Michael Sandel Interview: Why A Party Should Care For Minority | Philosopher Michael Sandel Unpacked

let's start really with I think you know the elephant in the room um you know whatever you say whatever you have been saying you know news rooms like Indian Express lap it up we we hear each word carefully uh we we we embibe a lot of your political philosophy into editorial Pages we it helps us think and a lot of the intellectual Elite love it and you're you're you're a rockstar my question is do you sometimes feel like what's the point no no because the point is to prompt thinking about what we're doing and how we live together and some people think philosophy resides in the clouds in the heavens far beyond the world in which we live but I don't see it that way I think philosophy belongs in the city where citizens gather and argue and sometimes reason together about our Collective lives about the common good about the meaning of a just society and we do that even before we take up philosophy as subject so so that's really uh well that's worthwhile isn't it to of course no no look we believe it is but you know especially in the field of political philosophy which is what you know you've uh and so much of your talks that I've consumed are around um whatever whatever you say whatever we say uh the guys who are winning elections aren't really paying attention right they are they're doing their own thing um well it it can seem that way but the question isn't whether the people who are winning elections are listening to us whoever we are yes but well think of it from the standpoint of people who are interested in philosophy and the underlying ideas that move societies the real question is whether we are listening to them by them I mean the people winning elections right including those for whom whom we may not support because well I say this reflecting on the Trump years I think one of the weaknesses of Elites who worry incessantly about Trump and who are confident in their conviction that people who vote for him can only be deplorables it's a kind of phrase we're missing something if we think about it that way because nobody even even politicians who tap into Grievances and anger and resentment including resentment against Elites touch on something important and so I think we have to figure out how to disentangle the legitimate grievances that figures like Trump appeal to to disentangle those legitimate grievances from the ugly sentiments with which they are they are often uh entangled connected so we need to think and attend tend to and listen to not only those politicians but also especially the people who are moved by them and inspired by them and and and if the Grievances are shaped not in economic uh terms but in cultural and religious terms yes if that is what propels a right-wing movement yeah does that become more permanent does that become more um sort of Dee rooted it's is much more potent yes in fact the success of right-wing authoritarian populist figures and parties is usually a symptom of the failure of progressive politics I certainly think that's true in the United States with the success of trump and so I think it should be an occasion not to look down on those people who are voting for Trump and similar candidates but an occasion to ask if if he is as disagreeable as we here we in scarecrows think he is what does that say about us why is it that we have failed to offer a compelling alternative and does it have something to do with the tendency of Elites to look down and the cultural sources and sometimes the religious sources of populist appeal that too is worth taking seriously because a technocratic politics that assumes it's only about the economy misses the deepest sources not only of the politics of grievance but also of any politics of Hope a politics of Hope can't just be about technocratic things it has to address the deepest cultural and spiritual sources that move people that gives rise to people's anger and frustrations and resentments but also to their hopes and aspirations and for for the most part mainstream liberal Elite technocratic politics over the last four or five decades has had a Tiner to that dimension of politics and aspiration and and this is a global Trend it's not unique to to to America yes because we've just I mean we see the backlash against Elites in many Democratic societies and it takes somewhat different forms but it's worth asking why why the appeal of more nationalistic politics sometimes various forms of religious fundamentalism in various countries and societies connected to the populist backlash and I think it's because for four to five decades governing Elites embraced I would call it a hubristic conception of the economy and of Politics the idea that a certain version of market-driven finance-driven globalization is the wave of the future it's a fact of nature the Advent of finance and technology and globalization National borders matter less the free flow of capital in goods and people across borders is the wave of the future and any anyone who challenges it or criticizes it must be parochial or backward or intolerant and that hu hubristic picture essentially said leave it to us the to govern as technocrats really we are simply adjusting to the inevitable wave of history and Technology well that was a contestable picture of globalization and it should have been contested and debated and challenged and it wasn't really not by the mainstream parties in fact going back to the 80s and 90s the political figures who presided over this and I well it began really with the market fundamentalist faith of of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher but even after they passed from the political scene and gave way to Center left figures and parties I'm thinking of Bill Clinton in the United States Tony Blair in Britain Gard schroer in Germany they did not challenge the fundamental Assumption of the market face they didn't challenge the idea that market thinking and Market mechanisms are the primary instruments for defining and achieving the public good they softened to some extent the harsh edges of a pure Le Fair yeah way of governing but they didn't challenge the market faith and they depicted what they called globalization with a capital G as a fact of nature like the weather Tony Blair said at one point there are those who say we should stop and debate globalization you may as well debate whether Autumn should follow summer so it was again Bill Clinton spoke the same way it's not something we can turn on or turn off we have to adapt to it but that covered up a political and economic project that did bring growth in to some uh to some parts of the societies but it also brought deepening inequalities and more than that the hubristic attitude toward success that accompanied it led the winners to inhale too deeply of their own success to forget the luck and good fortune that helped them on their way to forget the contestable character of the economic project they were insisting upon and then when it seemed to come tumbling down with the financial crisis in 2008 that could have been a moment to rethink and reconstruct this way of thinking about political economy but they fixed it they patched it up and left it uh they they did the bailout and they fixed the banks this created enormous anger on the left and the right on on the left we saw the Occupy Movement you remember and then the candidacy of Bernie Sanders suddenly challenging Hillary Clinton on the right It produced the Tea Party Movement and the election of Donald Trump and we haven't figured f it out but I mean the the mainstream parties have not figured it figured it out since but what they miss this goes back to what you were asking about the the cultural and spiritual sources of Politics the the mainstream parties and and Elites still don't get that and so the the populist nationalist figures who leites worry about rightly in some respects they do get it they're filling the moral void created by a kind of hollowed out public discourse uh as well as tapping into the Grievances and that's where uh religion and nationalism come in Professor sandel when you speak about Elites as the villains of the peace or not villains of the Peace of the wrong pH perhaps but as missing something important but you know and and and creating the Way Paving the way for these movements but when you see in America now I think you can see it to a degree in India we've seen that the elites are not actually can be coopted fairly easily can be coopted can be coopted and I mean so say for example the liberal Elite that had done fairly well in the last 40 years by a CT this post globalization world can switch fairly easily to the politics of victimhood to the politics of minority beating perhaps or justifying it to a degree to to accepting The New Normal of the populist demogo how do you frame that in the context of Elites non Elites where they fit into all this post the kind of political shift that's happened over the last 10 15 years across the world it depends what aspects of the new dispensation they're embracing and accepting and what aspects they're retaining a critical distance from so you would have to kind of help help specify uh the form that this uh co-optation as you describes as you describe it takes um secularism is a western construct say they will say in India now yes which wasn't said 20 years ago by by the same people in his louder voice yeah or you could argue that nationalism of the kind we see now yes was something that was always there but suppressed but this argument was not made when it was suppressed by the same people for example well okay let's take nationalism and secularism go right to the heart of it I was speaking earlier about the technocratic seemingly value neutral picture that mainstream governing Elites offered of the global economy that they were promoting and this is connected to it's not the same as but it's connected to the question of secularism as a governing philosophy now this goes back in the case of India to the independence movement and to Neu and also in the 1940s and 50s there was a kind of faith in countries around the world that the way to a tolerant Society the way to avoid communal conflict and violence was to insist on governing principles that were entirely secular even to the point in some countries as this liberal secular picture unfolded it was a version of liberalism that insisted that citizens leave their moral and spiritual convictions outside when they enter the Public Square and this I think was a mistake a mistake for two reasons first it's not possible to decide fundamental questions of justice and law and rights and freedom and the common good without reference to substantive conceptions of the good of the good life of civic virtue of how to live it's not possible so any politics or economic policy that pretends to be neutral on those fundamental questions of meaning and of the good life is implicitly making those choices without owning up to it and people sense that so it's not possible but neither is it desirable to try to conduct politics in a way that is truly neutral with respect to contested moral and spiritual questions or questions of the good life it's not desirable because what it creates is a hollowed out public space that can't persist for long people want public life to be about big things about larger questions of meaning and purpose and belonging and identity and if a purely secular technocratic political Outlook creates an empty public space sooner or later that public space will be filled possibly by narrow insistent intolerant moralism which typically take two forms religious fundamental ISM or hyperism these are the two forces that will fill an empty public space a hollowed out public discourse if that space is not filled with even teeming with contested but still substantive uh conceptions of meaning of the good life of virtue of what's worth caring about about and this trend carries even to the intellectual Elite I mean even they were they are not shielded from this trend right because we all even at the level and here I'm using philosophy in the disparaging sense even at the even if philosophically they may think I mean they yeah liberal confident htic aite says I've been maligning them here uh even even if they think it's much safer less contentious to try to keep moral and spiritual questions outside the Public Square we all have moral and spiritual convictions we care about things and to insist on a a sharp separation between public and private to the extent that it creates this hollowed out public sphere that misses something that misses the the deepest meanings that stir people across the political Spectrum including those Elites who may be presiding over it and so it didn't surprise you or doesn't surprise you that Elites are turning more and more illiberal it's not because earlier we're talking about the the people the bottom of the pyramid kind of revolting uh now we're also saying that