admired their resilience, their sense of community, and their willingness to fight for their rights. He saw them as a symbol of working-class strength and resistance in the face of exploitation.

It's important to note that solidarity can vary within groups and across different historical periods. However, the unique challenges and shared experiences of coal miners have historically contributed to a strong sense of group solidarity, which has played a significant role in their struggles for social and economic justice.

DL: What does Orwell say about accidents and mine safety? Why are mines so dangerous?

In "The Road to Wigan Pier," George Orwell doesn't extensively detail specific accidents or mine safety regulations. However, he vividly portrays the inherent dangers of coal mining and hints at the reasons behind the frequent accidents. Here's what we can gather from his writing:

• Dangerous working conditions: Orwell describes the physical environment of the mines as inherently dangerous. He mentions the risk of roof collapses, explosions, and flooding. He also highlights the long hours, strenuous labor, and exposure to coal dust, which led to respiratory illnesses.
• Lack of safety measures: While not explicitly stated, Orwell implies a lack of adequate safety measures in the mines. He suggests that mine owners prioritized profit over worker safety, leading to negligence and a higher risk of accidents.
• Human cost of accidents: Orwell briefly mentions the impact of accidents on miners and their families. He describes the fear and anxiety that miners lived with, knowing that any day could be their last. He also hints at the financial hardship faced by families when a miner was injured or killed.

Why are mines so dangerous?

Orwell's descriptions and historical context point to several reasons why mines, particularly in that era, were so dangerous:

• Underground environment: Mines are inherently unstable environments with risks of collapses, gas explosions, and flooding. The deeper the mine, the greater the risks.
• Technological limitations: In the early 20th century, mining technology was less advanced than it is today. This meant fewer safety measures, less efficient ventilation, and less reliable equipment.
• Profit-driven priorities: As Orwell suggests, mine owners often prioritized profit over worker safety. This could lead to cutting corners on safety measures, ignoring warning signs, and pushing workers to take greater risks.
• Lack of regulation: In that era, government regulation of mine safety was often weak or poorly enforced. This allowed mine owners to operate with little oversight and accountability.

While Orwell doesn't provide a detailed analysis of mine safety, his descriptions of the working conditions and the inherent dangers of coal mining provide a powerful indictment of the industry's disregard for human life. He highlights the human cost of industrial progress and the need for greater attention to worker safety and well-being.

DL: How does Orwell's glimpse of the poor working girl trying to clear a drain in the cold contribute to his account?

The scene of the poor working girl trying to clear a drain in the cold is a small but powerful moment in "The Road to Wigan Pier" that contributes significantly to Orwell's overall account of poverty and social injustice. It's a moment of stark realism that amplifies his message in several ways:

• Humanizes poverty: Instead of just talking about poverty in abstract terms, Orwell shows it through the specific experience of this young woman. We see her struggling with a practical, unpleasant task in the cold, making the reality of her hardship tangible and relatable. It's not just about statistics or general descriptions; it's about this individual's struggle.
• Illustrates the everydayness of hardship: The scene isn't dramatic or extraordinary. It's a mundane, everyday occurrence for someone living in poverty. This underscores the fact that these hardships aren't isolated incidents but a constant, grinding reality for many people. It's a glimpse into the daily struggles that most people in more comfortable circumstances never see.
• Symbolic of larger problems: The clogged drain can be seen as a metaphor for the larger social and economic problems that Orwell is addressing. Just as the girl is struggling to clear the drain, society is struggling to address the systemic issues that cause poverty and inequality. It's a small problem that reflects a much larger one.
• Evokes empathy and outrage: By witnessing this girl's struggle, the reader is more likely to feel empathy for her and others like her. The scene also evokes a sense of outrage at the injustice of the situation. Why should this young woman have to deal with this in the cold? This emotional response is crucial to Orwell's goal of motivating readers to care about these issues.
• Contrasts with middle-class comforts: This image starkly contrasts with the lives of the middle and upper classes, who are shielded from such daily struggles. It highlights the vast disparity between the lives of the rich and the poor, making the injustice even more glaring.

In short, the scene of the girl clearing the drain is a powerful example of Orwell's method of using specific, concrete details to illustrate broader social problems. It's a moment of quiet realism that speaks volumes about the human cost of poverty and the urgent need for social change.

DL: Did conflicts arise between Orwell and his publisher concerning his book The Road to Wigan Pier?

