Isaiah Berlin's approach to history of philosophy

Isaiah Berlin's approach to the study of philosophy was strikingly different from that taken by practitioners of the technical disciplines of analytic philosophy. In the style of analytic philosophy, a study should consist of pure abstract arguments to be assessed on the basis of their apparent logical cogency. Berlin was more interested in treating philosophical ideas in their particular historical and intellectual settings, and to probe the ways in which those ideas contributed to the ability of human beings to make sense of the world in which they lived.

A good example of Berlin's style of philosophizing is found in his introduction to The Age of Enlightenment. (Here is a link to an online version of the book; link.) The extensive essays in the volume are devoted to Locke, Hume, and Berkeley, with shorter pieces on other writers. Berlin organizes his treatment around a reflective discussion of how philosophical questions are different from empirical or logical questions.

Philosophical problems arise when men ask questions of themselves or of others which, though very diverse, have certain characteristics in common. These questions tend to be very general, to involve issues of principle, and to have little or no concern with practical utility. But what is even more characteristic of them is that there seem to be no obvious and generally accepted procedures for answering them, nor any class of specialists to whom we automatically turn for the solutions. Indeed there is something peculiar about the questions themselves: those who ask them do not seem any too certain about what kind of answers they require, or indeed how to set about finding them. (1)

But unlike the philosophers of the Vienna Circle who advocated for the verificationist principle of significance and therefore categorically rejected questions like these, Berlin believes these questions are meaningful and worthy of study.

The history of such questions, and of the means employed to provide the answers, is, in effect, the history of philosophy. The frame of ideas within which, and the methods by which, various thinkers at various times try to arrive at the truth about such issues – the very ways in which the questions themselves are construed –change under the influence of many forces, among them answers given by philosophers of an earlier age, the prevailing moral, religious and social beliefs of the period, the state of scientific knowledge, and, not least important, the methods used by the scientists of the time, especially if they have achieved spectacular successes, and have, therefore, bound their spell upon the imagination of their own and later generations. (2)

Berlin construes the development of philosophy throughout the Enlightenment as the efforts of philosophers like Locke, Hume, and Berkeley to find resources for analyzing these kinds of problems in a rigorous way -- e.g. mathematics or Newton's mechanics. But ultimately these efforts were rejected by Kant in his Critique of Pure Reason.

The heroic attempt to make philosophy a natural science was brought to an end by the great break with the traditions both of rationalism and of empiricism as they had developed hitherto, inaugurated by Kant, whose philosophical views are the source of much of the thought of the nineteenth century, and are not included in the compass of this volume. (15)

So here we have Berlin, acknowledging the oddness of philosophical questions but respecting the reflective efforts of philosophers to find rigorous ways of approaching them using the best thinking of their times. Whether he would have used this language or not, Berlin treats this tradition as a "bootstrapping" effort to move from challenging but indefinite questions to questions amenable to rational reflective analysis.

Consider next Berlin's treatment of anti-Enlightenment philosophers (Vico, Herder, and J.G. Hamann) in Three Critics of the Enlightenment. Here is how Berlin distinguishes between the philosophical perspective of Herder and that of the philosophers of the Enlightenment:

Herder’s fame rests on the fact that he is the father of the related notions of nationalism, historicism and the Volksgeist, one of the leaders of the Romantic revolt against classicism, rationalism and faith in the omnipotence of scientific method – in short, the most formidable of the adversaries of the French philosophes and their German disciples. Whereas they – or at least the best known among them, d’Alembert, Helvétius, Holbach and, with qualifications, Voltaire and Diderot, Wolff and Reimarus – believed that reality was ordered in terms of universal, timeless, objective, unalterable laws which rational investigation could discover, Herder maintained that every activity, situation, historical period or civilisation possessed a unique character of its own; so that the attempt to reduce such phenomena to combinations of uniform elements, and to describe or analyse them in terms of universal rules, tended to obliterate precisely those crucial differences which constituted the specific quality of the object under study, whether in nature or in history. (208)

Berlin undertakes to probe more deeply into the particularism and historicism that is commonly attributed to Herder. He begins by attempting to trace some of the intellectual and philosophical lineage of Herder's views, and identifies a line of development from Voltaire and Montesquieu through Schlözer, Gatterer, and Vico (second hand), along with a number of other writers of the seventeenth century. Notably, Berlin finds that the "historicism" attributed to Herder was familiar in these earlier writers as well. Even one of Herder's central ideas, "spirit of the nation", has clear and evident precedents:

The notion of the spirit of a nation or a culture had been central not only to Vico and Montesquieu, but to the famous publicist Friedrich Karl von Moser, whom Herder read and knew, to Bodmer and Breitinger, to Hamann and to Zimmermann. (213)

So far, then, Herder is a synthesizer, although a gifted one:

If Herder had done no more than create a genuine synthesis out of these attitudes and doctrines, and built with them, if not a system, at any rate a coherent Weltanschauung destined to have a decisive influence on the literature and thought of his country, this alone would have been a high enough achievement to earn for him a unique place in the history of civilisation. Invention is not everything. (217)

So what, then, were Herder's distinctive contributions, according to Berlin? Berlin highlights three ideas: populism (the value of belonging to a group); expressionism (the capacity of art to express the individual or group's identity); and pluralism (the idea of the multiplicity and sometimes "incommensurability of the values of different cultures" (218). Berlin argues that these three ideas are new, and they are at odds with the doctrines of the Enlightenment. And Berlin's strongest philosophical ideas about Herder take the form of development of these three ideas, and their significance for later generations. And Berlin finds encapsulated in these ideas an impassioned advocacy for freedom and against centralized tyranny.

The German mission is not to conquer; it is to be a nation of thinkers and educators. This is their true glory. Sacrifice – self-sacrifice – not the domination of one man over another, is the proper end of man. Herder sets his face against everything that is predatory, against the use of force in any cause but that of self-defence. The Crusades, no matter how Christian in inspiration, are hateful to him, since they conquered and crushed other human communities. (229)

Another important and distinctive contribution contained in Herder's work is his emphasis on the importance and historicity of language:

Hence Herder’s stress on the importance of genetic studies and the history of language, and hence, too, the great impulsion that he gave to studies of comparative linguistics, comparative anthropology and ethnology, and above all to the great philological movement that became the pride of German scholarship towards the end of his life and in the century that followed. His own efforts in this direction were no less suggestive or speculative than those of Vico. After declaring, in language borrowed from Lavater, that the ‘physiognomy of languages’ is all-important, he insisted, for example, that the languages which preserved genders (such as Russian, with which he came into contact during his Riga years) implied a vision of a world different from the world of those whose languages are sexless; so too did particular uses of pronouns. (239)

There is much more of interest in Berlin's treatment of Herder. What is particularly striking is the breadth of Berlin's own knowledge of the intellectual and philosophical context within which Herder worked, and his ability to work out in detail the implications of some of Herder's central ideas. This is not "Herder for dummies"; rather, it is a profound and extended seminar that seeks to explicate Herder's ideas and place Herder's thought into an ongoing intellectual history.

Berlin's philosophical writings show some very appealing intellectual qualities -- exactness of observation, ability to place variation in context, and a broad knowledge of the intellectual context of a given philosopher's work. The thinker from Riga has left a permanent and always enlightening legacy.

* * * * *

Michael Michael Ignatieff's Isaiah Berlin: A Life is outstanding. Here is a link to the Berlin Virtual Library at Oxford (link), which contains a number of interesting secondary materials.

Mechanisms of extremist mobilization

The increase in public belief in core claims of far-right extremism in the United States is alarming. Central among those beliefs is the "Great Replacement" theory advocated by Fox News pundits, and contributing to white supremacist mobilization and violence. The Southern Poverty Law Center conducted a public opinion survey in spring 2022 (link) and found "substantial public support" for "great replacement" theory; and, not surprisingly, this support differed significantly by party affiliation, gender, and age. Here are several particularly striking tables from the report.

The first graph provides data showing a stark difference between Republicans and Democrats concerning attitudes towards rising racial diversity in the United Staes. 47% of Republic respondents were somewhat or very negative about this fact, whereas 63% of Democrats were somewhat or very positive about this fact. The second table indicates that 58% of Republicans feel strongly, somewhat, or a little that this fact is a threat to white Americans, whereas 67% of Democrats feel that this fact is not a threat to white Americans. 