the elites are also turning a liberal it's not just about all right tell me because they there are meanings different meanings of illiberal of liberal and illiberal but tell me a little bit what you mean about the elites turning illiberal I think I do know what you mean but spell it out a little bit a I will bite this I think the elites are shifting as some would argue they always have with self-interest and power they're following power and they're following their self-interest and if that means abandoning some LGH held stated values that's fine but that's not but that's that's self-interest that's not turning illiberal or is it that's what I'm I want to for self turning a liberal for self-interest so so I think I think is that is that what you think is that what you have in mind maybe maybe maybe a liberal would be uh let's make a more broader definition of liberal I guess it is you know somewhere the strength of democratic institutions aren't as important as we once thought they were the the idea that um you know there there should be a separation of church and state for instance you know I mean especially in the Indian context this looks like a very important concept I mean you know we've had rulers and kings and you know we've had all kinds of right uh sort of government States all kinds of forms in India that have always had a spiritual person standing right you know next to them and always being part of it so the things that we took this idea of CH of keeping spirituality and culture out of the Public Square it's a very post-world War kind of a conviction comes from from the post of you know after World War because we saw what happened when they get mixed yes um the elite today don't mind that the elite today in India don't mind moving to Dubai they don't mind moving to Singapore they they they they don't see what they are gaining necessarily from a vibrant free de press they don't see what they're gaining from just civil liberties okay so all right well there there are two two issues here and it's it's really important to try to separate them on the question of self-interest embracing or putting up with illiberalism for the sake of self-interest that's one thing and I'll illustrate it with an example that I know better from the us there are the support for for Trump comes from two sources there are traditional well-off Republicans who went for Trump because they wanted the tax cuts and wanted deregulation standard Republican fair and they were willing to put up with the other stuff but that wasn't why they went for it that's the self-interest but there were others who went for Trump and they tended to be those uh working people those without University degree not because of their economic self-interest but despite it because they were drawn to the politics of grievance they were angry against Elites they felt looked down upon and here was someone standing up to those who are looking down on them now those are two different sources of Trump's support now what's the relation to liberalism and illiberalism well one abides it out of self-interest the other is moved by it now so so that's I think it's worth distinguishing those two sources but you were making a stronger point about illiberalism earlier you weren't just this is why I think there may be a little bit of a difference in in the way the two of you see this I could be wrong but the Anan you were suggesting if I heard you right that even for Elites the liberalism has a kind of appeal it's not just something to put up with for the sake of economic advantage and this I think is the more challenging and intriguing possibility because what it suggests is that a certain kind of national pride matters not only to working people who feel excluded and looked down upon and unrecognized it matters to the society as a whole and to people at various levels within that Society yes and so bringing the stronger Notions of naal identity and pride which may be bound up with faith Traditions is inspiring or at least alluring across the society independent of the self-interest and I think that's I think there is something in that too uh and worth worth thinking thinking about with whether that's to what extent that's at work but and that goes to a broader point about liberalism and you mentioned the the kind of Heyday of the liberalism of secular neutrality at the end of the second world war in the 40s and the 50s Isaiah Berlin who was perhaps the political philosopher who spoke out of that experience and as a defender of liberalism wrote A wise man once said that to believe in the relativism the in the relative validity of One's Own convictions the relative validity of One's Own convictions and yet to stand for them unsling is what distinguishes a civil ized man from a barbarian this is Isaiah Berlin a product of the 50s of this way of looking but what that I always thought that was a very strange U insistence that slogan seemed to seem to me strange because if our moral convictions are merely relatively valid you have yours you have yours I have mine there's who's to say which one is is true or valid if my moral convictions are merely subjective why should I why should I stand for them unflinchingly why shouldn't I stand for them provisionally or qualified or trying to think them through in the company of others and figure out whether I maybe should shed some of my uh subjective preferences in the light of clarity about Justice or the common good so I think there's a deep incoherence I mean Isaiah Berlin was a great figure but a deep incoherence in that idea that liberalism can be based on the idea of pure subjectivity of morality and that if anyone who thinks the assumption is that anyone who has deep moral convictions and doesn't see them as merely subjective preferences that they're on the way to fanaticism that's a terrible mistake I think that instead we should think of ourselves in so far as we are grounded by or drawn by certain moral convictions not as being on the way to fanaticism but as being on the way to deliberating with fellow citizens who may see things differently and so so what what is in your view the state of democracy then if what is popular is actually moving away from democracy for the elite and for the non- elite if we're kind of all voting towards sort of a way of life which is not as Democratic as it was in the 50s and the 60s convictions are not are we sure that that's the case on on is this moving away from democracy or is it a moving away from um what seemed to be a settled consensus on secular neutrality but that may actually have concealed certain um governing principles and convictions that now maybe are are viewed as contestable y I think it's it's it's the second so to bring so democracy is alive and well and thriving I wouldn't say that no I think a democracy is struggling and in Peril but the reason it is is that our public discourse is largely hollow hollow and empty of large moral purpose democracy is in Peril in part because this whole period of emptying out the Public Square of larger meaning brought in um a lot of intolerance and brought in dangerous uh voices a a kind of populist backlash that contains some that speaks to some legitimate yeah grievances but that also comes with um various forms of intolerance xenophobia racism we see this in the debate about immigration in the United States for example so I mean that's one of the most fraud questions now in American politics is immigration and it shows how there are there are dark elements of this the xenophobia the racism the insisting that people who come across the border our criminals and uh pose a danger that's the dark side but the idea of national Community membership belonging that underlies some of the worry about immigration that's worth discussing that's worth debating unless I mean there for example there could be a debate about whether the only just immigration policy would be completely open borders where people are as free to move across National borders as Goods should be According to some or as capital should be that should be a debate that should be a discussion that's an open question what's the liberal side of that what's the Democratic side it had better not be just the settled assumption that there's nothing to discuss here yeah build a wall and let somebody else pay for it and that's it well either that or it should be all should be all open yeah there has to be some debate as between those two polarities it seems to me Professor you know this I could just add one thing the reason we shy away from that debate and here we back to your sense of we liberal Elites okay is patriotism or national identity and pride have become suspect as part of this picture we've been kind of maybe unfairly painting of kind of liberal secular technocratic Outlook it's a mistake for Progressive parties and politicians to allow patriotism and national identity and belonging to become a monopoly of the right there is no reason it needs to be a monopoly of the right because there are competing conceptions of what it means to express national pride and a sense of belonging and Progressive politics has long required sources of solidarity the left speaks of solidarity the right monopolizes the term patriotism but the left makes a mistake to seed the language of patriotism and national pride to the right in so far as left or Progressive politics depends on making citizens alive to their Mutual obligations in virtue of sharing a common life and a public project to together it has to speak the language of solidarity which is to say in the setting of the nation state the language of patriotism and belonging and national identity it may be a different conception of nationalism or of patriotism than the right but then that should be the debate in fact I will go one step further and say that I think any I think the problem with the elites if and I I'm saying you're you're using the word we for me with with Elites so if the elites will have me I'll say the problem with us is um is that there's a tendency to actually look down on anything which is seen as popular right anything which is seen as populist or even popular it could even be music it could be anything like it could be a Bollywood box office huge film but like if it's done really well if I'm really Elite I'm not I mean I I'm going to position myself as somebody who didn't like that because it was too it was it was not intelligent enough for me and there's a there's with that I agree with you but it's a problem that's illustrated by the fact that populism populism is now under a shadow because it's entangled with these other yes elements that we've discussed in the US context populism in the 19th century was a movement of farmers and industrial workers against the the powerful Elite largely in corporations banks finance then it was the railroads and uh and the banks and the oil companies right uh who it was a movement against concentrated power that was unaccountable and in that sense it was a democratic small D Democratic movement now even then it was not entirely exempt from racism and anti-Semitism the early populist movement in the United States in the 19th century had a nativist strand but it wasn't only about nativism and racism and anti-Semitism it was about trying to bring concentrated economic power to democratic account that that was the origin of populism in the American context going back to the 19th century and so it would be a mistake to view populism today as necessarily antithetical to democracy it's a paradox if that were the case because populism strictly speaking is a movement of Ordinary People typically the powerless against the powerful and what's happened is that Center left parties in particular in democracies around the world have lost credibility with working people traditionally Center left parties Social Democratic parties they represented the the working people yes against the powerful yes but that's flipped so that today if you look at the vote for Social Democratic parties in the US in Europe well that say the Democratic Party in the US the labor party in Britain this the largely more abundant Socialist Party in France Social Democratic party throughout Europe the voting profile has flipped it used to be that those without a University degree voted disproportionately for Center left parties and those with University degrees tended to be the better off the affluent they voted for center right parties it's the opposite now now and by 2016 in the US the democ ratic party had become more attuned to the interests and values and Outlook of the well educated credential professional classes than to the workingclass voters who once going back to FDR and the New Deal constituted their primary base of support and the same happened to the labor party in Britain and the same thing happened to the Social Democratic parties of Europe and in India it's a little different right in India uh and and you know you you I want your view and S how you thought how you think about