Toward a Liberalism by Richard Flathman

Towarda Liberalism is a philosophy book and I can only guess it was free at some point, as otherwise I don’t know why I would have bought it?

The blurb says:

In Toward a Liberalism, Richard Flathman shows why and how political theory can contribute to the quality of moral and political practice without violating, as empiricist- and idealist-based theories tend to do, liberal commitments to individuality and plurality. Exploring the tense but inevitable relationship between liberalism and authority, he advances a theory of democratic citizenship tempered by appreciation of the ways in which citizenship is implicated with and augments authority. Flathman examines the relationship of individual rights to freedom on one hand and to authority and power on the other, rejecting the quest for a single homogenous and authoritative liberal theory.

It’s a collection of essays and I confess that much of it was beyond my understanding, having never studied philosophy before. After finishing the first essay, I decided to persevere and read the other essays too, but many of the technical (philosophical) definitions were unknown to me, so though I understood the individual words, some of the sentences seemed to talk around in circles.

After each essay, I wrote up a brief description, and that has become a bit of an essay in itself.

The first essay is all about Theory and Practice. It centres around Oakeshott’s and Wittgenstein’s view on how philosophical theory and philosophical practice are related – or not. Not knowing beforehand what their views are (tbh, I hadn’t heard of them before) I was at a disadvantage, so could only go by the author’s description of their views and therefore his (the author) critique of their validity. I think the final two sentences in this essay to be a good summary:

But if liberalism acknowledges and welcomes the variety and changeable character of moral and political practices, if it recognizes and delights in the restless diversity of moral and political practitioners, these conclusions concerning the limitations and possibilities of theory and theorizing are neither surprising nor disturbing, neither to be resisted nor regretted. More than this the theorist of theory and practice cannot and should not try to say.

The second essay is all about the difference between in authority, an authority and authoritative. I found this essay much more understandable. It was shorter than the first essay, and kept on point. It still requires concentration, but I found myself nodding along as I was reading. My quoted summary of this essay:

Liberals are correct that authority is dangerous. … Nevertheless, by comparison with our other practices, authority abbreviates and truncates the processes of reflection and judgment through which agreement develops among free human beings.

The third essay is about authority and citizenship, and whether you can have one without the other. Authority is always objectionable as it only has a role when we’re unsure about the actions we should take. Some philosophers talk about high and low citizenship, but that doesn’t change the character of authority, rather the attitudes of citizens to that authority.

The fourth essay is about freedom, what freedom means and whether it is good or not. Within this chapter, there’s a section on religious freedom and freedom of religion, which I found much more understandable than other sections – probably because, being a Christian, it is relevant and therefore more interesting to me. It also discusses the link between freedom and perfectionism; and whether freedom is a liberal conception that has a role in political philosophy or not.

The fifth essay is about moderating rights, perhaps because of extremism attached to the rights itself resulting in ultra vires behaviours of those looking to reinforce those rights. Again, I have found this chapter very relatable to me, due to having encountered many Local Authorities who do act ultra vires surrounding Home Education – claiming that home educators must accept visits, and that we must send them samples of our children’s work etc (when in fact, most Elective Home Education Officers who work for the Local Authority have zero qualifications in education, let alone have knowledge of home education or child pedagogy). The essay then goes on to defend civil encroachment and civil non-enforcement. The essay ends:

If I am correct in thinking that extremism in the exercise of at least some rights is prevalent, and increased incidence of announced and defended civil encroachment might benefit the practice of rights in much the manner that civil disobedience has benefited the practice of authority.

The sixth essay looks specifically at the Theory of Rights and the Practice of Abortion. As somebody who used to be very anti-abortion, but now thinks it is correct that abortion is safe and legal – I just wish it was a service that never had to be used (see my previous blog on the topic) – I was interested to see what conclusions the essay would draw. It is quite a long chapter, so though it was interesting, it took a long time to read through. Sometimes I felt Flathman jumped in his reasoning, or made assumptions that I couldn’t quite logically follow (that is not to say they were illogical, just that I an a non-philosophy student could not follow them).