The rise of extremist beliefs and violence in the US (and in other liberal democracies) raises many questions. Especially important is the topic of mechanisms: what are the pathways and strategies through which extremist ideologies and activism are conveyed? Cynthia Miller-Idriss's Hate in the Homeland: The New Global Far Right provides granular details about how right-wing extremist groups are currently mobilizing young people in support of their causes. Her account is eye-opening. Her focus is on the techniques of mobilization that extremist leaders and activists have chosen to influence potential followers to get engaged and to follow their lead. Ideology and rhetoric play important roles in these efforts; but so do music, style, sports, and food. Here is her brief description of the underlying ideologies of the far right:

Far-right ideologies are hierarchical and exclusionary. They establish clear lines of superiority and inferiority according to race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, religion, and sexuality. This includes a range of racist, anti-immigrant, nativist, nationalist, white-supremacist, anti-Islam, anti-Semitic, and anti-LGBTQ+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and others) beliefs. At their extreme, these are ideologies that dehumanize groups of people who are deemed to be inferior, in ways that have justified generations of violence in such forms as white supremacy, patriarchy, Christian supremacy, and compulsory heterosexuality. These kinds of ideologies have imbued individuals from the dominant groups with a sense of perceived superiority over others: slaves, nonwhites, women, non-Christians, or the LGBTQ+ community. (6)

Miller-Idriss focuses on "youth" mobilization -- not because this is the only segment of population that is active in far-right activism and violence, but because success with young people lays the ground for an even greater level of activism in the future.

In this light, the efforts of organized far-right groups to engage with young people in the spaces and places described in this book—combat sports and MMA clubs, music scenes, YouTube cooking channels, college campuses, and a variety of youth-oriented online spaces like gaming chatrooms or social-media platforms—are especially important. Far-right groups have always worked to recruit young people to their movements and politicize youth spaces like concerts, festivals, youth-oriented events, and music lyrics. These are sometimes referred to as youth “scenes”—a word that reflects a less hierarchical and more disorganized structure than traditional social movements. Today there exists a broader range of spaces, places, and scenes to engage young people in the far right. Older leaders in far-right movements rely on college students for speaking invitations and campus activism. They recruit young people to join boxing gyms and compete in combat sports tournaments. Propaganda videos featuring fit, young men in training camps and shooting ranges use music and imagery clearly oriented toward younger recruits. (23-24)

And she emphasizes that the majority of these young people are men. 

It’s not only youth who drive most of the violence on the far right, of course. Mostly, it’s youth who are men. There is much to say about masculinity and toxic masculinity as drivers of far-right violence in both online and off-line contexts, through online harassment and trolling as well as physical violence against others. It’s also important to note that we have seen and are still seeing increasing participation of women in the far right, including in violent fringe and terrorist groups. Women also enable the far right in important ways, whether through YouTube cooking videos that create a softer entry or by playing more supportive roles in extremist movements as mothers, partners, and wives who help to reproduce white nations. (24-25)

Miller-Idriss describes a progression of engagement with far-right activism:

Far-right youth today might initially encounter extremist narratives through chance encounters in mainstream spaces like the MMA, a campus auditorium, a podcast, or a YouTube video. Each of those mainstream spaces, however, can act as a channel, opening the door to dedicated far-right MMA festivals, alt-tech platforms and encrypted communication platforms, and dedicated YouTube subscriptions that mix mainstream interest in cooking or music with far-right ideology. Understanding these new spaces and places—the geography of hate—is key to comprehending the far right in its modern form. (25-26)

This approach emphasizes the importance of studying the spaces within which far-right extremist narratives are conveyed and where they find the beginnings of a mass audience. And she points out that memes of "place and space" play a major role in the narratives of the far right -- in polemics and in popular culture:

Fans of one clothing brand that is well-known for its use of far-right symbols could connect with other brand fans and learn about in-person meet-ups on a now-defunct Tumblr blog. In 2016, this included an announcement of a one-week trip to the “lands of Hyperborea—a mythical pre-historic motherland of our race”—in the region of the Karelia and Kola Peninsula in northwest Russia. Hyperborea was also the name of a prior clothing product line for the German brand Ansgar Aryan, which featured website and catalog text that explained the importance of Hyperborea and described its epic battle between the people of the “light” and the “dark men.” (37)

An especially interesting feature of M-I's research focuses on clothing style within popular culture, and the symbolic importance that far-right extremists place on "costume":

For a generation of adults who grew up with images of far-right extremists as racist Nazi skinheads, far-right aesthetics had clear signals: a uniform style of shaved heads, high black combat boots, and leather bomber jackets. You would be hard-pressed to find a bomber jacket in far-right youth scenes today. The past few years have seen a dramatic shift in the aesthetics of far-right extremism, as the far right has all but abandoned the shaved heads and combat boots of the racist skinhead in favor of a hip, youth-oriented style that blends in with the mainstream. (62)

In the years since white-supremacist blogger Andrew Anglin urged his followers to dress in “hip” and “cool” ways at the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, far-right fashion has rapidly evolved. The clean-cut aesthetic of the white polo shirts and khakis that drew national attention in 2017 has been supplanted by new brands marketing the far right, with messages and symbols embedded in clothing to convey white-supremacist ideology. (78)

In Northwest Washington, DC, I glanced out of my office window and saw a young man with an imperial eagle emblazoned across his jacket—part of a British fashion brand’s controversial logo, which has been likened to the Nazi eagle symbol. Later that year, I shared a campus elevator with a man wearing a “patriotic” brand T-shirt whose advertising tagline is “forcing hipsters into their safe space, one shirt at a time.” Symbols and messaging on otherwise ordinary clothing help signal connections to far-right ideology and organized movements—like the torch-bearing Charlottesville marcher, for example, whose polo shirt bore a logo from the white-supremacist group Identity Evropa. (78-79)

And what is the function of extremist branding of clothing? It is to establish "signaling" among a group of people, and to "mainstream" the messages of the hate-based extremist right.

Hate clothing celebrates violence in the name of a cause—often using patriotic images and phrases and calls to act like an American, along with Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, and white-supremacist messages. In this way, far-right clothing links patriotism with violence and xenophobia. On one T-shirt, a saluting, grimacing emoji wielding a semiautomatic gun replaces the stars in the American flag, overlaid with the words “locked-n-loaded;” on the back of the T-shirt, the text reads “White American/Hated by Many/Zero F#cks Given.” In the “about” section of the website, the company explains it was “not founded on prejudice, seperatism (sic) or racism, but simply out of pride.” (80)

M-I also notes the importance of extremist music in the mobilization of young people: 

New genres of racist music—such as “fashwave” (fascism wave, a variant of electronic music) and white-power country and pop—have broadened far-right music scenes far beyond the hard rock style typically associated with white-power music. Across the globe, the commercial and cultural spaces the far right uses to reach new audiences and communicate its ideologies have expanded rapidly—aided in no small part by social media and “brand fan” image-sharing sites that help promote and circulate new products. (69-70)

And these fashions in extremist music have effect in the broader population:

Decades of research on far-right youth culture has shown how particular facets of subcultures and youth scenes—like hate music—can spread intolerance and prejudice against minorities, not only in expected genres like right-wing hard rock and black metal, but also in more mainstream genres like country and pop music. (82)

The most surprising part of M-I's book is her treatment of fight clubs and mixed martial arts. She regards these as important vectors of extremist mobilization in many countries. 

By the mid-2000s, MMA gyms across the European continent had developed a reputation as places where far-right youth were recruited and radicalized. This was a significant shift for violent far-right youth scenes, which had previously been oriented around soccer hooliganism and stadium brawls, but were now gravitating toward the MMA world. Journalists, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), think tanks, and watchdog groups have documented connections between the MMA world and white supremacists across Europe and North America. (97)

In retrospect, it isn’t surprising that the far right homed in on MMA and other combat sports like jujitsu and boxing as a perfect way to channel ideologies and narratives about national defense, military-style discipline, masculinity, and physical fitness to mainstream markets. Hitler himself had advocated for the importance of combat sports for training Nazi soldiers. The National Socialist Sturmabteilung (storm division, or storm troopers) incorporated not only calisthenics but also boxing and jujitsu as a core part of training for street fights. (95)

She notes that this phenomenon is under-studied in North America, but equally present.