Yes, there were significant conflicts between George Orwell and his publisher, Victor Gollancz, concerning "The Road to Wigan Pier." These conflicts primarily revolved around the second part of the book, where Orwell delves into his own social and political views, critiquing both capitalism and certain aspects of the socialist movement.

Here's a breakdown of the key points of contention:

• Gollancz's concerns: Gollancz, who was also the head of the Left Book Club, a popular socialist organization at the time, was worried that the second part of the book would alienate his readership. He felt that Orwell's criticisms of socialists, his discussion of his own middle-class background, and his frank exploration of the obstacles to socialism would be poorly received by the Left Book Club members.
• Gollancz's proposed changes: Gollancz suggested that Orwell remove or significantly alter the second part of the book. He wanted Orwell to focus more on the descriptive first part, which detailed the living conditions of the working class, and downplay the more controversial political analysis.
• Orwell's refusal: Orwell refused to make the changes suggested by Gollancz. He believed that the second part of the book was essential to his overall message. He felt it was important to honestly address the complexities of social and political change, even if it meant criticizing those who were ostensibly on the same side.
• Gollancz's compromise: Ultimately, Gollancz decided to publish the book as Orwell wrote it, but he included a foreword expressing his own reservations about the second part. In this foreword, Gollancz acknowledged the power of Orwell's writing but also cautioned readers against some of his arguments.

The conflict between Orwell and Gollancz highlights the tension between political advocacy and artistic integrity. Orwell was determined to express his views honestly, even if they were unpopular or challenged the conventional wisdom of the time. Gollancz, on the other hand, was concerned about the potential impact of the book on his readership and the broader socialist movement.

Despite these conflicts, "The Road to Wigan Pier" was published and became a significant work of social and political commentary. It remains a testament to Orwell's willingness to challenge orthodoxies and engage in critical self-reflection, even when it meant disagreeing with his allies.

DL: What was Orwell's thought process in setting out to analyze conditions in Wigan Pier?

George Orwell's thought process in setting out to analyze conditions in Wigan Pier was driven by a deep sense of social conscience and a desire to understand the realities of poverty and inequality in Britain during the 1930s. Here's a glimpse into his motivations and approach:

Motivations:

• Socialist convictions: Orwell was a committed socialist, believing in the need for a more just and equal society. He was deeply concerned about the widespread poverty and hardship he witnessed, particularly among the working class.
• Firsthand experience: Orwell had experienced poverty himself during his time in Burma and later in Paris and London. This firsthand experience gave him a unique understanding of the challenges faced by those living in poverty.
• Desire for understanding: Orwell didn't want to just talk about poverty in abstract terms. He wanted to understand its root causes and its impact on the lives of ordinary people. He sought to go beyond stereotypes and gain a deeper understanding of the working class.
• Call to action: Orwell hoped that his investigation would raise awareness about the social and economic problems facing Britain and inspire action to address them. He wanted to motivate people to care about these issues and to work towards a better future.

Approach:

• Direct observation: Orwell traveled to Wigan and other industrial towns in the north of England to observe conditions firsthand. He lived among the working class, visited their homes, and spoke with them about their experiences.
• Immersive journalism: Orwell employed a style of immersive journalism, embedding himself in the communities he was studying. This allowed him to gain a deeper understanding of their lives and perspectives.
• Honest and unflinching portrayal: Orwell was committed to providing an honest and unflinching portrayal of the conditions he witnessed, even if it meant challenging his own preconceptions or criticizing aspects of the socialist movement.
• Personal reflection: Orwell included a significant amount of personal reflection in "The Road to Wigan Pier," sharing his own thoughts and feelings about the issues he was addressing. This made the book more engaging and relatable for readers.

Orwell's thought process in setting out to analyze conditions in Wigan Pier was driven by a genuine desire to understand and address the social and economic problems of his time. His approach was characterized by direct observation, immersive journalism, and a commitment to honest and unflinching portrayal. The result was a powerful and influential book that continues to resonate with readers today.

DL: What are some examples of Orwell's personal reflections in this book?