He goes through various arguments against abortion if the foetus is animate, sentient and possessed of reflexive consciousness. Within this latter discussion, Flathman says:

...it follows from these facts about it that the fetus should not be thought of a bearer or possessor of rights. To have a right is to be in a position to choose to exercise that right or not…

He then goes on to say that since a foetus cannot exercise that right, the fetus does not have any rights, and therefore the argument against a right to abortion due to the rights of the fetus is null and void. This is one of the arguments that I didn’t understand, since surely children are not in a position to exercise a particular right or not, but that doesn’t mean we have a right to infanticide; or women in some areas of the world may not know or not be in a position to exercise any rights, but that doesn’t mean that they should be walked over and treated as property. But as I said, it may be that I simply don’t understand the words that he is using, but this seems like a poor argument to me.

Flathman also uses the argument that “Abortions do not destroy human persons. Abortions destroy fetuses.” but does not elaborate as to when exactly the fetus does become a human, implying it is at the moment of birth. In fact he equates a fetus with being simply a sperm or ovum, and if a foetus should not be wasted, then it should similarly be prohibited to use contraceptives, masturbation or any kind of act where they may be destroyed. Yet a sperm on its own, or an egg on its own, will never become a foetus.

In the section entitled “Can a Legal or Moral Right in the Strict Sense to Abortion on Demand Be Justified?” Flathman expands on how such a right for one person impacts on other people – specifically if the second person has a moral/religious/other reasoning why they won’t perform the abortion.

The answer to these questions is a qualified yes.

…

The yes is qualified for the same kinds of reasons that have convinced a number of societies to qualify the obligations imposed on pacifists and other conscientious objectors to do military service in what are believed to be justified wars. … And so far we can [establish both a legal and moral right] without nullifying the right, we should excuse from the correlative obligations those persons for whom abortion remains morally unacceptable.

I will end my analysis of this essay by quoting a few sentences from his conclusion:

The concept of a right is one of the most widely used, and most commonly abused, items in our moral and political lexicon. We have claims to an extraordinary variety of rights and we find rights attributed to an astonishing diversity of creatures and things.
… because that case is very strong, and because its strength derives in no small part from the support it receives from the principle (LP) which provides the optimum bases for defending individual rights, a right to abortion on demand is exactly what women ought to have.

The final essay is entitled “Egalitarian Blood and Skeptical Turnips”. I don’t know if all my brain cells were used up on the previous essay, but I didn’t really get this. It discusses reasonings by Ackerman, and whether they are reasonable or not, but seemed to go round in circles to me. I can tell you that the essay was discussing Morality, Neutrality₁ and Neutrality₂, but in all honesty, I didn’t get my head around what they meant, nor which Neutrality was which. I did highlight some parts of the chapter, that I will quote below, but I can’t really remember why or the relevance of them.

Accordingly, he takes the familiar tack of contending that in reason everyone should or ought to agree to those policies and that those who do agree are justified in imposing the policies on those who fail to see the light.

And also,

Justifying policies by arguing that they contribute to this (or any other) agreed-upon end is a far cry from claiming that they are required because we cannot agree upon ends.

And finally,

If all that Ackerman gave us in support of egalitarian policies of Neutrality₁ was the skeptical foundations of Neutrality₂, he would have given us precisely nothing in support of those policies.

Overall, I am glad I stretched myself and read this collection of essays, even though I freely admit I didn’t understand it all, and that some spoke to me clearer than others. I have a friend who is currently studying Politics, Philosophy and Economics and I do now understand some of what she talks about, even if I can’t necessarily reply using correct philosophical terms.

Country Heaven by Ava Miles

This book was chosen as my M, and it was a good tonic to the previous book I read.

Country Heaven is a romance from the Dare River series.  It features Rye Crenshaw, a famous country singer who offers chef Tory a job for the summer on his tour bus, before she has to return to studying for her PhD.