MMA is a perfect incubator for the far right. It helps recruit new youth to the movement from adjacent subcultures, introducing key far-right messages about discipline, resistance to the mainstream, and apocalyptic battles. The combat-sports scene helps the far right motivate youth around ideals related to physical fitness, strength, combat, and violence. This mobilization calls on youth to train physically to defend the nation and white European civilization against the dual threats posed by immigrants and the degenerate left. At the same time, MMA and combat sports reinforce dominant ideals about masculinity and being a man—related not only to violence, risk, and danger but also to solidarity, brotherhood, and bonding.47 The MMA world also helps radicalize and mobilize youth by intensifying far-right ideals about masculinity and violence and the range of exclusionary and dehumanizing ideologies that relate to the supposed incursion of immigrants, the coming of “Eurabia,” “white genocide,” or the “great replacement.” (100-101)

MMA also has the advantage of a built-in structure to reach out to groups of young men through local gyms’ efforts to increase profitability and broaden their client base. Local MMA gyms in the United States, for example, regularly host live sparring demonstrations for broader communities—at open houses, martial-arts facilities, fraternity houses, and university and community centers—to promote their gyms. (104)

In addition to these aspects of cultural mobilization on the far right, M-I also sheds light on the increase that has occurred on university campuses in the open promulgation of extremist speech and mobilization and the sustained attack on the supposed "cultural Marxism" endemic in university faculties. 

Propaganda, white-supremacist fliers, racist graffiti, and provocative speaking tours have brought hate to campuses across the country in new ways, exposing hundreds of thousands of students to far-right ideologies. This kind of hate intimidates and threatens members of vulnerable groups, unsettles campus climates, and creates significant anxiety around student safety and well-being. Students at Syracuse University who staged a sit-in in November 2019 following more than a dozen hate incidents at the university told journalists that they didn’t feel safe on campus. (120)

There is much more of interest in Hate in the Homeland. The book should be priority reading for anyone interested in stemming the rise of extremism in western liberal democracies. 

Decline of support for democratic norms

The signs of authoritarian and extremist assaults on the US constitutional democracy are ominous and increasing. The former president's explicit lawlessness and alignment with white supremacism; the governor of Florida's unrelenting assault on freedom of speech, academic freedom, the freedom of students to learn about their history, and even the freedom of major companies like Disney to express values of diversity and inclusion in their business activities; the evidence of conspiracy to commit acts of violent insurrection emerging from the trial of leaders of the Proud Boys (link) -- these are all developments that feel like the tremors that precede a volcano. Far right extremists are pressing their agenda, from paramilitary groups to high elected officials.

So where does the US public stand? What are the current attitudes of the citizens of our democracy? Researchers at the Allegheny College Center for Political Participation have disturbing news on that front as well, based on a national representative survey conducted in 2018 (link). Andrew Bloeser, Tarah Williams, Candaisy Crawford, and Brian Harward report the results of public opinion research on attitudes toward several related topics relating to disaffection from democratic norms. They published their primary results in "Are Stealth Democrats Really Committed to Democracy? Process Preferences Revisited" (link). They describe stealth democrats in these terms: "When it comes to governance, many Americans prefer uncompromising political leaders who take decisive action, rather than those who debate issues and are open to finding common ground" (1). Here is the abstract to the paper:

Scholarship on “stealth democracy” finds that many citizens want to avoid the debate and conflict that often come with democratic governance. This scholarship has argued that citizens adopt this posture because they are uncomfortable with disagreement and desire a more expedient political process that enables leaders to make decisions without discussion or compromise. We revisit this argument in light of recent political developments that suggest another reason why citizens may desire a more expedient political process. We examine the possibility that some citizens are not merely uncomfortable with disagreement but also want leaders who will aggressively protect them and champion their interests. Using a nationally representative survey, we ask citizens about their preferences for stealth democracy. We also ask questions that tap into their willingness to support leaders who would “bend the rules for supporters” and take aggressive action against political opponents. We find that a substantial component of the electorate continues to prefer a stealth version of democracy. However, we also find that many “stealth democrats” are willing to support leadership practices that would threaten or even undermine democratic norms. We argue that this evidence indicates that, in recent years, many citizens who appear to desire “stealth democracy” pose a threat to democracy itself. 

In a more recent article in The Conversation (link) these researchers use the same data set to suggest that a disturbing fraction of the US population favor measures clearly associated with authoritarian rule. Consider responses to the statement, "The only way our country can solve its current problems is by supporting tough leaders who will crack down on those who undermine American values." 92% of "Strong Republicans" agree with this statement; 62% of Independents agree with the statement; and 59% of Strong Democrats in the sample agree with the statement. Consider another key statement: "To protect the interests of people like you, political leaders must sometimes bend the rules to get things done." 49% of Strong Republicans agree; 28% of Independents agree; and 36% of Strong Democrats agree. And what does this statement involve? It involves the rule of law.

These findings suggest a significant erosion of support for constitutional democracy in favor of strongman government like that of Viktor Orbán in Hungary. 

Why would US citizens develop a set of political values that favor the restriction or elimination of limits on the use of executive power -- by governors or presidents -- that very well could lead to harm to themselves and their families? A constitution exists to ensure equal treatment to all citizens and to establish equal liberties for all citizens; so why would some citizens favor authoritarian rule over constitutional protections? One possible motivation is the misplaced confidence that the strongman who emerges will naturally protect the interests of one's own group. But logic and history both suggest that all citizens benefit from constitutional and legal protections, and surrendering those for shortterm anxieties is a horrible mistake.

Seeing the behavior of the preponderance of GOP elected officials and the opinion research data offered by the Allegheny group raises major concerns about the future of US democracy -- as Levitsky and Ziblatt argued in How Democracies Die. Similar processes have already advanced even further in other countries, including Hungary and India. Compare the 2018 Allegheny College survey of US voters with a survey of Hungarian voters conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2022 (link). The Pew survey of Hungarian voters suggests a decline in Hungarian democracy under Orbán's rule since about 2012. (Similar results show up in a 2017 public opinion survey conducted in Hungary by the Center for Insights in Survey Research; link.)

What will it take to reinvigorate broad public allegiance to the institutions of a constitutional democracy? We would like to imagine that reactionary developments like overturning Roe v. Wade would have the effect of mobilizing vast numbers of voters in support of the rule of law and the voice of the people, and indeed the 2022 elections showed that effect (link). But how will a weary public and "stealth democrats" deal with continuing efforts to restrict voting rights, create gerrymandered districts, and assault basic constitutional rights like freedom of speech and learning in public schools? Will we gain the commitment and courage to speak and act in support of our democracy?

And what will it take to struggle against the anti-democratic efforts of politicians like Kari Lake in Arizona? (The very idea, now the subject of speculation in Arizona, that Lake might be a strong contender in the 2024 Senate race in Arizona is almost beyond belief. What voter could ever support a person running for elected office who has already demonstrated that she will only accept the outcome of the election if it goes in her favor?) When will the reputation for rejecting the laws and norms of a democracy become a political liability for these unscrupulous politicians?

New public administration 1968-2002

Image: org chart, Housing and Urban Development (9,500 staff)

Herbert Simon's important contribution to the study of administrative organizations appeared in 1947, with the title Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organizations. It is a remarkably sophisticated book in the social scientific study of bureaucracy and large organizations. (Here is an earlier discussion of some of the main lines of thought in the book (link).) Simon provides a treatment of four of what he takes to be the key mechanisms underlying the operations of large organizations: authority, communications, efficiency, and "organizational identification". These mechanisms contribute to the ability of leaders to coordinate the actions of subordinates in pursuit of goals and plans articulated on behalf of the organization and its division. The book is still worth reading carefully.

In the 1960s there was a flurry of discussion and debate within the field of public administration about how thinking in the field ought to be reconceived. Much of this thinking was summarized in a volume edited by Frank Marini with the title Toward a New Public Administration: The Minnowbrook Perspective. It is now worth asking whether that burst of disciplinary energy lead to new insights about the workings of public agencies. Unhappily, it appears that it did not.