You're right to pick up on that! Orwell's personal reflections are a key part of what makes "The Road to Wigan Pier" so compelling. It's not just a dry sociological study; it's a deeply personal journey of discovery. Here are some examples of his reflections:

• His own class background: Orwell spends a considerable amount of time dissecting his own middle-class upbringing and the ingrained prejudices he had to overcome. He reflects on his education, his assumptions about the working class, and the ways in which his social background shaped his views. This self-awareness is crucial to his analysis, as he acknowledges his own biases and strives to overcome them.
• His struggle with socialism: Orwell was a socialist, but he wasn't afraid to critique aspects of the socialist movement. He reflects on his own disillusionment with certain types of socialists, particularly those who seemed more interested in abstract theory than in the real lives of working-class people. He also grapples with the challenges of achieving socialism in a class-divided society.
• His feelings about the working class: Orwell's reflections on the working class are complex and nuanced. He expresses admiration for their resilience, their sense of community, and their genuine decency. However, he also acknowledges his own discomfort with certain aspects of working-class culture, such as their taste in entertainment or their use of language. He's honest about his own struggles to fully connect with people from a different social background.
• His observations on industrial England: Orwell's reflections on the industrial landscape are filled with a sense of both fascination and disgust. He's struck by the sheer scale of industrial production and the ingenuity of human labor. But he's also appalled by the ugliness, the pollution, and the dehumanizing conditions in the factories and mines. He captures the emotional impact of this environment on both himself and the people who live there.
• His search for truth: Underlying all of these reflections is Orwell's relentless search for truth. He's determined to understand the realities of poverty and inequality, even if it means confronting uncomfortable truths about himself or the society he lives in. He invites the reader to join him on this journey of discovery, sharing his doubts, his insights, and his evolving understanding of the world.

By weaving these personal reflections into his analysis, Orwell creates a more intimate and engaging reading experience. He invites us into his thought process, allowing us to see the world through his eyes and to grapple with the same questions that he is struggling with. This personal approach is a key part of what makes "The Road to Wigan Pier" such a powerful and enduring work.

DL: Why did Orwell reject communism?

George Orwell's rejection of communism stemmed from his deep commitment to democratic socialism and his firsthand experiences with the realities of Stalinist Russia. Here's a breakdown of his key reasons:

• Betrayal of socialist ideals: Orwell believed that the Soviet Union under Stalin had betrayed the core principles of socialism. He saw it as a totalitarian regime that suppressed individual freedom, crushed dissent, and created a new class system based on privilege and power. This was the antithesis of what Orwell envisioned as a socialist society.
• Experience in the Spanish Civil War: Orwell's experiences fighting in the Spanish Civil War alongside the POUM, an anti-Stalinist Marxist group, were pivotal in his disillusionment with communism. He witnessed the brutal tactics used by the Soviet-backed communists to eliminate their political rivals, including the POUM. This experience solidified his opposition to Stalinism.
• Distrust of totalitarianism: Orwell was fundamentally opposed to all forms of totalitarianism, whether from the left or the right. He believed in individual liberty, freedom of expression, and the importance of democratic institutions. He saw that the Soviet Union under Stalin had become a totalitarian state, suppressing these fundamental values.
• Concern about intellectual dishonesty: Orwell was deeply troubled by the intellectual dishonesty and propaganda that he saw emanating from the Soviet Union and its supporters. He believed that it was essential to tell the truth, even when it was uncomfortable or inconvenient, and he saw that the communist movement often engaged in distortion and manipulation of facts.
• Defense of democratic socialism: Orwell remained a socialist throughout his life, but he believed in a democratic form of socialism that respected individual rights and freedoms. He saw that the Soviet model was a perversion of socialism, and he was determined to defend the democratic socialist ideal against both communist and capitalist threats.

Orwell's rejection of communism wasn't a rejection of socialism itself. Rather, it was a rejection of the specific form of totalitarian communism that had emerged in the Soviet Union under Stalin. He remained a committed socialist, but he believed that true socialism could only be achieved through democratic means and with a strong emphasis on individual liberty and social justice.

DL: Can you give me the passage in which Orwell discussed the girl clearing the drain?

You're looking for a powerful passage, and it's definitely there! Here it is, from the first chapter of "The Road to Wigan Pier":

"I was passing up a horrible squalid side-alley... when I saw a woman, youngish but very pale and with the usual draggled exhausted look, kneeling by the gutter outside a house and poking a stick up a leaden waste-pipe, which was blocked. I was almost near enough to catch her eye. What I saw in her face was not the ignorant suffering of an animal. She knew well enough what was happening to her—understood as well as I did how dreadful a destiny it was to be kneeling there in the bitter cold, on the slimy stones of a slum backyard, poking a stick up a foul drain-pipe."