this and You' visited India more than I realized when I was doing research on this so you so you have a view um that what's popular now what's populist is not left right you know it's actually I think just uh it's it's in a sense a a Revolt or it's painted to be a Revolt to minority appeasement that's what's popular um a revolt against what's taken to be minority minority appeasement that's color that the political uh sort of populism has been able to paint and minor just to be clear because I'm I'm learning as I as I go minority appeasement means the Govern spell it spell it out a little bit no minority appeasement I guess the question is the question is no it's important important I'm not just trying to put you on the spot to some degree to some degree there is a the the whole political popular movement in India the last 10 years has kind of come from a place of saying the majority will not apologize for being the majority and it's a it's a it's a it's obviously a very religious you mean the Hindu majority the Hindu majority apologize being a majority the Hindu majority was never a Consolidated vote that's what's happened now the Hindu majority has become a Consolidated vote and they have been painted to be the people who were oppressed actually that's what I think has been so successful in how this government has done it um what happens when you know what what happens next uh because in your in your examples in in the in the UK and the US it it was a very different scenario but here you've been able to actually say the oppressed was the majority so what happens now well I'm not sure what happens now but but when you spoke of about appeasing minorities I thought you might mean um non-hindus or I thought you might be referring to reservations but you weren't or were you no I wasn't referring to reservations that question but I would love to come to for Action at some point in this conversation and reservation yeah so so you're asking me so where does it go now I don't know but I my hunch would be it depends and it depends on whether the the opposition parties can find the the leadership but more importantly the mission and purpose to articulate an alternative governing Vision that takes a account of the importance of the things we've been discussing national identity and pride and the importance of giving public expression to meaning including spiritual meanings can there be an opposition party or parties that can reimagine an alternative uh vision of democracy that draws on India's uh democratic tradition which is itself a source of great national pride rightly so yes but that um rearticulates the meaning of that democratic tradition in a way that can speak to the aspirations um that Modi has been able to articulate and express to do with national identity and pride there's not one single version yes of such a vision and so I think what happens how it unfolds really depends on the political imagination and will of those who would uh would challenge the BJP and their vision of National renewal uh who can articulate a compelling conception of democracy that doesn't depend on a purely secular liberal technocratic neutral way of thinking about the nation and national pride and belonging um and tradition yeah um that's that's a demanding task but that's and if you've been paying attention to our oppos oos today it's that's a tough task to to expect them to kind of follow through on but I just just finish the uh but assuming they do that assuming they get all their ducks in a row and they're able to find a message that actually carries and that works um but they lose right and but this the the other wave the BJP wave is so strong and so majoritarian and and powerful and it just it you know it works that that that site is undefeated voter turnouts are at alltime high in a sense you know we sort of people are people are voting people are paying attention people who never thought you know I mean people are talking politics in a way that you know I don't think has happened in a long time in India so in a sense political conversation is is is vibrant right um what if you know the the right-wing does all the things that the left wing is afraid that they'll do and they do it with the support of a large majority sort of voter base you know suppose and and I'm just saying I don't see this happening but to hypothetically speaking they say that we going to remove the word secular from the Constitution because it was it was inserted in the 70s doesn't have to be there uh or you know or they they suggest to do illiberal things um what happens then um is would you say that democracy is in Peril because they're able to do all of this or would you say democracy is fine because it's the majority that's voted for this the majority has voted for all these in word commerce illiberal things so then is is democracy doing fine if that happens or no because democracy is not the same as majoritarianism democracy is is not only about voting or about majorities democracy at its best describes a public culture of Liberation and ongoing argument and contestation and so for democracy to flourish it's necessary that there be sites and occasions for genuine citizen deliberation about these kinds of questions you said anant that that Democratic U argument is vibrant I was watching television last night and I saw very Fierce I would have warned you against doing that if you I was fascinated by it okay well partly because the there was an argument about taxation of Temple revenues and but the ferocity of the debate intrigued me and it was um now you could say that that's that that was a vibrant debate or you could say it was a misdirected debate and so what I have in mind is not exactly that now we we have we have and I should say we have on American cable television and talk radio all sorts of rude shouting matches yeah partisan shouting matches and ideological food fights we have plenty of that too some of it in in in our Congress that you could call that vibrant or you could just call it valuable and there's a difference what what I when I say that democracy is not about majoritarianism neither is it about ideological food fights where epithets are being hurled and where the where there's a high level of heat but very little listening for the idea of democracy as deliberation requires more than volleys back and forth y listening listening not only for the words spoken en by the interlocutor or by the opponent but listening for the principles or the convictions lying behind the position of those with whom we disagree and that's a rare and special thing and it doesn't just happen and we're not born being good at it listening of this kind is it's a Civic art it's a civic virtue and it has to be cultivated and nurtured and there have to be a occasions for it and the kind of volleys that I was describing either in American talk shows or on the TV show I was watching last night uh on Indian television that's not what I have in mind that's not democracy deliberative democracy at its best but for that we have to find ways of creating um alternatives to social media yeah for one thing which which hooks us and keeps us glued to our screens by inflaming us and which you're not on what's that you're not on social media you you've chosen to stay away from it yourself right I'm not on it and uh my my sons do they're on it I mean they to a point to a point but uh no I'm not on it so we need to find Al alternatives to that but we also need alternatives to the traditional media settings for these debates and we need to do better in in higher education at equipping young people with the skills but also with the philosophical background and engagement to argue together to reflect critically on their moral and political convictions to figure out what they believe and why because unless young people have that experience they're not going to be very effective at engaging in discussion and debate with those who may disagree and so democracy as the art of deliberation of persuading and being persuaded y of listening this is what this is what democracy requires this is why democracy is more than majoritarianism yeah where is the incentive this is a for deliberative democracy from two fronts one is from the populist government itself or the populist leader itself has a stake in making democracy less deliberative perhaps given the kind of or the demagogue certainly does and so does so does big Tech which is now one of the biggest forces in the world with unlimited money and resources so the creation of this deliberative space how does one a did it ever exist say in a you know in various context in its ideal form and how did it exist and how do we reclaim that space in the context that we find ourselves in now well first we need to rein in the tech Giants and social media companies because they're corrupting the possibility of of healthy public discourse and they're doing it not because of the technology but because of the business model that supports the technology the business model depends on keeping us and our children Glu but also us glued to our screens for as long as possible and they figure out they can do this by inflaming us and enraging us for as long as possible the better to gather our personal data all for the sake of selling us stuff through targeted advertising that's a perverse business model and it leads to these these very corrupting Tendencies so and it'll get worse with artificial intelligence sorry it will get worse with artificial intelligence it'll just become yes because it will be able to Target us more and more precisely and to engage us and inflame us and enrage us more and more efficiently so I think we need to to break that business model there had been proposals to um well either to tax targeted online digital advertising or to ban it or to ban it for a targeted advertising let's say to children as a starting point but perhaps go further and force these companies to provide their services in in other ways through subscription models for example or in other ways but that's that's the negative response that's trying to diminish the grip the corrupting effect of social media platforms on public discourse the more affirmative because the answer has also to be more affirmative not just how to break that the hold that they have we have to reimagine how to use technology ology and digital platforms and the internet to create spaces and occasions for public discussion within countries but also now globally and this I think can only be done through experimentation uh some of it can be funded perhaps by public-spirited uh private sector actors companies tech companies ideally should get into this but also not for-profit foundations U and higher education should be experimenting I mean we did Once Upon a Time an early experiment in putting online my Justice course you you were saying on earlier you saw it on NDTV yeah when we first did this experiment this was before there were mukes before online education was a big thing we filmed the the Harvard class on Justice and the idea was simply to put it on television and online and see what would happen we never imagined that tens of millions of people would want to watch lectures about philosophy online but when we first did it I thought oh public television that will really uh provide you know people an opportunity and they said but we have to create a website too to put it on a website and they wanted to spend some of the budget on that and I didn't really know what they they meant really why should we do that I mean nobody I know you know yeah looks at websites and no no no this is this is what so you know I went along with that and only a tiny fraction of the people who watched it watched it on television yeah um it was really online that people saw it well that was sort of an early stage experiment but if we're talking about Democratic discourse it's not enough to diffuse even worthy programs and courses on political philosophy what's really intriguing to me is how to create um use the technology to create dialogue um virtually that be supplemented with in-person Gatherings classes discussion groups and so I've done a few experiments others have too along these lines with the BBC we did a a series called the global philosopher where we had a u a digital wall where we were projected we could project up to 60 countries people from 60 countries on the digital wall and we took a topic climate change immigration Free Speech income inequality a different one each time and I was standing alone in the studio but we had people from dozens of countries and we had a debate in a discussion to see to what extent that could work this was just before Zoom so it was a novelty to have all of these these digital images people talking to one another now that they're it's been developed with zoom and through the pandemic we gain more and more experience with this but creating experiments for local and Global public discourse online but also in person and ideally I think they should