H. George Frederickson's contribution to the Marini volume provided a substantive synthesis of the field at that time. Frederickson was a leader in the field of public administration, and he was a pivotal figure in reconvening the Minnowbrook Conference in 1988 to assess progress since the first Minnowbrook Conference in 1968. Frederickson summarizes the thrust of "New Public Administration" in these terms (included in Shafritz and Hyde, Classics of Public Administration (3rd ed.)).

New Public Administration adds social equity to the classic objectives and rationale. Conventional or classic Public Administration seeks to answer either of these questions: (1) How can we offer more or better services with available resources (efficiency)? or (2) how can we maintain our level of services while spending less money (economy)? New Public Administration adds this question: Does this service enhance social equity? (369)

He observes that specific emphasis on social equity is needed because ...

Pluralistic government systematically discriminates in favor of established stable bureaucracies and their established minority clientele (the Department of Agriculture and large farmers as an example) and against those minorities (farm laborers, both migrant and permanent, as an example) who lack political and economic resources.... Social equity, then, includes activities designed to enhance the political power and economic well-being of these minorities. 369

This realization within the profession of academic public administration represents a recognition of the fact that agencies work within an environment of private actors, and some of those actors have substantially greater power through which to influence agency choices. Agencies are to some extent "open systems". This is the feature of "industry capture" that arises in the case of regulatory agencies. And it is certainly a good thing that the field of academic public administration was encouraged to shift its focus towards equity, not just efficiency and cost-cutting.

What the New Public Administration literature seems not to have addressed is the need for a meso-level analysis of the internal workings of agencies (and firms). This is a virtue of Simon's book, but it seems not to have carried over as a central focus into the paradigms of the New Public Administration. The only meso-level analysis offered in Frederickson's summary of the field concerns the topic of hierarchy. And his observations about "hierarchy" within governmental organizations come into dialogue with Simon's views. Here are a few passages:

Authority hierarchies are the primary means by which the work of persons in publicly administered organizations is coordinated. The formal hierarchy is the most obvious and easiest-to-identify part of the permanent and on-going organization. Administrators are seen as persons taking roles in the hierarchy and performing tasks that are integrated through the hierarchies to constitute a cohesive goal-seeking whole. The public administrator has customarily been regarded as the one who builds and maintains the organization through the hierarchy. He attempts to understand formal-informal relationships, status, politics, and power in authority hierarchies. The hierarchy environment is at once an ideal design and a hospitable for the person who wishes to manage, control, or direct the work of large numbers of people.

The counterproductive characteristics of hierarchies are now well known. New Public Administration is probably best understood as advocating modified hierarchic systems. Several means both in theory and practice are utilized to modify traditional hierarchies. The first and perhaps the best known is the project or matrix technique. The project is, by definition, temporary. (374)

Frederickson considers several alternatives to the authority hierarchies described here.

The search for less structured, less formal, and less authoritative integrative techniques in publicly administered organizations is only beginning. The preference for these types of organizational modes implies first a relative tolerance for variation.... The second problem [with less formal methods] is in the inherent conflict between higher-and lower-level administrators in less formal, integrative systems.... (375)

This passage suggests the conflict of priorities emphasized by Fligstein and McAdam in their treatment of organizations as strategic action fields (link).

This short discussion of the role and effectiveness of hierarchy is the only example I can find of efforts within the program of new public administration to open up the black box of the workings of a public agency, and this is a blindspot for the discipline.

Decades later Frederickson and Todd R. LaPorte published an article of interest to readers of Understanding Society, "Airport Security, High Reliability, and the Problem of Rationality" (link). (LaPorte is a major contributor to the literature on high-reliability organizations (link).) The establishment of the Transportation Security Administration following the September 11 attacks is the central example. The article reflects some new thinking for public administration from the twenty-first century. The primary new contribution is incorporation of the emerging literature on high-reliability organizations, and the authors' treatment of air safety from that perspective. The authors also give a nod to normal-accident theory, without working out the implications of Perrow's theory in the case of air safety organizations.

And in fact, Frederickson and LaPorte offer enough information about the air safety system to make us very dubious that it constitutes a "high-reliability organization" at all. Consider this relatively detailed description of the air safety system:

With the passage of the Aviation Security Act, the formal governance of the air passenger and baggage security system becomes the responsibility of the TSA, an agency in the Department of Transportation. Under the direction of the secretary of transportation, the TSA has dotted-line responsibilities to other executive agencies such as the Office of Management and Budget and now the Office of Homeland Security. Just as important, however, are contemporary patterns of congressional comanagement and the dotted-line relationships of the TSA to the Senate and House Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure, and, of course, to the appropriations committees and sub- committees (Gilmour and Halley 1994). The complex horizontal, lateral, and vertical network of participants in the air travel security system is still in place, augmented now by the coordinating role of the Office of Homeland Security (Moynihan and Roberts 2002). While the establishment of the TSA concentrates air passenger and baggage responsibility directly in governmental hands and provides a system of finance that is independent of the air carriers, it does not reduce the system's overall fragmentation and complexity. Much of the contemporary debate over whether the Office of Homeland Security should have more than just coordinating responsibilities has to do with perceived disarticulation between the fragmented components of the air security system. (39)

This is exactly the kind of complexity and tight coupling that Charles Perrow identifies as a potent source of "normal" accidents. It is not at all hard to see how this "complex ... network of participants" can lead to miscommunication, conflicting priorities, principal-agent problems, and the other sources of organizational dysfunction that lead to disaster. "Fragmentation and complexity" are exactly the attributes that have led to major failures, from intelligence failures leading up to the September 11 attacks to the lack of coordination between principal and contractors in the Deepwater Horizon disaster (link).

It would appear, then, that the field of public administration has not made a lot of progress in incorporating and extending the insights of organizational sociology to permit a better understanding of success and failure in government agencies. More case studies are needed to allow us to better understand the workings (and failures) of government agencies, and a more focused attention to the findings of the sociology of organizational failure would be a very welcome infusion.

Ten paper topics in philosophy and history framed by ChatGPT

An earlier post considered the question of how to assess the quality of ChatGPT as an academic writer. One particular concern shared by professors in humanities and social sciences is whether ChatGPT will lead to "AI-plagiarism" in which students substitute ChatGPT sessions for their own work. This particular worry seems unjustified at present, but there is another more indirect way of "corner-cutting" that ChatGPT would allow. The tool seems to give surprisingly good summaries and analysis of reasonably difficult topic questions in philosophy and history. A student could spend half an hour posing several prompts on the topic of his or her paper, and then use the results to organize central points and central arguments of his or her own paper (with appropriate documentation). So the question here is whether ChatGPT poses a threat to the traditional essay writing assignment for undergraduate and graduate students.

In order to explore that question, I formulated ten questions that might serve as paper topics in undergraduate or graduate courses in philosophy and history, and posed them as prompts for ChatGPT. The ChatGPT responses were surprisingly good. In a few instances my reaction is that the ChatGPT text misses the point, but in the great majority, the texts identify important points and summarize them well. They lay a good basis for quickly writing a paper in philosophy, sociology, or history without having to do much thinking about how to organize the paper or how to identify central topics that need to be discussed.

Only the response to topic 9 (Brian Epstein's book The Ant Trap) appears to be completely off base. The two sociological topics (2 and 3) are on the mark and could constitute an outline for a very good university course paper on each topic. The Rousseau response (topic 4) is good in that it provides a clear and accurate definition of "general will". It would require work on the student's part to fill in the details and make appropriate references to The Social Contract, but the ChatGPT response lays a basis for a high-quality undergraduate paper on this subject. The response to topic 10 was very surprising to me. The prompt question asked for the main arguments contained in my book, Confronting Evil in History. ChatGPT wrote an accurate summary of the book in publishable form. This is surprising to me, because there are as yet no reviews of the book, no critical discussions, and no descriptive texts describing the book beyond the blurb on the Cambridge website. So it would appear that the only way ChatGPT could have arrived at this text (in about five seconds!) is by analyzing and synthesizing a summary of the main points of the text itself.

None of these responses could qualify as an acceptable paper in a university philosophy or history course as they stand. For one thing, none of them provides evidence or documentation for the claims offered. So straightforward AI plagiarism is unlikely at this stage. However, almost all the responses would provide the student with a very large first step in framing a more complete and well documented paper for submission. ChatGPT could serve as a "performance-enhancing drug" for writing university-level papers. What the professor would expect to be the work of 10-20 hours might then be completed in two hours. Moreover, it would be entirely possible that none of the language of the ChatGPT session is contained in the finished paper. Rather, ChatGPT has served as a coach to the student, providing a shortcut around the key task of thinking through the assigned problem.