The blurb says:

When famous—and infamous—country singer Rye Crenshaw saunters into the diner where she cooks, Tory Simmons is certain she’s got him pegged. He’s a bad boy rock star who indulges himself in all things, women included. But while she couldn’t care less about country music or arrogant men, Rye makes her an offer she can’t refuse when he asks her to be his private chef on his multi-city concert tour. The job is the answer to all her prayers: it will clear out her debt and finance the fresh start she desperately needs. Rye is certain his sassy new cook is the last woman who’d ever tempt him, but spending time with the wholesome girl next door will do wonders for his damaged public image, whether she likes being forced into the spotlight or not. Her food also happens to be the best he’s ever eaten, both comforting and seductive. But spending time with Tory on the road shows him a new side to her—one that’s as impossible to resist as her food. And when an emergency in his family whisks him home, he does the one thing he’s never risked: he lets a woman into his heart… Soon the emotions Rye faked for the tabloids become all too real, but will the country heaven he’s found in Tory’s arms survive in the real world? 

This is a romance, but not quite as predictable as they often are in this genre.  Much of the story is taken up with Rye's difficult family (which leads nicely into other books in the series) with domineering matriarchs and overbearing patriarchs.  There is much forgiveness in this book too - not for everybody, but overall this is a nice, uplifting book.  I enjoyed it.

Weekly Update Y2w25

I think my weight is in stabilising mode (ish).  This week, I've had three not-so-healthy eating days - yes, I am trying not to label them 'bad'.  That's why I'm thinking of this being in stabilising mode, rather than thinking my weight is rising again and giving up.

One night last week we had an Indian takeaway, and I was 'good' (you're right, I shouldn't be using that word either) and stopped eating when I got full, but having rice and bread that late at night, not to mention the amount of fat and cream that was in the curries (conveniently forgetting the lack of vegetables, even with ordering a side of onion bhajis and mushroom bhajis) meant I wasn't surprised that my weight rose dramatically the next day.

Last week my husband dropped hints (by buying a premixed packet!) that he wants a giant cookie for Father's Day, so on Saturday I ended up making it by myself whilst the girls were playing Minecraft together.  Despite not having any distractions, I forgot to put the chocolate chips in - doh!  Hindsight says I should have used the choc chips with the packet of icing for decoration. Did I do that? Nope.  No, I thought it would be better to use the choc chips in cookies, if that's what DH was expecting.  So I found a recipe online for basic cookie mix, and made more cookies. I hadn't noticed how many cookies the recipe was for, and there was far too much mixture for the number of choc chips, so I took some of the mixture and used the chips for that.  Then I took some more mixture and mixed it with hot chocolate powder and cocoa powder (my girls don't like it if the chocolate taste is too dark/bitter), and the rest I made into oatmeal and raisin cookies.  I made TWENTY FOUR extra ones, plus the giant cookie that I had made earlier! And that wasn't the only mistake - I made the icing for the giant one according to the recipe but it was too liquid, so I added all the icing sugar I had, and that still wasn't enough, so I had to add flour to thicken it up. 

As we had a movie night on Saturday, which ended up being a Who-vie night, because the girls wanted to watch episode after episode of Dr Who instead of a film, we ate some of the mini cookies then.  On Sunday, Father's Day, we ate the rest of the cookies and the large one.  Yes, I set myself up for failure by making too many cookies, and I succeeded at that failure by eating them all.  Not by myself - I'm not quite that bad, but it certainly wasn't veggies most.

This week, I'm going to try and go back to eating a lot of vegetables and drinking water.  If I have carbs and grains, I want to eat them at lunchtime so they can be digested easily, as I've noticed I still feel full the following day if I have them at night.  Our next veg box is arriving on Wed, and we still have veg left from last week, so I need to use them up today and tomorrow, so that should motivate me to eat more of the nutritionally rich foods.

Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl by Harriet Jacobs

 

Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl is one of the books that can be listened to for free within the teen section on Audible Stories.  (Audible Stories are free for the duration that schools are closed for coronavirus.)  I have been listening to this book whilst completing my current Mosaic Craft project.

I chose this book to listen to as part of my commitment into understanding more about race relations and Black Lives Matter.  I recently watched the documentary 13th, all about the 13th Amendment and how though slavery officially stopped, it just changed form afterwards.

The audio book has the subtitle "written by herself" which prompted me to do a bit of research since the author is Harriet Jacobs, but the story revolves around a slave called Linda Brent.  They are indeed the same person; Linda was a pseudonym used by Jacobs.

The blurb says:

This autobiographical account by a former slave is one of the few extant narratives written by a woman. Written and published in 1861, it delivers a powerful portrayal of the brutality of slave life. Jacobs speaks frankly of her master's abuse and her eventual escape, in a tale of dauntless spirit and faith.

Listening to this book, and being a mother myself, it is horrific to consider what she, and many other people, had to endure as slaves.  Not only what they went through themselves, but the powerlessness to be able to keep their own children safe.

This book is definitely worth reading/listening to for everyone.  There is some sensitive topics (eg sexual violence) described, but not in so much detail that it would be pornographic, and I agree with Audible's suggestion that you should be at least teenage to appreciate this book.  When my children are older, I will encourage them to read it.

Hair Update

I've just realised today that I had my hair dyed over 6 months ago!
I didn't expect it to even last until Christmas, but the colour stayed and I was suitably impressed.

Previously when I've dyed my hair (either myself, or at a hairdressers) the dye would come out thick and fast, and I was led to believe that my hair simply wasn't porous enough to hold the dye, even with bleaching first.  So though I had wanted purple hair for years, it was always a pipe dream, and I hoped that when I finally go grey, my hair would change sufficiently that I would be able to dye it.

Then a friend was telling me about her hairdresser, and personal recommendations are always the best, so after saving up, and psyching myself up, I went to Sharon Rewston.  Not only did she do the usual allergy test at the pre-appointment, Sharon also took a sample of hair and bleached and dyed it to see the colour that would come out.  I wasn't happy with the first try, so she tried again and got a brighter colour.

The day of the appointment came, and I was expecting it to take 3-4hours; it actually took over 8, but given the amount of work that needed to be done, it wasn't a surprise.  The price was more than I had previously spent on my hair, but it was agreed beforehand (even with the work taking longer than expected) and was definitely worth it.

The resulting colour was even brighter than I expected, so I was happy at the time and as I said above, I was still happy at Christmas time when the colour remained.

Over the following months, the colour did fade slightly, and my roots were growing.  I made an appointment for the start of May, where the colour would be refreshed and my roots would be dyed a plum colour.  (Forward planning, so that the next time my hair was to be dyed I could go bright pillar-box red, and the colours would gradually go from purple to red.)

Unfortunately, Coronavirus happened.  Lockdown happened and everything had to close.  My appointment was cancelled until further notice, but I understood, because everyone's health is more important than the colour of my hair.

During lockdown it has mainly been very hot and sunny.  My mental health is better if I'm outside, so I have been sitting as much as possible in the back garden, getting plenty of Vitamin D.

This has had the unexpected effect of lightening my hair.  I say unexpected, because it didn't occur to me, though logically the sun always bleaches colour.  Even my natural hair colour, which is very dark brown, the sun causes the red pigment to show more and gives me golden strands.  

Though my hair colour is now fading, I have to say that I'm loving the fade.  It has gone through Unicorn colours (as the pic above) and the blue is now turning a green, which DD2 reliably informs me is turning my hair Mermaid colours.

Yes, I would like my hair to be bright and bold again, but given current circumstances, I am doubly impressed with Sharon Rewston's hairdressing skills that not only has the colour lasted for over 6 months now, but that it is changing and fading in such a gorgeous way.  