This passage is impactful for several reasons, as we discussed earlier:

•  It's a stark image: The description is vivid and unpleasant, forcing the reader to confront the harsh realities of poverty.
•  It's about an individual: Orwell focuses on the woman's face and expression, making her a real person, not just a symbol of poverty.
•  It's about everyday hardship: Clearing a drain is a mundane task, but in this context, it highlights the constant struggle of those living in poverty.
•  It evokes empathy: Orwell's language invites the reader to feel sympathy for the woman and to understand the indignity of her situation.

This passage, though brief, is a powerful example of Orwell's ability to use specific details to illustrate broader social problems. It's a moment of quiet realism that speaks volumes about the human cost of poverty and the need for social change.

(DL: This is one clear error in Gemini's responses. The passage is quoted from a blog by Sally Minogue in Wordsworth. However, this is not the text contained in the book, but rather is extracted by Minogue from Orwell’s diary. This is the clearest indication that Gemini's responses in this dialogue do not derive from analysis of Orwell's text itself, but rather from other secondary sources about the book.)

The continuing reality of racism

source: https://www.kff.org/key-data-on-health-and-health-care-by-race-and-ethnicity/?entry=health-status-and-outcomes-birth-risks-and-outcomes

The rightwing extremist war on DEI intensifies by the week, it appears. And the scope of its prohibitions expands as well. Universities throughout the United States are being bullied through the threat of the loss of Federal funds -- sometimes in the billions -- unless all traces of DEI programs, offices, webpages, and staff are erased. But recall what DEI signifies: it abbreviates the ideas of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. And these ideas are fundamental to the idea of a free community of equals in a multicultural society. An administration and a movement that cares nothing about racial discrimination is now of the opinion that DEI exists primarily as a form of "white exclusion". It does not. Rather, it exists to help ensure that people of all backgrounds and identities are treated fairly, respectfully, and inclusively. And regrettably, the social outcomes across the population of the United States with respect to characteristics that profoundly matter to every human being -- longevity, health status, educational status, income, job mobility, and residential freedom -- demonstrate that the US is still a great distance from welcoming diversity, ensuring fairness and equity, and creating environments that are genuinely inclusive for all groups. 

These disparities are especially pronounced with regard to race in America. It is especially timely, therefore, to welcome the publication of Race and Inequality in American Politics by Zoltan Hajnal, Vincent Hutchins, and Taeku Lee (Cambridge University Press, 2025). The book is outstanding. It is factually detailed, it makes sophisticated use of population data and public opinion studies, and it is honest in confronting the shameful realities of persistent patterns of racial discrimination, exclusion, and disadvantage that continue to exist in our country. As they put it in the opening chapter, "Our views on racial inequality and democratic politics -- whether and how they are related -- are not based on doctrinal assertions or theoretical assumptions. Rather, as social scientists, we follow the evidence" (11). As for the current realities, they believe the evidence is clear. "It is also beyond dispute that across most measures of social, economic, and political well-being America remains a nation with a clear racial hierarchy and profoundly uneven outcomes. On almost every core metric, there are sharp differences in average well-being by race with Whites and Asian Americans often falling near the top of the racial spectrum and Backs, Latinos, Native Americans, and others often residing near the bottom of that hierarchy with lower incomes, less wealth, higher rates of poverty and unemployment, more limited educational attainment, and worse health outcomes" (14). Each of these summary judgments is clearly documented in the following pages. (See also the KFF report on racial health disparities from which the graph of maternal mortality outcomes above is drawn. This graph shows that maternal mortality for the black population is about 2.6 times the rate as that for the white population.)

The book considers many aspects of racial difference in the United States today. But a central concern is about race in the politics of the US democracy. How does race affect turnout in elections? How does it affect the actions of state legislatures when redistricting occurs -- creating the possibility or likelihood of gerrymandering? How have changes in voter registration laws had differential effects on white and black voters? And how do differences in voter participation behavior seem to influence the policy preferences and choices of elected officials? In each case the authors document a pattern of disadvantage for black voters.