Here are the ten questions. ChatGPT responses are provided in italics.

1. What are the strong points of Charles Peirce's theory of scientific inquiry?

Charles Peirce's theory of scientific inquiry, also known as his pragmatic approach, has several strong points. One is its emphasis on the role of experimentation and observation in the scientific method. Peirce believed that scientific inquiry should be guided by the goal of finding out what works in the real world, rather than relying solely on logical deduction or intuition.

Another strong point is Peirce's concept of "abduction," which refers to the process of forming an hypothesis to explain a set of observations. This concept highlights the importance of creativity and intuition in scientific inquiry, and emphasizes that scientific knowledge is constantly evolving.

Peirce's theory also emphasizes the importance of fallibilism and the idea that scientific knowledge is always provisional and open to revision. This perspective encourages ongoing critical evaluation and refinement of scientific theories and hypotheses.

Finally, Peirce's theory of scientific inquiry is considered to be more holistic and inclusive than other approaches, as it incorporates the perspectives of multiple disciplines and stakeholders.

[2nd iteration:]

Charles Peirce's theory of scientific inquiry is notable for its emphasis on the role of doubt and the importance of fallibilism in the scientific process. Peirce believed that scientific inquiry should be grounded in a willingness to question and doubt established beliefs, and that the process of inquiry should be open-ended and subject to constant revision as new evidence emerges. He also believed that scientific inquiry should be guided by the search for objective, verifiable truths, rather than preconceived notions or subjective opinions. Additionally, Peirce emphasized the role of abduction, or "guessing", in scientific inquiry, which allows for the formation of new hypotheses and theories.

2. Why was FEMA so ineffective in providing disaster relief during and after Hurricane Katrina?

There were a number of factors that contributed to the ineffectiveness of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in providing disaster relief during and after Hurricane Katrina. One major issue was the lack of adequate planning and preparation for the potential impacts of the storm. Despite warnings from meteorologists and emergency management officials about the potential severity of the storm, the government failed to fully mobilize resources and personnel in advance of the hurricane's landfall.

Another issue was the poor coordination and communication between different levels of government and between different agencies involved in the relief effort. This led to confusion and delays in the distribution of aid and the rescue of stranded individuals.

Additionally, the lack of resources and personnel available to respond to the disaster was a significant problem. While the scale of the disaster was unprecedented, the response was inadequate, and many people were left stranded without food, water, or medical care.

The poor infrastructure and inadequate planning in place in New Orleans also played a role in the ineffectiveness of the relief effort. The city's levee system, which was designed to protect against a category 3 hurricane, failed during Katrina, causing widespread flooding. This made it difficult for rescue and recovery teams to access the affected areas.

Finally, there was a lack of leadership and accountability within FEMA and the federal government, which was criticized for its slow response to the disaster and its failure to take effective action to address the crisis.

3. What are some reasons why it is so difficult to reform urban police departments concerning racial bias and excessive use of force?

There are several reasons why it can be difficult to reform urban police departments concerning racial bias and excessive use of force.

One reason is the resistance to change from within the police department. Many police officers may be resistant to new policies and procedures, as they may see them as an infringement on their autonomy and ability to do their job. Additionally, police unions can be powerful and can resist any changes to the department.

Another reason is the lack of political will to make significant changes. Police departments often have a great deal of political support, and politicians may be hesitant to take on powerful police unions and risk alienating the police department's supporters.

Another reason is the lack of data and research on the issue. There is often a lack of data on the extent of racial bias and excessive use of force within police departments, which can make it difficult to identify specific areas that need to be addressed and to track progress over time.

Additionally, the legal and constitutional protections for police officers can make it difficult to hold officers accountable for misconduct or to implement disciplinary measures.

Finally, it can be difficult to change the culture of a police department. Addressing issues of racial bias and excessive use of force requires a change in the attitudes and behaviors of the officers, and that can be a difficult and slow process.

Overall, there are many complex and interrelated factors that contribute to the difficulty of reforming urban police departments concerning racial bias and excessive use of force, and it requires a comprehensive and sustained effort from multiple stakeholders to make real and lasting changes.

4. What does J J Rousseau mean by the "general will"? How is it different from "common will"?

In his work "The Social Contract," Jean-Jacques Rousseau defines the "general will" as the collective will of the people as a whole, as opposed to the particular interests of individuals or groups. The general will represents the common good and is the foundation of legitimate political authority. It is the will of the people as a whole, rather than the will of any particular individual or group, that determines the laws and policies of the state.

Rousseau argues that the general will is always for the common good, and that any laws that are in line with the general will are just laws. He also asserts that the general will is always in the right, and that when the people make a mistake, it is because they have not been properly informed or have been swayed by particular interests.

In contrast, the "common will" refers to the sum of individual wills and interests. It represents the aggregation of particular wants and desires of the people, and not necessarily the common good. It is not always in line with the general will, as individuals or groups may act in their own self-interest, which may be at odds with the general interest.

In summary, the general will is the collective will of the people as a whole, representing the common good and the foundation of legitimate political authority. The common will, on the other hand, is the sum of individual wills and interests, which may or may not be in line with the general will.

5. Why has there been controversy in Poland over Jan Gross's book Neighbors?

Jan Gross's book "Neighbors" has been a source of controversy in Poland because it deals with the subject of the Jedwabne massacre, which occurred during World War II. In the book, Gross argues that a group of ethnic Polish residents of the town of Jedwabne, rather than German occupiers, were responsible for the massacre of over 300 Jewish residents of the town in 1941. This contradicts the traditional narrative that the Germans were solely responsible for the massacre and has led to a heated debate in Poland about the country's role in the Holocaust.

Many Poles feel that Gross's book is unfair and harmful to Poland's reputation, as it suggests that Poles were complicit in the Holocaust and it undermines the image of Poland as a victim of Nazi occupation during WWII.

Additionally, there has been criticism of Gross's methodology and use of sources in the book, with some arguing that Gross relied too heavily on anecdotal evidence and did not provide enough evidence to support his conclusions.

Another reason for the controversy is that the book was published at a time when Poland was experiencing a resurgence of nationalism sentiment and the government was trying to promote a more positive image of Poland's role in World War II. The publication of the book, which highlights the participation of ethnic Poles in the Holocaust, was seen as a threat to this narrative.

Overall, the controversy surrounding Jan Gross's book "Neighbors" in Poland is due to the sensitive and controversial subject matter of the Jedwabne massacre, and the fact that it challenges the traditional narrative of Poland as a victim of Nazi occupation during WWII and highlights the participation of ethnic Poles in the Holocaust.

6. How much did Thomas Kuhn owe to Ludwik Fleck for his ideas in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions"?

Thomas Kuhn's book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" is heavily influenced by the work of Ludwik Fleck, a Polish-Jewish physician and epistemologist. Fleck's work, particularly his 1935 book "Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact," provided a foundation for Kuhn's ideas about the social and psychological aspects of scientific knowledge and the role of paradigms in shaping scientific understanding.

Like Kuhn, Fleck argued that scientific knowledge is not simply a neutral accumulation of facts, but is shaped by the social and psychological context in which it is produced. He also emphasized the role of paradigms in shaping scientific understanding, arguing that scientific facts and theories are not discovered, but are constructed by the scientific community.

Fleck's work also influenced Kuhn's concept of the "incommensurability" of scientific paradigms, which refers to the idea that different paradigms cannot be compared or evaluated in a neutral, objective manner.

Kuhn acknowledged the influence of Fleck's work in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions," and cited it as an important precursor to his own ideas. He wrote that "Fleck's book was one of the sources from which I first learned that the history of science is a history of normal science, of the proliferation of specialties, and of the growth of professional societies."

Overall, while Kuhn's ideas in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" were not directly derived from Fleck's work, it has been acknowledged that Fleck's ideas provided a foundation for Kuhn's understanding of the social and psychological aspects of scientific knowledge and the role of paradigms in shaping scientific understanding.