So that is the point of this post.  If you need a brilliant hairdresser and you can travel to Swindon, then once lockdown has finished, call up Sharon.  I can't recommend her enough.

Run by Patti Larsen

I chose this book based on it being L in my list.  I hoped by the title it would be a thrilling read, and I was not wrong.

Reid is a 16yo boy who wakes up bound and gagged in the back of a truck.  When his abductors release him into the forest, he knows he has to run. And run he does - immediately finding the body of a kid who is pinned to a tree, with body parts trailing.

The blurb says:

Sixteen-year-old Reid thinks life is back to normal. His sister Lucy pulls herself together and cuts him free from a year of foster care. She promises to take care of him, that her new boss and her new life are what they both needed to start again. Until Reid is taken in the middle of the night, dumped in a wild stretch of forest far from home with no idea why he is there. Lost and afraid, he learns to run from the hunters who prowl the darkness, their only pleasure chasing down kids like him. And killing them.

The book is extremely well written.  It manages to keep the adrenaline pumping through every single page.  There is terror bleeding from this book, so much so that despite the protagonist being 16, I wouldn't suggest children read these books until they are at least this age.  It definitely has a feel of The Hunger Games about it, so if you liked that, you'd like this.

I loved this book and couldn't put it down.  I started reading it yesterday morning, and just over 24hours later, I am about to start reading Book 4 in The Hunted series.  They are all just as good.  A tense, enjoyable story.

My Thoughts on Elizabeth Bartholet's Article

I am going to be straight up honest here: I have not read the full 80page review that Bartholet wrote.
Sorry, but I simply don't have time.  Should LAs or the government in the UK start referring to it, I now will be able to find an easily accessible copy, but for now it is going unread.

What I am going to comment on, however, is the summary that was written in Harvard Magazine.  As that summary quotes and paraphrases Bartholet, I will go through that with my thoughts and opinions.  Additionally, I have her words from yesterday to draw on to add context and meaning/intention to the written word.

In the article, Bartholet is calling for a "presumptive ban" on homeschooling because it may stop them from contributing to a democratic society.  She asserts that homeschooling violates a child's right to education and their right to freedom from abuse.

Yesterday, historian Milton Gaither stated repeatedly that there is not much difference in outcomes for home schooled and public schooled children in the US.  It is, however, environmental factors that make a difference, not limited to the time and input a parent has in the education of their child.  [This latter sentence is something that I have heard and read in research before (of course, now I look I cannot find the link.  If you reading this have the link handy, please comment below and I'll add it at a later date).]  Bartholet, however, countered this, often repeating that only "successful" homeschoolers allowed their children to partake in research, and there are many hidden homeschoolers that nobody knows about.  Normally, I would go on to make the point that in the UK, there have been ZERO Serious Case Reviews where home educating has been the sole or primary contributing factor to abuse (as I have stated HERE).  However, Bartholet is from the US and from the discussion yesterday there have been cases brought up involving horrific abuse, so I won't claim that what is true in the UK is also true in the US.

Bartholet is concerned about the lack of regulation in some states, that there is no check about the academic qualifications of the parents, nor their ability to teach. Again, this has been addressed in the paragraph above, but if that were not enough - if parents have come out of school without a GED, why should they entrust the education of their children to the state? She is also concerned about the lack of a home schooling register in some states, so I will repeat the link to my response why a home education register is not a good idea.

Bartholet says home education can isolate children, and yesterday commented that some parents choose homeschooling purposely to isolate the kids.  Instead, she proposes that each child should have "mandated reporters" to whom the child has to be shown regularly - this reminds me of the Scottish "Named Person" scheme, that many Scottish Home Educators had been against.