be combined right um we have to experiment to go back to the affirmative alternative to the impoverished public discourse that we have now you mentioned the university as a deliberative space so I think it's we should should discuss Harvard of course where you are but this notion we see particularly that in the University space even in the United States now there seems to be a limit to free speech perhaps that there is over the Israel Hamas conflict there's been the kind of we saw University presidents summoned by the legislature we saw them have what do you make of that and what does how does that what does that board for deliberation even in the longer term on as issue as contentious as that well what we've seen on University campuses is not a good thing because there has been a freezing up of openness to discussion on fraught questions including the uh Israel Palestinian conflict but not only that I mean there this problem was um already arising even before the Hamas attack of October 7th uh with regard to other issues and I think we have to do the same kind of reimagining in the University that we've been discussing with regard to public discourse and the use of uh online platforms there are tensions on campuses and students do feel inhibited in voicing their views in public on sensitive questions within the classroom and you've seen how we do it you know in the Justice class that I've been teaching for many years I have not yet experienced that hesitation or reluctance but that's because it's possible within a classroom even with hundreds of students to create certain norms and expectations not by laying down rules I've never given them rules in advance about what you can and can't say and how you can say it we plunge into the question and the Norms evolve people students get the sense pretty quickly about what counts as a reasonable intervention as a respectful disagreement and it works even on fraud questions such as affirmative action or reservations um we discussed back when it was deeply contested the question of same-sex marriage students were able to do this um and Free Speech versus hate speech are among the topics that we've discussed and it works but with with in the campus setting generally uh I think we need to do a better job and during this period uh since October 7th when campuses have been polarized by the Israeli Palestinian conflict there have been I've worked quietly out of public view with a small group of Israeli and Arabic and Muslim Students from the region who want to have dialogue but it's a small group we've done it out of public View and some of them want to do something in a more public way but others less so and and I did to try to kind of nudge this forward I invited an Israeli and a Palestinian uh and one Israeli and one Palestinian friends of mine to engage um remotely and they're both philosophers an Israeli philosopher and a Palestinian philosopher to discuss U the conflict and we did it as a webinar because many of the students and but it was public so Harvard and nonh harbard people were able to join in this case the anonymity that a webinar provides did I think enable some students to attend who might have been hesitant to gather in a room like this and to be seen as kind of engaged in an argument on that subject I think it's too bad that there is that reluctance but these are some of the ways that I you know I've tried to encourage kind of discourse that could could ultimately bring bring people into a public setting to do this so first handle on the education piece okay good just quick followup just know but what do you make of the this seemed to us from the outside it was a global story of the state or the the Machinery of the state in this case the legislature but summoning getting involved in how a university internally handles this whether that is the kind through the kinds of processes you're saying others should it be an internal University matter when does that what is the line for us to invite policing of or not policing is a strong word but of other people having a say in what goes on in a free speech inside a university I think that in this case it was a congressional hearing that republicans in Congress were using as an occasion to beat up ivy league universities which they've been wanting to do for a long time for reasons quite independ dependent of this particular issue so They seized upon it as their opportunity and they succeeded Beyond I think their wildest imagination two of the three University presidents who testified have since resigned Under Pressure so it but it was a political Ploy it was a successful political Ploy I don't think it's a good thing and you use the word policing and then Drew it back actually they have now subpoenaed all kinds of records and documents from Harvard and other universities as part of a congressional investigation so this is not the role that Congress should be playing with regard to universities uh the the cover or the Avenue that they use to justify it is they need to make sure that the universities are acting uh adequately to combat anti-Semitism on the campus but somehow I don't no now that's a problem that's worth taking seriously but somehow I don't have a lot of confidence that um highly partisan Republican members of Congress are well suited to help universities overcome that problem but but would you but would you agree that the limits of free speech uh you know when I was in college I was in Los Angeles I USC I I couldn't imagine there was any limit to free speech in America compared to other parts of the world that I've seen and been to that we're seeing that in America that this is this there is a limit to free speech here this it's showing because the noisiest places in America were college campuses right and you were seeing were I me or I I thought literally until like 2 months ago I thought they would still so um are there limits to free speech in every society right like I mean in Israel you you can say anything you can't talk military um you know have is there a limit to free speech wherever you've seen even the most thriving vibrant democracies well there are two we need to distinguish two different um kinds of limits to free speech there are legal statutory limits and accepted limits limits but even this is debatable because some some societies have laws Banning hate speech for example yes and others don't the United States does not yes most European Democracies do have laws restricting hate speech the US Supreme Court has not uh permitted that we're an outlier in that respect so there's that debate about whether a hate speech for for example should be legally prohibited or not and part of that debate is a debate about whether it's the most effective way of combating hate part of that debate is about constitutional principles but there I think the limits on free speech that you're referring to now on college campuses are not about legal limitations but about limits that arise from Norms what's accept the idea of canceling those who fall a foul yes of socalled allegedly woke opinion and so on those are the limits you're referring to yes and those limits have to do with norms and what's seen as acceptable and there are well how to put this um students do report feeling hesitant to voice views that they think will be unpopular or not accepted and that's a problem certainly a problem for Education especially a problem for civic education and so I want to do everything I can to lean against that to lean against that okay uh professor small game uh if you if you allow us to uh because you know we've always heard you ask the question what's the right thing to do uh right everybody familiar with what's the right thing to do yes so if we can ask you what the right thing to do is and in general in general about what no no no no no I'm going to I'm going to paint a few okay uh Democratic dilemas uh and you tell us what the right thing to do is um so we've discussed education so I we'll start with that what's the right thing to do for the president of a top IV league university uh if one of the donors calls and says we need to pull out our donations our our endowments unless you stop anti-semite anti-semitic uh sort of protests by students in campus what's the right thing to do for that college principle for the college President well first to ask the donor who hones up uh whether whether they're right about the level of anti-Semitism that they worry about because if they are right then the University is doing something wrong in the first place okay uh and the issue of donor pressure as such is not the main thing if the donor pressure is is pushing for something that's illegitimate then the right thing to do is for the University president to stand up and say I'm very sorry but that's not something that we can do that's that odds with our educational Mission the anti-Semitism case is more complex because if and this was part of what was going on in that Congressional hearing yes the Republican members of Congress who were pressing the Presidents had set kind of rhetorical trap first they insisted first they insisted that Palestinian Pro Palestinian protests uh that made certain chants from The River To The Sea for example where don't you agree that's an anti-semitic chant that that's what they asked and the college President sort of didn't quite answer and then later they came back if someone is caus calling for genocide um anti-semitic genocide shouldn't that be banned well they had already defined the chant the contested chant as an instance of anti-Semitic genocide and so the university presidents were trapped and that's why they so what they should say to the donor is first let's be clear about what the problem or the alleged problem is if it's a legitimate problem then you say to the donor you've got a point we're working on it here's how perhaps you can help us if it's not a legitimate demand then you have to stand up to the donor okay expensive though it may be but that's the mission of the University comes first and a related question from this I mean for example we don't want you to be read reading or assigning this or that kind of book in in the philosophy class or in a religion class then you just then it's a principal question the right thing to do is to say you have to give us the U the space to do what we think yes to teach as we see fit this whole episode has the Allure of IV League education overall in America and from students outside of America do you think it has waned a little bit what's your I'd be interested in your impression what do you think I I don't think at all I think I think the but what's your sense of it no no my my view is I don't think it's wained at all but win but I but I wonder I wonder if you feel that way in the US because the interesting thing about India is that almost every student I mean you know either aspires to or will apply at some point uh fore an American Education you know at least wants to yeah um I don't think it has waned though I should say this with a certain caution after this whole thing with the Congressional hearing and the aftermath the um the number of applications went down these were applications for early admission so you can't quite know whether that'll be true overall 177% at Harvard on the other hand Harvard gets generally about 60,000 applicants for 2,000 places so I I don't think it's going to be a serious problem in the long run which is not to say that Harvard and I league universities shouldn't get their act together and figure out how to restore a vibrant uninhibited discourse on the campus that's important quite apart from whether there is a temporary kind of loss of lust one interesting just to kind of connect a little bit one interesting thing about um American education is that sort of they're moving towards less reservation less affirmative action and in India it's the opposite here the trend is we're moving towards more and more reservation 50% reservation in in my state of Maharashtra you were Mumbai yesterday there's a new uh sort of they've added one more Community to the reservation uh quota so going to actually we're pushing the other direction and and America's pushing uh for Less reservation what lesson uh do you think one can learn from the other more or less well the US system is is has always been different to this extent what the Supreme Court permitted until just recently when it struck down race-based affirment of action it permitted considering race and ethnicity as a factor in admissions so long as there was no quota so there's one difference with reservations they did not permit quotas now you could argue that from the standpoint of principle there's no difference in principle between trying to achieve greater representation informally without an official quota and setting a quota I I think the court the US court was wrong to insist on there being a big difference between them but in any case as you point out the US Supreme Court just recently prohibited universities from