7. What is "ontological individualism", and what are the chief arguments in favor of this position?

Ontological individualism is a philosophical position that asserts that individuals are the fundamental units of reality, and that social and political entities, such as groups, organizations, and societies, are ultimately reducible to the individuals that compose them. This position holds that the existence, nature, and properties of social entities can be explained solely in terms of the properties and actions of individuals.

One of the chief arguments in favor of ontological individualism is that it aligns with common sense and everyday experience. Many people believe that individuals are the basic unit of reality that we interact with and that social entities are just collections of individuals. Additionally, ontological individualism is a coherent position that aligns with the idea that individuals have moral responsibility.

Another argument in favor of ontological individualism is that it provides a more parsimonious and simpler explanation of reality by reducing complex social phenomena to the actions of individuals. It also aligns with the idea that individuals are autonomous and have the capacity to make choices, which is an important principle in political theories that are based on individual rights and freedoms.

Ontological individualism also aligns with methodological individualism, which is the idea that social phenomena should be studied by analyzing the actions and interactions of individuals. This approach is believed to be more scientific and rigorous than studying social phenomena in their own right.

In summary, ontological individualism is the idea that individuals are the fundamental units of reality and that social and political entities are reducible to the individuals that compose them. Arguments in favor of this position include that it aligns with common sense and everyday experience, it aligns with the idea that individuals have moral responsibility, it provides a more parsimonious and simpler explanation of reality, it aligns with the idea of individual autonomy and rights, and it aligns with methodological individualism.

8. Is it possible that Socrates committed atrocities during his service as a hoplite during the Peloponnesian War?

There is no historical evidence to suggest that Socrates committed atrocities during his service as a hoplite (heavy infantryman) during the Peloponnesian War. Socrates was a citizen of Athens and was called upon to serve in the military, as was common for Athenian men of that time. He is known to have fought in the battle of Delium in 424 BCE and the battle of Amphipolis in 422 BCE.

It is important to note that while Socrates is renowned as a philosopher who emphasized the importance of virtue, morality, and self-awareness, there is no record of him discussing or describing his experiences as a soldier in any of his dialogues. There is also no concrete evidence on how he behaved during the war, or how he felt about it.

It is also important to note that atrocities were not uncommon during ancient Greek warfare, especially during the Peloponnesian war, a long-lasting and brutal conflict between Athens and Sparta. However, there is no historical evidence linking Socrates to any specific war crimes or atrocities.

In any case, it is important to remember that Socrates lived in a different time and culture, and it is not appropriate to judge him by the standards of a different era. It is also worth noting that Socrates' teachings and philosophy were focused on the individual's morality, rather than on politics or war.

In summary, while it is possible that Socrates fought in some battles during the Peloponnesian War, there is no historical evidence that he committed atrocities during his service. The historical records of Socrates' life are limited and there is no concrete information on how he behaved during the war or how he felt about it.

[It is not true that there is no historical evidence on this topic, and it is not true either that the issues are not discussed in the Platonic dialogues. Bromides about "a different time and culture" seem to be out of place here.]

9. Do you find Brian Epstein's arguments in "The Ant Trap" convincing?

As a language model AI, I do not have personal opinions, preferences or feelings. But I can give you information about Brian Epstein's "The Ant Trap" and the arguments he presents in it.

"The Ant Trap" is a book written by Brian Epstein, a cognitive scientist, in which he argues that the study of human intelligence should focus on the study of individual brains, rather than on the study of groups or populations. Epstein argues that the traditional approach to understanding intelligence, which focuses on group-level differences and averages, is misguided, and that it is necessary to study the individual brain in order to understand the mechanisms underlying intelligence.

Epstein's arguments are based on the idea that intelligence is a property of the individual brain, and that it cannot be fully understood by studying groups or populations. He also argues that studying individual brains allows for a more detailed understanding of the neural mechanisms underlying intelligence and that this approach can lead to more effective interventions to improve cognitive function.

Some of the arguments in the book have been met with criticism. For instance, some critics argue that Epstein's focus on the individual brain neglects the importance of social and environmental factors in shaping intelligence, and that the study of group-level differences can be important for understanding the social and cultural factors that influence cognitive development.

Overall, Epstein's arguments in "The Ant Trap" are based on the idea that intelligence is a property of the individual brain, and that it cannot be fully understood by studying groups or populations. It is important to note that Epstein's arguments are based on his own perspective and research, and that there are other perspectives and arguments in the field of cognitive science that might differ from Epstein's.

[This answer is fundamentally mistaken; “intelligence and brain” isn’t the thrust of Epstein’s book, and Epstein is a philosopher not a cognitive scientist.]

10. What is the main argument in Daniel Little's book "Confronting Evil in History"?

Daniel Little's book "Confronting Evil in History" is an examination of the nature of evil and its role in historical events. The main argument of the book is that evil acts are not solely the result of individual moral failures, but are also the result of structural and systemic factors that shape the actions of individuals and groups.

In the book, Little argues that evil acts are typically the result of a complex interplay of individual, group, and systemic factors. He argues that individuals who commit evil acts are not necessarily morally depraved or inherently evil, but are often ordinary people who are influenced by a range of structural and systemic factors.

One of the main arguments in the book is that evil acts are often the result of complex systems of power and oppression, which shape the actions of individuals and groups. Little argues that these systems of power and oppression often operate at the societal level, and that they can create conditions that make it easier for individuals to commit evil acts.

Another argument in the book is that evil acts are often perpetuated by group dynamics and social norms, which can lead individuals to commit evil acts that they would not have committed alone. Little argues that group dynamics and social norms can create a sense of moral disengagement, in which individuals feel less responsible for their actions, and this can make it easier for individuals to commit evil acts.

Finally, Little argues that it is important to understand the structural and systemic factors that contribute to evil acts in order to effectively address and confront evil in history. He suggests that addressing evil requires not only individual moral reform, but also social and political reform to change the conditions that enable evil to occur.

Overall, the main argument in Daniel Little's book "Confronting Evil in History" is that evil acts are not solely the result of individual moral failures, but are also the result of structural and systemic factors that shape the actions of individuals and groups.

ChatGPT as an academic writer

I've taken the view that the hoopla about ChatGPT is overblown, and that the texts generated by large language models in response to "prompts" are nothing more than strings of sentences, without coherent meaning. But now that I've spent an evening playing with the tool, my opinion is changed. I'm frankly amazed at how informative and coherent the responses are that ChatGPT provides in response to moderately difficult questions in philosophy, history, and sociology. I posed questions about Rousseau's concept of the general will; Peirce's distinctive philosophy of science; reasons for FEMA's failure during the Katrina crisis; whether Socrates committed atrocities as a hoplite; and several other topics. In each case, ChatGPT came back with 300-500 words of cogent summary and analysis in just a few seconds. At the same time, none of the texts are documented, and the reader has no basis for evaluating the accuracy of the material contained in the texts. 

Is it possible that we've focused on the wrong questions in trying to make sense of these large language models? So far a lot of the discussion about ChatGPT is about the ability of the tool to "write" logically organized and convincing natural-language answers. It is about "intelligent chat". But maybe the real power of the large language models falls under the description "large-scale knowledge aggregator". The chat session can quickly provide the human questioner with a mid-level summary of what is known about a certain subject. However, the usefulness of the responses is diminished by the fact that the chatbot doesn't "show its work"; it doesn't document the origins of the statements that it makes. (I presume this could be done fairly easily.) 

Lack of documentation is one important flaw. Equally disturbing from an academic point of view, many of these questions I posed in my experiment require judgment and assessment of academic disagreements, and ChatGPT seems incapable of exercising this kind of judgment. Instead, it seems to pick out one line of interpretation of the issue and then sticks with it, ignoring the availability and strength of arguments in the literature to the contrary. In a balanced PhD-student level "literature review" on a topic, we would expect the researcher to arrive at some judgments about the relative strength of the various positions that have emerged in debates over a subject; but ChatGPT appears to lack the capacity to arrive at these kinds of "credibility assessment" judgments by itself.