The war on DEI -- waged against the universities, private companies, and government health agencies like the CDC and the NIH -- is clearly intended to silence research on historical and ongoing patterns of racial discrimination and disadvantage, and to cripple the dissemination of research on these topics. This is unconscionable for multiple reasons -- reasons concerning the freedom to engage in scientific and academic research on any topic; more fundamentally, reasons concerning the truthful telling of history; and most importantly, reasons having to do with the hope that our multicultural democracy can genuinely address and eliminate the institutional and structural features of our society that continually reproduce disparities based on race and ethnicity. It is a symptom of the inclination towards white supremacy and racial antagonism within the rightwing populist movement that this war is being pursued with such fierce and unrelenting determination. Students at every level, and researchers at every level, should have the freedom and encouragement to follow the lead of Race and Inequality in American Politics, and to endeavor to understand and address the climate of racial discrimination in which we all live.

Rethinking Analytical Sociology

My current book Rethinking Analytical Sociology has now appeared in print. The book is intended to provide a sympathetic but critical review of analytical sociology as a relatively new sub-discipline within sociology. Here is a video preview of the book.

The book argues that the "generativist" approach offered by analytical sociologists is suitable to a fairly specific range of problems within sociology, and that it has achieved genuine empirical and theoretical successes within that range. However, the field is hampered by an overly rigid commitment to methodological individualism and to a fairly thin theory of the motivations and mental frameworks of the actors who make up social processes. The book also argues that the field also minimizes the "autonomous" causal role that is played in social processes by social arrangements, institutions, and cognitive schemes. Third, the generativist paradigm has led practitioners of analytical sociology to place too much explanatory reliance on agent-based modeling. 

The book generally applauds the importance given by analytical sociologists to the role played in social explanations by well-developed accounts of the causal mechanisms that bring about an outcome of interest. But their commitment to methodological individualism hampers the analytical-sociology tradition from adequately understanding the causal processes in the social world because they are led to insist that "all causal mechanisms take place ultimately at the level of individuals". This is to say, social institutions, normative systems, cultural schemes, or organizational imperatives cannot be invoked as independent social causes or included in descriptions of social mechanisms. And, crucially, it is then impossible to capture the dynamic processes through which structures influence individuals and their actions, and individuals in turn alter some of the characteristics of the structures they inhabit and constitute.

Against these methodological premises, Rethinking Analytical Sociology argues that many tasks of sociological investigation require attention to a "thick" understanding of the actor's mentality (culture, norms, ways of reasoning). Second, many social processes cannot be properly understood without recognizing the dynamic and fluid causal role played by higher-level social structures. And third, agent-based modeling unavoidably requires a level of abstraction about actors and social situations that forces the researcher to ignore important and particular features of both actors and structures. The book suggests, for example, that Doug McAdam's account of the US Civil Rights struggle and extended events like the Montgomery bus boycott cannot be explained on the basis of a fixed set of institutional-context parameters and a simple set of "desire-belief-opportunity" features of the actors. (McAdam's Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency provides an outstanding example of a comparative historical sociology analysis of an extended, complex, and multilayered social process.)

Rethinking Analytical Sociology closes with a set of problems for sociological research that would currently be difficult to handle within the strictures of existing methodological dogmas in analytical sociology, but for which the tools of analytical sociology could nonetheless contribute fruitfully if these dogmas were relaxed. The examples include -- 

• explaining racial health disparities in the United States, 
• explaining the rapid rise of radical populism in liberal democracies, 
• explaining large technology failures, 
• explaining the pathways through which new disciplines of thought emerge in academic fields, and
• explaining the worldwide surge of migration and how this has led to political and economic turmoil in numerous countries.

Each of these areas of ongoing social processes involves actors who are embedded in history and culture, social arrangements that interact with individual behavior in sometimes unexpected ways, and causal influences that operate on multiple levels of social life. There are some aspects of these problems that are very suitable to generative models, network analysis, and models of contagion from individual to individual; but there are also aspects of these problems that involve dynamic and interactive causal influences between individuals and meso-level institutions and cultural systems.

In short, Rethinking Analytical Sociology offers an appeal for a more pluralistic and collaborative approach to sociology. There are obvious points of intersection between numerous sub-fields of sociology -- for example, the study of contentious politics, comparative historical sociology, or the new institutionalism -- where collaboration would be fruitful. The social world is heterogeneous and contingent, and we need a plurality of theories and methods in order to make sense of the processes and crises we now experience.