using race-based affirmative action and I disagree with that opinion okay I think it was wrong I think that universities should be allowed to take into account um race ethnicity the life experiences that go with uh being a member of an underrepresented minority um the uh so I think the court made a mistake there and was wrong uh I think universities will still find ways of achieving diversity I think we've not done a good enough job of taking uh economic class background into account in evaluating applicants U I think there will be a debate now about whether so-called legacy admissions should be done away with legacy admissions means giving a preference in admissions to the children of alumni that's going to be hard to defend once it's no longer possible to give preference to racial and ethnic minorities so uh I think universities should care about the background of the students who can compete for admission and should take that into account and to that extent I hope we don't move away from from that and globally you think that anywhere in the world they should that's where you kind of that's where your heart is for all context well because it's very different than India right I mean it is and in India it's in education and in government jobs in a way that is not the case in the United States the US mainly it's a debate about education although it does have have some bearing in hiring but not in a kind of fixed quota way so I would say the the importance of affirmative action or reservations in any particular country depends on the extent to which those inequalities have left their mark on the opportunities that still exist and in so far as that's true and it's true in a great many societies I think it's important to take those inequal to try to address those inequalities in education and in other opportunities that which is not to say that any particular scheme you know may go too far or be too rigid that's I don't know enough about the details so I'm I'm aware in general terms about the extent of reservations and how they work but making that that's a judgment call as a at the level of principle which is what we're discussing I do think the patterns of inequality and disadvantage that bear on opportunities should be taken account of yeah uh you know just take your argument from to Merit just to examine it a bit in the context in some readings it seemed like it is a form of basically toxic individualism where you believe that all your achievements and not only are they yours and yours alone not when you're successful from the successful Elite not only are they yours and yours alone that the people who have not been able to get that is through their own fault yes so that I mean so the starting point of that in an American context is the individualism at the center of the debate and it's a sort of hyper exaggerated version of that yes in an Indian context we have a bit of a contradiction and I'd like you to think about two competing forces one is that there's huge and deep inequality yeah which has to be addressed and you have to bring people up in whatever manner you choose but the other is also a deep desire for individualism because family cast Village region you know the entire Urban rep people moving to cities is a way to be an individual mhm which is something that is actually not granted to some would say the majority of Indians so how do those two competing things of equality also based on ascribed identity through reservations as a first principle and this notion of wanting to get rid of your ascribed identity yes how do they how do you see that playing out or how do you view that yes it's very interesting what you're really describing if I hear you right are two different uh cultural expressions of individualism and what it means and I think you're right that the well you've called it the toxic individualism that I write against in the American or the anglo-american setting is the version of individualism that uh leads people to see themselves as self-made and self-sufficient and to that leads the successful to see their success as they their own doing the measure of their Merit and what goes along with this and this is the theme as you say of the tyranny of Merit what goes along with that is the tendency to think if I've succeeded that I deserve the full Bounty the market showers upon me and by implication that those who struggle those Left Behind they must deserve their fate too their failure is their fault this way of thinking about meritocracy it's it's interesting I'll come back to the second version of individualism in a moment meritocracy in especially in hierarchical societies seems an ideal worth aiming at a liberating ideal everyone should be able to compete on their own merits rather than to be held back by cast or class or race or ascribed identity and of course that stated that way it's a principle of equality of opportunity who could disagree who could disagree with the idea that no one should be held back by poverty or Prejudice but meritocracy adds this further element this way of thinking about success and the person who coined the term was a man named Michael Young who wrote a book The Rise of the meritocracy in the late 1950s he was a British sociologist and for him meritocracy was not an ideal it was a dystopian scenario the person who coined the term saw it as a dystopian scenario because he saw this was the the class system in Britain was breaking down in the post-war years finally Children of the working class had some chance to get a good education and to compete for jobs that was a good thing as he saw it but he worried that as equality of opportunity became perfected and as the meritocracy entrenched itself those who landed on top would come to to believe that their success was their own doing because everyone now has an equal chance I mean in this distant future that their success is their own doing that they deserve the benefits that flow from it and that those who struggle have failed on their own and furthermore he said those Left Behind will themselves absorb this sense of self-hate I'm just not good enough I'm not talented enough I don't work hard enough I belong where I landed he worried about this and he predicted writing in the late 50s Michael Young predicted that eventually there would be a populist Revolt that would overthrow the meritocracy he said in the year 2034 he was right except that that Revolt came 18 years ahead of schedule so he saw but then people didn't heed the the the neoliberals we were discussing some might say bashing at the beginning they embraced this meritocratic logic as the moral corollary to the neoliberal version of globalization and they were I mean the elites we were discussing were the victims of this backlash against meritocracy now the there is an alternative picture of individualism which does not see the individual as detached from background family uh tradition upbringing Community but sees those sources of our identity as ingredients of the constituents of what it is to be an individual yes do I have that right that's your second conception and there is think that's a a that's a version of individualism that is less subject to the kinds of critiques that I've leveled against the first kind of individual no I I actually I correct myself a bit then it's it is that but it also a desire to escape so it is also to say I don't want to be my cast I don't want to be my okay you know I don't want to be my background I don't want to be my poverty okay so that's all right then that's sort of partakes of the version that I criticized I mean I called it going way back I called it the unencumbered self i' I've written against and argued against the idea of that to be an individual is to be ultimately an unencumbered self not claimed or situated or defined by my background my family my ethnic background my religious I I've argued that that leads to to an impoverished conception of the person as unencumbered that runs parallel to the purely vacant hollowed out public discourse there's a connection between the two I think now just that one more followup on this but I would say im imagine the identity is a marginalized identity say in terms of cast identity yes in India and that is something that there is for example I'm told that the name change laws in India are some of the easiest because people should it was a Progressive thing to allow people to change their names to get rid of cast identifiers right that kind of individualism on the one hand which can be liberating because it is liberating you from this access of Oppression right while at the same time you need your ascribed identity is also the reason for your oppression and then the mode with which affirmative action is taking place or through which affirmative action is taking place those two sort of competing ideas at the same time for people right and the tension the tension as I as I hear it is between wanting not to be weighed down and burdened by an ascribed identity that's a source of disadvantage while at the same time well I put this as a question while at the same time wanting still to develop a certain kind of pride in one's past which is hard to do if we detach ourselves altogether from the past even though it's understandable if it's a source of prejudice and discrimination and striking that balance is really the Dilemma of forging an individual identity under circumstances where some sources of my identity may lead me to be the victim of prejudice and discrimination and exclusion so what's the right thing to do an Indian software engineer has an offer for a job that will double his monthly salary he has to leave his family and live without them should he take the offer and pay down the debt that he picked up to study and enter this Merit race or should he read your book on what money can't buy and stay with the nourishment of the family what's the right thing to do well I hope those aren't the only two Alternatives I hope that he or she can read what money can't buy and still feel the moral weight the tug of family even while trying to balance how to promote the family's good in the long term maybe through a financial opportunity so this is not to resolve the Dilemma but that's how I would frame it and I would not deny to either the opportunity to read what money can't [Laughter] buy you know a quick point to just I I found this very interesting when I sort of lived in when I when I moved to America for six years and then I came back and one thing that really struck me was just how hierarchal India is uh and just how um you know the hierarchy actually actually makes the system work uh and one of the places where that I saw it most you know in America in contrast every it's all equal everybody is equal and everything is equal that's great it's it's attractive it's it's fantastic but on the other hand if you take that concept of equality and put it into every Indian system I I I I get nervous I think it all just collapse I'll give you an small example and tell me whether my my first day in college you know the professor walked in my first class my I was like literally landed first time in Los Angeles my life this old American Professor kind of walks in and I just ran up and I pulled the chair for him to sit on I was ostracized from that whole class because they all thought you know and the professor was upset with me he said I can pull my own chair why are you doing this for me and you know and but but that's the way that education India works if you're not so surv almost to your teacher if you don't respect it respect him or her so strongly you you will not pay attention I mean you know it just it just would kind of collapse even in the family you know you there is a very the family identity in India is is is is the strongest I would say uh maybe even more than the indiv you know even in the people fighting for individualism and stepping out of these identities family is one that I think is is is the stickiest there is a head of a family uh almost always uh it could be a matriarch could be a patriarch but there is a sort of hierarchy so do you think about this idea of equality mixing with old cultures like India Japan is similar China similar how is there a way for this to merge seamlessly or will it create a lot of Havoc when it happens just to add to annan's question now we we will also have in the new there's a sort of new way of thinking that's coming on articulation which would say that the notion of equality that we're talking about is in fact a western construct as is the notion of democracy we might be talking about of a deliberative because this was always here as a indic principle in ancient republics perhaps so there is that deliberate the deliberative Democracy of India is a that Indian democracy is intrinsic and auto I mean self- emergent so even that so that s of sort of feeds into this idea that a lot of these ideas are they non-universal I don't know we can't know until we try and test and the tests arise in moments