However, I do actually think one of Bartholet's ideas is somewhat praiseworthy - that parents should be checked prior to home education for reports of abuse and neglect.  Rather than a presumptive ban on homeschooling, or a reactive check on parents, I think this should be a forward acting policy.  If someone has a record of abuse or neglect, I think it is right that the court should order (in advance) that these people should have highly visible children and regular encounters with social services.  Now, I am going to put some caveats here.  Firstly, as Graham Stuart MP said when he was Chair of the Education Select Committee, home educated children are "peculiarly visible", so when I am saying visible, I mean to doctors, social services and EHEOs.  Secondly, whereas Bartholet implied yesterday that there is no smoke without fire, and if someone has had accusations of abuse they shouldn't be allowed to home school, I think this preemptive court order to should solely for people who have been through court and proven to have been abusive or neglectful.  There are many cases of a spurned partner who reports their Ex to social services maliciously, and just because of this fabricated report, it is not right that this parent should be prevented from home educating their children should they wish to.  (Fortunately, social services in the UK are able to see through malicious referrals.)

Bartholet states that up to 90% of homeschoolers in the US make that choice due to conservative Christian beliefs and extreme religious ideologues, including questioning science, female subservience and white supremacy.  Again, I'm aware of a huge disparity be the US and the UK, and that is true within Christian circles too.  However, wherever you fall on the creation/evolution debate questioning science is never a bad thing - questioning what we know is exactly what causes breakthroughs in knowledge.  Science is the collection of knowledge that we currently have, and is constantly expanding, growing and changing as our understanding improves.  If you think science cannot or should not be questioned, then indeed that is akin to science being your unquestionable religion.  Without having read her 80 page document, I don't know exactly what she means by female subservience, but I'm assuming she is referring to Ephesians 5:22 (from NIV) "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord", having ignored the previous verse 21 which states "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ." and verse 28 that says "In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself."  I acknowledge that there may be some branches of "Christianity" that take these verses out of context and to extreme, but there is nothing inconsistent between calling yourself a Christian and a Feminist.  Finally, white supremacy is antithetical to the teachings of Christ.

An interesting follow-up to this was a question that was asked yesterday: Should children who are public schooled be mandated to visit religious or other private schools? Bartholet replied that no they shouldn't, because parents who wish to can teach religion at home.  To me, this is clearly double standards, and suggests to me that Bartholet is an atheist (I have no idea whether she has a faith or not).  If the parents of a child at a state school are atheists, when can that child encounter religion or faith in order to widen their education and have opportunity to encounter new ideas (given the separation of state and religion in the US)?  The fact that Bartholet doesn't see anything amiss here, demonstrates to me that she does not see any value in faith nor for children being exposed to it. 
Fortunately, in the UK there is not this separation.  My Home Educated children are free to explore their own faith (or lack of faith in the case of DD1), having me being a Christian, friends who are atheists, friends who are Muslims and visiting a Sikh Temple.  I would like to also visit a Synagogue and a Hindu Temple, but that will have to wait until Coronavirus has passed.

Yesterday there was also a discussion and question about whether homeschooling can produce civic-minded and well-rounded children/adults.  Bartholet says in her article "But it’s also important that children grow up exposed to community values, social values, democratic values, ideas about nondiscrimination and tolerance of other people’s viewpoints" but I'm not sure she gives the same exposure to schooled children, nor the same tolerance of home educating families.

When talking about the power and influence parents can have over their children, Bartholet says 

"The issue is, do we think that parents should have 24/7, essentially authoritarian control over their children from ages zero to 18? I think that’s dangerous... I think it’s always dangerous to put powerful people in charge of the powerless, and to give the powerful ones total authority."  

I know other commentators and bloggers have already commented on the fact that the government is run by powerful people who are in charge of the powerless (us).  Additionally, given the recent race relations and examples of police brutality that have come to light, I would want to question Bartholet whether she is in favour of defunding the police?, though I expect not.

Finally, though Bartholet concedes that some parents may be able to educate their children effectively and efficiently, she thinks parents should need to continuously prove that their case is justified in being able to provide a better education than at a state school.  In short, she thinks that rather than innocent until proven guilty, parents need to be assumed to be guilty of abuse and neglect and only allowed to homeschool if the parents can prove otherwise.