For me, this experiment has been eye-opening. On the one hand, I am greatly surprised at how coherently and (usually) accurately the chatbot has been able to arrive at informative answers to moderately difficult questions (and questions to which it has presumably never been exposed). And on the other hand, I'm left with a huge epistemic doubt about the reliability of what the chatbot says. How can the reader distinguish between accurate statements about Rousseau or Peirce (based on some kind of reputable academic literature) and wild misconceptions that somehow the bot has been led into? And most puzzling for me: what specifically are the sources of the statements that the bot makes -- in just a few seconds -- when confronted with a complicated and novel question? Does it do a quick scan of Wikipedia and various other encyclopedias? Does it search through journal articles on the topic, and then arrive at a quick synthesis of several of them? The results would be much more satisfactory if they were accompanied by a specification of the references and sources that were used in compiling the answers. 

Consider this multi-round exchange about Jan Gross's book, Neighbors. This conversation is fairly substantive, and thanks to a few followup questions (about the number of victims, about the influence of right-wing extremist government, and about sources) it becomes more informative. However, a history professor reading the conversation critically would raise some fundamental questions of evidence and judgment: what are the sources for your statements? Why should I believe your analysis? What is the basis of credibility for your answer? And how should we assess the disagreements that arise in this topic among experts? In short, what is the argument and evidence for the statements you offer? 

In the following I have interpolated some comments and criticisms in blue text. 

DL: Why has there been controversy in Poland over Jan Gross's book Neighbors?

ChatGPT: Jan Gross's book "Neighbors" has been a source of controversy in Poland because it deals with the subject of the Jedwabne massacre, which occurred during World War II. In the book, Gross argues that a group of ethnic Polish residents of the town of Jedwabne, rather than German occupiers, were responsible for the massacre of over 300 Jewish residents of the town in 1941. This contradicts the traditional narrative that the Germans were solely responsible for the massacre and has led to a heated debate in Poland about the country's role in the Holocaust. [DL: the estimate of 300 victims will be questioned below. Otherwise the paragraph is a reasonable opening summary.]

Many Poles feel that Gross's book is unfair and harmful to Poland's reputation, as it suggests that Poles were complicit in the Holocaust and it undermines the image of Poland as a victim of Nazi occupation during WWII. [DL: many Poles? That's very indefinite, and suggests that there is a lot of public opinion about Gross's book. What is the evidence for this?]

Additionally, there has been criticism of Gross's methodology and use of sources in the book, with some arguing that Gross relied too heavily on anecdotal evidence and did not provide enough evidence to support his conclusions. [DL: Who has offered criticisms of Gross's methodology? Are these legitimate criticisms? What is the balance of opinion among expert historians on this subject?]

Another reason for the controversy is that the book was published at a time when Poland was experiencing a resurgence of nationalism sentiment and the government was trying to promote a more positive image of Poland's role in World War II. The publication of the book, which highlights the participation of ethnic Poles in the Holocaust, was seen as a threat to this narrative. [DL: this seems accurate. Documentation?]

Overall, the controversy surrounding Jan Gross's book "Neighbors" in Poland is due to the sensitive and controversial subject matter of the Jedwabne massacre, and the fact that it challenges the traditional narrative of Poland as a victim of Nazi occupation during WWII and highlights the participation of ethnic Poles in the Holocaust. [DL: fair summary of statements made previously in the text.]

DL: How do right-wing nationalist politics affect the reception of Jan Gross's book "Neighbors" in Poland?

ChatGPT: The rise of right-wing nationalist politics in Poland has affected the reception of Jan Gross's book "Neighbors" in a number of ways.

The book, which deals with the subject of the Jedwabne massacre, in which a group of ethnic Polish residents of the town of Jedwabne, rather than German occupiers, were responsible for the massacre of over 300 Jewish residents of the town in 1941, challenged the traditional narrative of Poland as a victim of Nazi occupation during WWII and highlighted the participation of ethnic Poles in the Holocaust. This contradicts the narrative of the right-wing nationalist politics that emphasizes the idea of Poland as a victim of WWII and downplays the participation of ethnic Poles in the Holocaust. [DL: the number of Jewish victims will be questioned below. Otherwise the paragraph is a fair summary of the relationship between right-wing politics in Poland and attacks on Gross's work.]

The right-wing nationalist politics in Poland has led to a strong resistance to criticism of the country and its history, and has created a political climate in which it is difficult to have an open and honest discussion about Poland's role in the Holocaust. This has led to a hostile reception of the book and the author, Jan Gross, by some quarters of the Polish society and political establishment, who see the book as an attack on Poland's reputation and an attempt to tarnish the image of the country. [DL: yes, but it needs to be more specific. What is the name of the leading party? When did it take office? Documentation is needed.]

Additionally, the right-wing nationalist politics in Poland has led to a resurgence of anti-Semitism, which has further complicated the reception of the book. This has led to accusations that Jan Gross is promoting anti-Polish sentiments and that the book is an attempt to demonize Poland and its people. [DL: this paragraph makes a substantive causal claim: nationalist politics led to a resurgence of anti-Semitism. How did ChatGPT reach this conclusion? Could the causal arrow go the other direction?]

The Polish government at the time also tried to downplay the role of Poles in the Holocaust, which further complicated the reception of the book. [DL: yes. Documentation?]

Overall, the rise of right-wing nationalist politics in Poland has affected the reception of Jan Gross's book "Neighbors" in a negative way, as it challenges the traditional narrative of Poland as a victim of Nazi occupation during WWII and highlights the participation of ethnic Poles in the Holocaust, which contradicts the narrative promoted by the right-wing nationalist politics. This has led to a hostile reception of the book and the author by some quarters of the Polish society and political establishment, and has complicated the open and honest discussion about Poland's role in the Holocaust. [DL: balanced conclusion given claims made previously.]

DL: I've read that the number of Jewish victims in Jedwabne was over 1000, but you quoted 300 dead. Can you explain the discrepancy?

ChatGPT: I apologize for the discrepancy in the number of Jewish victims in the Jedwabne massacre that I quoted in my previous response. The number of Jewish victims in the Jedwabne massacre is estimated to be between 300 and 1600. [DL: we would like to know why the lower estimate was used in the original response.]

The number of Jewish victims in the Jedwabne massacre has been a source of debate and controversy. The initial investigation by the Polish government in 1949, put the number of victims at around 300. However, more recent scholarship, including Jan Gross's book "Neighbors", have suggested that the number of victims may have been much higher, possibly as many as 1600. [DL: yes; documentation needed.]

The discrepancy in the number of victims is due to a lack of reliable records and the passage of time, which has made it difficult to accurately determine the number of victims. Additionally, the massacre was carried out by local ethnic Poles, not by the Nazis and the Polish government of the time might have wanted to downplay the extent of the crime, so the numbers were not accurately reported. [DL: these are fairly lame efforts to explain uncertainty about the facts of the killings. "Might have wanted ..." -- that is plainly speculation; what does ChatGPT depend on in order to offer that hypothesis?]

It is important to note that the exact number of victims may never be known with certainty and that the focus should be on the fact that a horrific crime was committed against the Jewish community in Jedwabne, regardless of the exact number of victims. [DL: there is an element of "who knows?" in this reply; where does that come from? There is also a prescription: "focus should be on the fact that a horrible crime ..."; where does this come from? This is a judgment; but by stipulation, ChatGPT does not make judgments.]

DL: What can you add concerning the situation of Holocaust historians in Poland as a result of the slander and libel laws created by the nationalist government recently?

ChatGPT: Recent changes to the laws concerning slander and libel in Poland have caused concern among Holocaust historians and other scholars who study the Holocaust in Poland. The changes to the laws make it a criminal offense to accuse the Polish nation or state of being complicit in the Holocaust, with penalties of up to three years in prison. [DL: good. Documentation?]

Critics argue that these changes to the laws have a chilling effect on the ability of historians and scholars to study and discuss the Holocaust in Poland, as they may now be afraid of being accused of defaming the Polish nation or state. This can limit the free exchange of ideas and the ability to have an open and honest discussion about the Holocaust and Poland's role in it. [DL: yes; but give examples. Whose work has been attacked? What historians have suffered the chilling effect?]

Additionally, the laws have been criticized for being vague and open to interpretation, which can lead to an inconsistent enforcement of the laws and a lack of clarity about what constitutes a violation. [DL: documentation? Who offers this criticism?]

Furthermore, the laws have been criticized for being in violation of the freedom of speech and academic freedom, as they restrict the ability of historians and scholars to express their opinions and conduct their research freely. [DL: yes. Sources? Does Polish constitution protect freedom of speech and academic freedom?]