I think it's a sweet story an not about your offering the chair even though you were ostracized for it it's a sweet story because it reflects a gesture that grew out of your experience and and your sense of respect for the teacher and it came it was dissonant it was a dissonant moment for them yeah because they saw it as misplaced and yet there is there is something well sweet about it and the this you asked can it happen seamlessly translating different Notions of equality and of individuality one culture to the next seamlessly no but sometimes noticing the themes the dissonances the awkward moments these can be the most enriching moments and the occasion for Learning and sometimes reconfiguring or reimagining ways of understanding equality and respect because this is about respect as much as it is about equality what does it mean to respect human dignity and to respect people who perform certain functions who or who are assuming certain roles there's no single right answer to these questions the seams that arise sometimes awkward ly or with dissonance are the moments when Moray and morals come together and the line blurs we sometimes think morality that's about principles that's about right and wrong that's about Justice and Injustice that's about principles whereas Moray habits of behavior and conduct informal Norms attitudes toward teachers toward family toward parents these are mores they're not principles exactly but it seems to me that morals and mores come together there's the line between them blurs and blurs in a way that can create moments of learning and of deepening understanding when we notice the space in the seams and we should I think cherish that despite the awkwardness it sometimes brings generally one side wins equality wins with the younger people and respect wins with the older people so well I was thinking as you were telling the story what I I was about to say I'd kind of Welcome one of my students coming and bring but or would I yeah I'm I'm not I'm not sure okay sure okay we'll do one one sort of last what the right thing to do is so uh India China relations are getting tough unrest On the Border Indian tech entrepreneur gets an investment offer from a strategic Chinese company what's the right thing to do to go work there do you mean no no he gets an offer for investment or buy out uh of his Indian so an Indian entrepreneur gets an offer for an investment from a Chinese company to his Indian to indan Indian firm Indian firm yeah well it might depend on there might be the need to ask a lot of questions about the uh whether that investment would carry control and if so what kind of control what the governance structure of the corporation would be do we know that let's for a second assume that he remains in control but obviously it's a sizable investment so there he's on so the Chinese company's on the board he certainly is an influential entity in the company well there it I think it depends on the uh the concrete practical Arrangements that can be negotiated I would say that if it meant seeding control all together at that extreme then maybe forgo it I mean in a way though the company you've described or the technology you described is not quite the same as the university example there is a certain similarity to the example you asked about the donor calling saying uh do this or do that and there my answer was it depends whether whether what the donor wants is legitimate in line with the University's Mission uh perhaps the university EST strayed from its mission is it or is at odds with the mission and a similar kind of analysis I think would have to be worked out here wouldn't it so I think what I what I kind of what I want you to kind of take you with this example is that I feel you know corporates have in a sense you know they've in a sense become the new royalty they've become the new strategic asset in the Arsenal of a country yeah um do you agree that that that that the corporate power the power that businesses wield today uh in in society is much more than it was earlier and therefore now you know on the one hand the flag is important on the other hand even though they wield all this power in their society and in their country they don't seem to care about the Border as much as the as much as the voter cares the voter cares about the country and the nationalism but the corporate even though it's a strategic asset doesn't seem to care too much about right about the flag right should there be such a thing as corporate economic patriotism that's the question you're really asking sure yeah sure yeah and my answer to that is up to a point but it's um I think it's hard to answer once and for all uh I don't think that corporations however powerful should be a law to themselves should be as if Sovereign uh Nations I think uh corporations should be however Global in their Outlook and that's admirable and in their reach should still be alive to the um their National settings and should not be entirely heedless of the common good of their own Society follow up now given the power corporate enjoy and big corporations over elections over political parties do you think the new church and state separation might need to be business in politics and with strict clear lines on how they can interact you mean given the power of money and politics money and politics and so then big business in politics I'll just add to his question sorry about is there a clean way for any political party to raise money from corporates from corporates any in the world that you've seen that is there a clean way for no I haven't seen a way I can imagine a way okay but the the only way would be well corporates might not like this but the only way see I I think the only way to establish a church state division between money and politics is to to have publicly financed campaigns with spending limits and you raise the funds for the public financing of campaigns through taxation including taxation on corporates so you could call that corporate funded political campaigns but not of the kind that the corporates would perhaps welcome because well what I was going to say is that the uh corporate contributions should be anonymous to everyone to all parties and that can only really be achieved in practice through a system of Taxation that funds publicly financed campaigns super okay uh we're going to get some can I get a sense of how many questions there are in the audience before we get to audience questions okay so uh you know I asked for the sandal before this I said look you know we would love to be with you till midnight um but and and you know he didn't he didn't Flinch when I said midnight uh but but I did say I I when I say midnight I I think we'll try for for a couple of hours so before we get to the audience question uh Professor SLE I'll just do a quick rapid fire with you okay um and and and then we get to the audience because and the audience have been very patient but I think they haven't moved a muscle because uh that's kind of how um Keen they are to kind of hear from you um if we look at so so Rapid Fire have fun with it and you know short answers right if we look at the history all the history of humanity since the beginning of time are we moving more or less are we moving more leftward or more rightward neither because because what changes is the definition of what's left and what's right okay okay no what is Michael sandel's State of Mind are you are you optimistic are you scared are you cautiously optimistic I would distinguish between optimism and hope given the Peril that democracies face in countries around the world and given the paress hollowed state of public discourse it's very hard to be optimistic but I do have hope and the Hope arises every time especially when I travel but every time when I encounter especially young people where I find a hunger a yearning to engage in a better kind of public discourse than the kind to which we're accustomed and that hunger that energy that passion that spiritedness that IC and we had a session yesterday the inet Ys YSI session in at IIT Bombay the engagement of young people especially in debating big questions and in listening to one another and responding to one another that gives me hope that we can um that we can reimagine the terms of public discourse in a way that lifts up and elevates our arguments rather than leaves them leaves with the shouting matches that's wonderful and I I I'll also just add to your sort of feelings of hope that even we have seen in we're close getting close to the elections that the amount of interest there is an intelligent conversation on politics uh and there's a reach of it uh so so just to add that okay uh so a reminder maybe but answer in one line why should a party care for a minority I need two lines okay for two reasons first first because one day they too will be a minority in the minority second second even even more importantly even if they can't bring themselves to imagine that possibility respecting the minority is a fundamental condition of the mutual respect on which a decent Society depends okay the one mistake that Indian democracy must learn to avoid from American democracy not allowing money to dominate politics and political campaigns the one thing that Indian democracy should should learn to emulate from American democracy the social equality that we don't fully live up to but that you that you described in the Charming story you told a moment ago okay okay the one thing that Indian democra the one thing that American democracy should learn to emulate from Indian democracy the spirit passion for politics okay equality or Liberty if you choose one I can't because properly understood they go together each depends on the other [Applause] okay what is success for Michael sandel managing uh to contribute uh even modestly to promoting a better kind of public discourse across countries and across cultures okay the one secret ingredient to American soft power well the answer may have changed after January 6th in the attack on the capital which I think startled many people who who look to America as a symbol of democracy but I think the the length and I hope the persisting hold of democratic institutions is um and and the Liberty this goes back back to the previous question to the freedom that that makes possible not only individual toxic individualism individual freedom but Civic Freedom the the ability to stand on one's own two feet to speak one's mind to as a citizen as an equal okay I think that ideal though we realize it imperfectly is an important source of the regard that people have around the world for americ and and would you say that's under threat after Capitol Hill after Afghanistan after so many sort of things that are happening in in American politics and a you know even the popularity of trump after in spite of capital uh the popularity of trump for this election yeah and the fact that Trump has persuaded most of the Republican party that the election was stolen that that's serious and that does call into question even beyond the people who attacked the capital on January 6 who were relatively few the fact that millions of people believe uh his lie that he really won the election and that it was stolen from him that's very worrying and how it plays out is an open question okay um the one the one magic bullet that can fix social media ban targeted online advertising okay the one necessary that's too radical for some I think there there were some who liked it and there were others who were not so sure okay the one necessary condition for being a liberal in the year 2024 well if we mean liberal in the good sense yes that we and not the desicated version the the one important thing to being a liberal a good liberal is to listen carefully uh to rather than vilify those uh who who disagree disagree and what's the one the one condition for being a for being a good conservative same answer same answer yeah okay um Henry Ford or Elon Musk who is Michael sandel's choice of capitalist am am I forced to choose between those two well Henry Ford the there were a lot of problems with Henry Ford the one thing that would lead me to u to go for him uh though it's restricted my admiration is limited to this uh feature of Henry rep for that he recognized that the best way to develop the Auto industry was to pay workers enough so that one day they could buy a the Ford car that they were making there was a deep Insight in that and it's an Insight that's lost I think on much of capitalism today now Ford was also in not torious anti-semite and he had a lot of problems but in that one resp capitalist as a capitalist that Insight I think is worth uh worth heeding should intellectuals be on Twitter I don't know what happens on Twitter I've never I've never why would they want to be why would they want to be okay some audience questions please show hands here wow okay so we'll take two at a time is that okay first sure yeah okay yes the the lady right in the third row and then the middle