Therapeutic Discourse and the American Public Philosophy: On American Liberalism's Troubled Relationship with Psychology

I explore the main currents of postwar American liberalism. One, sociological, emerged in response to the danger of mass movements. Articulated primarily by political sociologists and psychologists and ascendant from the mid-fifties till the mid-seventies, it heralded the "end of ideology." It emphasized stability, elitism, positive science and pluralism; it recast normatively sound politics as logrolling and hard bargaining. I argue that these normative features, attractive when considered in isolation, taken together led to a vicious ad hominem style in accounting for views outside the postwar consensus. It used pseudo-scientific literature in labeling populists, Progressives, Taft conservatives, Goldwaterites, the New Left and others "pathological," viz. mentally ill. Hence, "therapeutic discourse." I argue that philosophical liberalism, which reasserts the role of political theory in working out norms and adjudicating disagreement, is a more profitable way of thinking about and defending from critics liberalism. I take the philosopher John Rawls as the tradition's modern representative. This inquiry is important because the themes of sociological liberalism are making a comeback in American public discourse, and with them perhaps the baggage of therapeutic discourse. I present a cautionary tale.

Life and Death: The Religious, Philosophical and Moral Dilemmas in Medicine

Religious beliefs often play a major role in the decisions that are made in the home and the hospital concerning issues at the beginning and end of life. Only recently, however, due to rapidly advancing medical technology, have religious, moral, and philosophical beliefs taken such a controversial role. One of the major questions that has arisen from these various controversies is whether or not we have the right to posses control over the biological functions of our bodies. The answer is a difficult one, and it may be one that cannot be answered, but the attempt at an answer is what is at the heart of medical ethics.