Holocaust historians in Poland have also reported facing harassment and intimidation by the government and nationalist groups, this further limits their ability to conduct their research. [DL: examples?]

In summary, the recent changes to the laws concerning slander and libel in Poland have caused concern among Holocaust historians and other scholars who study the Holocaust in Poland, as they may now be afraid of being accused of defaming the Polish nation or state. This can limit the free exchange of ideas and the ability to have an open and honest discussion about the Holocaust and Poland's role in it, and also restrict the ability of historians and scholars to express their opinions and conduct their research freely. [DL: good summary of preceding statements.]

DL: Can you give me some citations on the libel and slander laws in Poland that are of concern to Holocaust historians?

ChatGPT: The libel and slander laws in Poland that have caused concern among Holocaust historians are the amendment to the Act on the Institute of National Remembrance (IPN) passed on February 1st 2018. The amendment made it a criminal offense to accuse the Polish nation or state of being complicit in the Holocaust, with penalties of up to three years in prison. [DL: adequate summary. The penalties that have been discussed have not involved prison sentences.]

This legislation has been widely criticized by scholars and academics, including the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM), the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the Simon Wiesenthal Center, and the Polish Council of Christians and Jews. [DL: how about the European Union?]

One of the sources that reported on the situation is the article "Poland's Holocaust Law Has Chilled Research into the Holocaust", written by Jan Grabowski, a Polish-Canadian historian and published on the New York Times on March 2019.

Another source is the article "Poland's Holocaust Law: How it threatens freedom of speech", written by Bartosz Staszewski, a journalist and historian, and published on the BBC News on February 2018.

Also, the article "Poland's Holocaust law: a dangerous attempt to rewrite history" written by Antony Polonsky, an American historian and published on The Guardian on February 2018.

These articles provide information on the context and the concerns of the scholars and academics regarding the recent amendment to the Act on the Institute of National Remembrance (IPN) and how it affects the freedom of speech and the ability of historians to research and write about the Holocaust in Poland. [DL: the sources mentioned here are from reputable historians. However, only media accounts are mentioned. What about academic literature? What about other books?]

[The three "citations" provided above seem to be fictitious and hallucinatory. The supposed authors are real, but the articles cited apparently are not.]

DL: Were there other massacres in Poland that were committed by Poles rather than German soldiers?

ChatGPT: There were several other instances of massacres committed by ethnic Poles during the Holocaust, in addition to the Jedwabne massacre.

One example is the Kielce pogrom in 1946, in which 42 Jewish Holocaust survivors were killed by a mob of Polish residents in the city of Kielce. This event is considered one of the worst post-war pogroms against Jews in Poland.

In addition, there were several other instances of violence and murders of Jews in Poland during and after WWII, committed by ethnic Poles, often in situations of powerlessness and competition over scarce resources. [DL: examples?]

It's important to note that these acts of violence were not representative of the Polish population as a whole, but were committed by a small group of individuals or groups of individuals who carried anti-Semitic attitudes and were encouraged by the atmosphere of the time. [DL: this is surprisingly judgmental on the part of ChatGPT. What is the evidence for the claim? What is the "atmosphere of the time" that is mentioned?]

It's also important to note that many Poles also risked their lives to save Jewish lives during WWII, and that Poland was the only country in Europe where the punishment for helping Jews was death for the helper and their family. [DL: this is a common recourse in efforts to minimize or excuse events like Jedwabne. It is an ideological appeal. Why did ChatGPT make this assertion?]

It's also important to remember that Holocaust was a complex and multifaceted event and that the study of the Holocaust should be done in a scholarly and nuanced way, taking into account the different perspectives, experiences, and actions of different groups of people, including Poles, and should avoid any form of broad generalization. [DL: this is a strongly judgmental set of statements. How does ChatGPT arrive at them? Why are they included? What do they derive from?]

Three observations seem important in considering this impromptu discussion with ChatGPT about one terrible event in European history. First, historical errors find their way into these answers, along with reasonably accurate statements. So the reader must make vigilant and critical assessments about the various claims, and generally there is little evidence provided for the claims. If this series of exchanges were a student paper, the professor would be asking repeatedly, "what is the source for this claim?". 

Second, the texts describing the events in Jedwabne are offered as being neutral statements of facts, "taking all perspectives" into account. But a human historian would insist on sorting out the validity of the competing perspectives, including especially the perspective of the academic historian researching the Holocaust and the nationalist politician determined to sanitize the reputation of the country. Good academic writing requires assessment of the relative credibility of competing interpretations.

And third, this even-handedness about perspectives leads in this case to a willingness to adopt a "people will differ" stance towards the Holocaust, which in the end sounds a bit apologist. When it comes to the Holocaust and genocide, the bromide that we "should avoid any form of broad generalization" is morally bankrupt. And why does ChatGPT itself occasionally fall into exactly the kinds of unsubstantiated judgments that the methodology seems to prohibit? In response to one of my other questions, ChatGPT began by saying, "as a language model AI, I do not have personal opinions, preferences or feelings". True enough -- but in that case, why is ChatGPT offering the bromides like "don't generalize about peoples"? 

We don't want AI bots to be making our ethical judgments for us; and yet we also don't want to arrive at a telling of history that treats good and evil with strict value neutrality. Is this perhaps the deep question about AI ethics that we should be concerned about? As these paragraphs show, judgments creep into the ChatGPT text; what is their basis? 

The photo: Boy in the Warsaw Ghetto

Here is one more focused historical exchange that also seems diagnostic of the strengths and weaknesses of ChatGPT. In this case the prompt is a little vague, and ChatGPT makes a plausible effort. But it appears that the answer ChatGPT provides is incorrect. As above, it would be very interesting to know what the sequence of events was from receiving the prompt to identifying the photograph to gathering background information about the photo.

DL: What can you tell me about the photograph, "Boy in the Warsaw Ghetto"?

ChatGPT: The photograph "Boy in the Warsaw Ghetto" is a iconic image of the Holocaust. It was taken in 1942 by Jewish Polish photographer, Henryk Ross, who was a member of the Jewish Fighting Organization and was active in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. The photograph depicts a Jewish boy, wearing a cap and a coat, with a look of fear and despair on his face, standing in the Warsaw Ghetto, which was established by the Nazis in 1940 as a confined area for the Jewish population in Warsaw, Poland.

The photograph was taken at a time when the Warsaw Ghetto was under strict Nazi control, and the living conditions were extremely harsh, with widespread starvation, disease, and death. The photograph captures the dire situation and the suffering of the Jewish people in the ghetto.

After the war, Henryk Ross managed to save many of his photographs, which were later donated to the State Museum of the History of Polish Jews in Warsaw and the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C.

The photograph "Boy in the Warsaw Ghetto" has become one of the most iconic images of the Holocaust and has been widely reproduced and used in books, documentaries, and exhibitions on the Holocaust. The photograph serves as a powerful reminder of the atrocities committed against the Jewish people during the Holocaust and the inhumanity of the Nazi regime.

It is important to remember that behind this photograph, there is a person who suffered, a life that was lost, and a family that was broken apart. It is also important to remember that behind the photograph, there is a photographer, Henryk Ross, who risked his own life to capture this image and preserve it for future generations.

DL: I'm confused, since I thought this photo was taken by German army public relations photographers under command of Jurgen Stroop.

ChatGPT: I apologize for the confusion in my previous response. You are correct that the photograph "Boy in the Warsaw Ghetto" was not taken by Henryk Ross but by a German army photographer under the command of SS-Brigadeführer Jürgen Stroop.

Jurgen Stroop was a senior SS commander who was appointed by Heinrich Himmler to lead the suppression of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising in 1943. He ordered the destruction of the Ghetto, and the SS and German police units under his command killed thousands of Jewish people, and deported many others to concentration camps.

The photograph was taken by a German army public relations photographer and it was meant to document the suppression of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising as a propaganda tool for the Nazi regime. The photograph was taken after the suppression of the uprising and the destruction of the Ghetto, it shows the devastation of the Ghetto and the suffering of the Jewish people.

The photograph is a powerful and haunting reminder of the atrocities committed by the Nazi regime during the Holocaust, and it stands as a testament to the indomitable spirit of the Jewish people who fought against overwhelming odds to resist the Nazis.

Again, I apologize for the confusion in my previous response and any inaccuracies it may have contained.