behind that yeah please keep it short and please keep it to a question hi um you talked about moral limits of markets and I was wondering if you also see any moral limits to democracy in so far as it is conflated with populism and majoritarianism and you talked about the importance of listening um but I was my question is more do you see any fundamental Goods like you talked about a decent society and what are the fundamental things that make that decent society that can override popular will if popular will goes that can override that you think should if popular will undermines those fundamental Goods like equality or Justice how do you what fundamental Goods do you see that are non-negotiable okay for a decent Society well let me just answer that really quickly like the one answer basic respect for the rights of the minority including religious liberty the majority should not be able to override that please for one yeah Professor SEL back in uh back in 2010 when you spoke about um when you in your Ted Talk The Lost Art of democratic debate you had mentioned that when it comes to civil debate we are shamefully out of practice shame shamefully out of prac shamefully out of practice 14 years on where do you think we stand worse worse so what what's going to be our our takeaway term for shamefully out of practice I think that was my first question and a quick follow up on a much lighter lighter note um I note that instead of democratic debate we've used deliberation discussion and discourse today a lot more do American cable TV channels and Indian cable TV channels have anything to do with that uh switch from debate to discourse the it could be that the shift is because debate has been discredited because of its association with the shouting matches and the food fights the partisan food fights that often appear on cable television or other forums I would like to redeem the term debate from that shallow shouting match picture to make it more continuous with discourse but I think that accounts for for speaking less of debate and more of deliberation good evening sir um yes yes oh there you are yeah so it's debatable that the free market economy has not done Justice to equality and or it has done Justice to equality and establishment of the welfare state uh perhaps that's because the fundamental construct is at odds with the objective and perhaps some of it also has to do with the hubris that you alluded to uh do you think a hash of that same free economy model as we are increasingly see it play out will be able to deliver the climate agenda Will Will the Market Faith deliver the climate agenda are you asking well the short answer is no no because to to figure out how to cooperate together to make the transition to a green economy economic incentives can play an important part a carbon tax I think could play an important part but fundamentally we need to change Norms we need to change the way we live with nature and uh shifting attitude this goes back to a theme that's run through our discussion is not something that can be achieved by economic incentives or Market mechanisms alone it requires political deliberation it requires persuasion it requires Shifting the way we understand our relation and live with nature and America can learn a lot from India about living in harmony with nature but it it refuses to it always comes and tells us how to deal with climate change right I mean do you see that see that kind of a that contradiction that you know yeah I I I think so I think we need if living with nature yes rethinking that is part of U making a transition to a green economy this is a perfect example of how spiritual Traditions yes are relevant and important and mutual learning from spiritual Traditions that Accord greater uh emphasis and weight to Harmony with nature I think is an important part of the the deeper transition that we need to make and that that requires I think certainly from an American point of view uh a learning from other Traditions older countries yeah um is is there a question around jurist Prudence or anything to do in the legal space can I yeah because I that's one thing we haven't spent much time on quickly that yes I come uh good evening Professor that was very uh thought-provoking uh lecture I really appreciate that uh I practice uh constitutional law in Supreme Court here uh I want to understand democracy I agree with you when you say democracy is not magorian ISM and I disagree with you when you say uh democracy is a culture is what's going on uh in the context if we have a direct voting today majority if we have are direct voting today in United States majority of Americans will say don't send 60 billion to uh Ukraine rather than spend on us but uh America if sends $60 billion to Ukraine to support a war and says this is because we are a d uh D vibrant democracy so I feel no it is not the will of the people but in the name of the will of the people you sending that you doing something against the will of the people so then what is democracy that's my question I have question a related question but in 19 in 202 yeah very short uh 2024 64 countries perhaps even 70 countries are heading in for elections so can we hope that we live in a very Democratic World okay well shall I take those two questions together or did someone else has a question on Democracy maybe while we're on that topic anyone else question democracy on that topic okay uh when you go there then sir yeah just trying to I am rind gya I am also a lawyer sir I would like to ask if within the present constitutional framework maybe a right-wing government uh whose supporters we say hate the elite or the intellectual middle class as they say this government wins a election how will we say that the country is uh not so Democratic as it was earlier or the Democratic Traditions are going down what's the reason for saying so okay if if a if a populist government wins election or reelection how can liberals say that this was that this is threat not to the Constitutional framework of the Constitutional guarantees that are there if it is not fair election they want a free and fair election it wins freely the text at least yes how do we say that yes well then I think we would say that the people have spoken and that the government that's been elected or reelected has a democratic legitimacy and right to rule and that those who disagree with that government or with that candidate have to figure out how to persuade the public that their their mission and purpose and agenda is is better and it's um I think that's that's the con the only conclusion to be drawn now if the um if a government wins election or reelection and is in power for an extended period of time and begins to erode or to change the basic constitutional framework in ways that undermine democracy and Liberty and respect for minority communities then that's a different matter then that does constitute an erosion of democracy and to move from the the Indian context to the American context Donald Trump is claiming that this time when he's in office he'll get better control over the administrative apparatus the last time those of us who worried about Trump found that there was a small Saving Grace which is that his malevolence was exceeded by his incompetence at governing he didn't really know how the government worked worked this time he claims he's had advice during his time out of office and that now he'll find people who will really do his bidding rather than impose kind of institutional obstacles to some of the more extreme uh things he would like to do for example to use the military to send the military into cities where he thinks there are protests that should be put down that kind of thing so if that happens that I would consider that undemocratic or anti-democratic even if ordered or carried out by a um figure of president in this case who wins election but it it all depends on on how intact are the uh Democratic institutions the Constitutional protections as well as respect for Democratic norms all the countries going into elections well it is striking how many countries are going into elections and how strong and pronounced is the tendency in many of these countries to embrace what are sometimes called strong men and they do tend to be men the people who fit this description figures who project a kind of authority that promises to to vindicate the um the anger the worry the frustrations of uh a great many people and anytime that we see across democracies a widespread politics of backlash and grievance there's reason to worry there's a reason to be critical of those who created the Grievous es who I've argued often were the liberal technocratic Elites who presided over a kind of neoliberal economy reason to be critical of those who created this opening and we see this in many of the democratic countries now R Ukraine Indonesia Bangladesh Pakistan Taiwan us and India included yes 64 countries but even if you look at the labels of those countries I mean there is nothing Democratic about it oh I see so you're saying for example when Putin Putin is going to be elected or some would say selected even is it really an election sort of it's only in sort of so we need to re uh you know hope for democracy or we need to redefine democracy I see yeah well then that raises the question whether Putin's selection upcoming reelection if we can call it a reelection counts as truly Democratic or not it Bears a certain formal similarity in that there people do cast ballots and the ballots are counted in some fashion but if any serious opposition is banned and jailed and its leaders are killed to look at the Russian example then even though it's an election it's hard to call that a democracy what we what can we hope for so what can well in the case of Russia it's so I so I just I'll just rephrase the question we can move on from this but is there is there of all the large major countries in the world is there one country that you think is your best bet for thriving democracy today there there isn't one that stands out uh for a time we were uh celebrating the the young woman prime minister of New Zealand remember during Co she seemed to really be but then you know that that didn't last very long it's hard to find a single a single example to point to the question the back there P has a mic I think yeah please um hello one second good oh hello I'm vant um school student um so at the beginning of your speech you spoke about how political leaders are assuming that Global we're assuming that globalization was the way forward do you think that's the same for other political doctrines like say laser sphere or democracy as a whole is I missed the last part sorry so you said at the beginning of your speech I heard that globalization was assumed as the way forward do you think we're also assuming other political doctrines as correct and do you think we should like maybe deliberate on them more like laser political doctrines like democracy as a whole and free market capitalism so so I you I didn't understand did you get the question so are we should we assume or should we debate whether democracy as a principle is correct a correct way of governing is that your question yes and other political doctrines like that like bigger things bigger things well I think as I understand the question we've been assuming here that democracy is a good thing and we've been debating what counts as democracy but the question you're raising if I understand it is shouldn't we also be reflecting critically on whether democracy is the best way to organize a society or whether some other systems should be just as earlier in the disc discussion I was calling into question whether neoliberal globalization is the best economic Doctrine shouldn't we have a similar critical reflection on Democracy itself that's how I hear the question and I think it's a serious question and I think we should have that debate and and competing conceptions of democracy we do sort of uh we don't often debate them explicitly but they underly the argument ments we have about how to govern ourselves and maybe bringing to the surface the more fundamental question about why democracy matters is it the best way of governing perhaps that would be a good thing in a healthy thing thank you for that thank you yes the gentleman here on the front please and we'll I think take one more after that and wrap up suale how do you rate the present day Indian Judiciary whether it is standing up to a majoritarian government uh you might haveen seen the election funding case samesex marriage case and some of the cases in which uh the nature of places of worship is changing the nature of places of worship yes places of worship so how do you rate the present the Indian Judiciary how to how do you rate the present day Indian Judiciary can you make a quick rate the Judiciary Indian Judiciary in dealing with those questions yes and can you make a quick comparison with the the Supreme Courts of us and Israel well these days there's a there's a related question here so we'll take that a related question yes go ahead so I actually wanted to keep it more General so that you know you could shape the question and the answer uh this hope that we have you know this dream almost that we have for a decent society and everything uh what role do you see Judiciary playing in it and where do you think it has most lacked be it in the US or be it in India and where do you think it has best exist excelled whichever country yes well thank you so two questions about the Judiciary the Judiciary at its best especially in constitutional systems constitutional democracies the Judiciary at its best not only adjudicates disputes and conflicting interpretations of the law it also in doing so serves as an institution of cific education which is why the opinions not just the decisions but the the written opinions offering the reasons the justifications these are important not just for legalistic reasons not just to speak to the lawyers or to the litigant but also as moments for civic education especially where big public questions are being decided such as the kinds of questions in the that the gentleman mentioned and so this I think is the one of the most important tests of the role the Judiciary can play in a constitutional democracy safeguarding important rights under the Constitution that's crucial and we've discussed some of that tonight protecting those rights against majoritarian incursion and violation that's an important role for the Judiciary but the civic education explaining offering justifications in opinions and in dissenting opinions can model the kind of public discourse we here have been uh discussing and as for my view of the Indian Judiciary compared to the American Judiciary these days these days I find myself um admiring the Indian Judiciary by by contrast with some of the decisions the US Supreme Court has made of late okay um there's a there's a question I I already committed to somebody earlier I forgot yeah that lady there at the back please yes we'll end we'll end with that last question please hi um I think we've been asking you to solve a lot of problems for us so here's one more how do you ensure a free press when the government of the day kind of is the biggest Advertiser and also uses uh it access to the media as a way of putting pressure on it and just related question then add to it while we get the mic to you add to it one a mic will come to you just add just add add to it how do you do good journalism when it also has to be entertaining and catch eyeballs and get advertising right right okay has social media social media brought in free speech no I I think I've got it um I think social media has um done more harm than help to the cause of free speech properly understood but it's impoverished speech and narrowed it so I think um I think it's done done more harm than good um now on the um I've lost track of the prev journalism the journalism oh journalism right the if the uh media is dependent on advertising and other forms of payment from the government can the uh what does that do to freedom of the press um it's and and more broadly the need to cater to ratings The Market eyeballs both of those imperatives to chase ratings or to win advertising from government or government agencies is damaging to the Free Press we were talking before about the public in of campaigns as a way to U lessen the power of money in politics there's a parallel challenge with regard to freedom of the press because if the media is funded in a way that is too beholden to powerful advertisers whether those powerful advertisers be the national government or state governments or corporations or who who care about the ratings then uh we're likely to have a degradation in the quality in the fearlessness in the courage and in the quality of coverage of media coverage which suggests that we may need to consider other ways alternative kinds of media funded in in ways that may be from not for profit from Civil Society alongside the profit driven ones not to the exclusion but to see whether we can experiment with new forms of funding and support to support the kind of coverage that is necessary in a free Society for for democracy to flourish yes Rashi has a question and in today's in today's um uh go ahead go go ahead in today's political strength in the world how do you U categorize as far as the strength of democracy is concern from 1 to 10 or 0 to 10 in India America and China yeah always the toughest questions come from her I've noticed that are you a journalist no you're not yeah I think it's too um it involves nuanced qualitative judgments that can't be captured in numbers I'm sorry that that because the number would only make sense if it stood for a qualitative description of why and in what respect so I would hesitate to put the numbers or a rank ordering or you could just say good bad very good excellent yeah characterizing the state of democracy in in these countries I I will say this is is uh that's for the rapid fire round something I would resist in part well in part for for I think a respectable reason I mentioned before my ambition to contribute to Global public discussion of these questions one of the experiments that we did was I mentioned the one with the BBC I did a series of programs and they continue for NHK K which is Japan's public television network where we assembled groups of students from the US Japan and China and discuss ethical and political dilemas and one of the programs we did was on democracy and one of the debates we had across this group of students from the US uh China and Japan was what counts as a democracy and is China a democracy and going into it I think the American and Japanese students would have said well the answer is obviously no the Chinese students who admittedly had been very well prepared but they were very very strong uh Debaters going back to debate um and very sharp they made the case as the Chinese government a few years ago in a white paper made the case that China is a democracy but not a multi-party democracy that multi-party c this was their the argument and the um you may consider it absurd on its face but we had a serious discussion about whether multi-party competition is or is not the most effective way way of democratic governance and that their argument was that democracy is governance for uh and on behalf of the people to promote the common good and they their argument was that by that measure China arguably is more democratic than the United States now the American students had their replies uh as did the Japanese students and although I don't think they were persuaded the discussion did take seriously that argument in the United States for years upon years we couldn't even pass public infrastructure spending our airports were deteriorating the Chinese would look and say you know we can build a massive airport in the in in the time you know it takes you you you've a lot ow your infrastructure to Decay so the American students did have a a challenging they did have a challenge and they took seriously the argu in responding to it and if I had just invited them to put a number or excellent good Fair we would have missed something that was actually very important and that even if it wasn't persuasive in the end to the American students it did lead them to recognize and to acknowledge certain important respects in which the formal Democratic institutions with the multi-party system in the United States may fall short of realizing the full measure of what democracy means which goes back to the much in our discussion about democracy being more than the majority prevailing having to do with practices and habits of deliberation and argument and listening and mutual respect that um that constitute democracy at its best super okay absolute last question sorry absolute last question please go ahead fast you don't have mic okay so get the mic here first then please finish your question until the mic gets there yeah just so I just ask you a question maybe it's not related um you know you spoke at the the beginning about hollowing out of the public space now 80% of uh Indians are Hindus and the pivot the Hindu religion is pivoted on Detachment and at the same time now there has been a uh a kind of soaking of the the public mind at least of this 80% or part it in ritualistic religion to the point of corrupting The Shining pivot of Detachment as as a philosopher what do you think of this and have you seen this in other parts this magic realism have you seen this in other parts of the world well what's fascinating about this question and this question could keep us for an evening by itself this is this is a fascinating question because we've been talking about the relation of religion and politics from the standpoint of politics and from the standpoint of democracy and minity rights and so on but there's another whole aspect of this question that has to do with What Becomes of religious traditions and spiritual Traditions When U they become bound up with a certain kind of politics and what you've just suggested could be the starting point for a long discussion and debate about the impact fact of the political uses of Faith traditions and spiritual traditions on those traditions and the the mode of understanding uh this gets into fascinating theological and philosophical questions in particular about Detachment and embeddedness uh from from a religious point of view so I don't have a quick answer except to say this is an enormously important and fascinating question we've been discussing religion from the standpoint of politics but the other half of the question philosophically is yeah um to think about religion and Theology and in particular Hindu faith and traditions and teaching from the standpoint of politics and I I would love I would love to hear those who are far better qualified than I am to have an evening on this question I would show up I would tune in I'll just add one interesting to a little bit more complicated to make this more fascinating and more complicated in my view I find the leader of the RSS which is the big religious organization uh sort of the Hindu organization I find whenever he speaks he speaks much more progressively and much more Prime ministerially than the politicians in the BJP so just to even if you take the religion to the political side just to cre that I couldn't resist that one yes you really just really really short since we've already covered a lot of facets revolving around a lot of integral I just digress with the discourse a bit they say that Pro providential dispensation is when is that you cannot really truly be happy at all times you know right and there's no one moment when you'll feel only happiness in entirety but I would want to know that one moment in your life when maybe you felt like your happiness at its peak and it's stopping isolated with with every other emotion or are we yet to await that moment do you mean me personally or speaking you personally um thank when my two sons were born and I was there in the room with my wife when she gave birth to them and when ever and this is episodic over the course of our lives together their lives whenever I hear our over here in the Next Room our two sons um talking together and laughing together with each other wonderful well sandal thank you so much for your time you've been very patient you've been indulging us with long you you've taking all the complications and the questions we really appreciate it uh Professor handle is going to stay back to sign a few books for about 10 minutes so if you guys are interested to hang out please do uh thank you so much really thank you for the audience two hours you've been with us very patiently thank you so much thank you Professor sandal Akash Anand I'd now like to invite uh Mr Raj Kamal J Chief editor of the Indian Express to present a token of appreciation to Mr sandel this illustration is by shaji day I'd also like to invite Dr Rashmi saluja executive chairperson religa Enterprises limited to present Professor sander with a bouquet [Music] [Music] thank you thank you Dr saluja as we conclude I'd like to thank our partners presenting partner relig Enterprises limited associate Partners deance Hospitality partner the Meridian please stay back from for some cocktails and snacks thank you so much thank you for staying till 9:00 p.m. thank you

Channel: The Indian Express

Views: 56,712

Keywords: indian express, michael sandel, michael sandel interview, michael sandel india, michael sandel ethics, michael sandel justice, michael sandel ethics upsc, michael sanders, michael sandel express adda, michael sandel indian express, michael sandel trump, michael sandel politics, michael sandel india today, michael sandel harvard, justice book michael sandel, 2024 election, election 2024, 2024 us election, us elections 2024, donald trump, trump vs biden, philosophy, ethics

Id: MKUCVIeZ_5Q

Length: 146min 42sec (8802 seconds)

Published: Fri Feb 23 2024