Are Centrists Evil?

The older I get, the more radical my opinions become. This is not how its supposed to be – although this fascinating analysis of 40 years of plotting british attitudes does say that -

“The public first began to look to government rather more in the wake of the financial crash of 2008-9, though in the event that mood appears eventually to have dissipated. However, the same cannot be said, so far at least, of the COVID-19 pandemic. Expectations of government in the wake of that public health crisis have never been higher. The public shows no sign so far of wanting to row back on the increased taxation and spending that has been part of the legacy of the pandemic, not least perhaps because of their dissatisfaction with the state of the health service. Meanwhile, there are now also record levels of support for more defence spending. So far as the public are concerned at least, the era of smaller government that Margaret Thatcher aimed to promulgate – and which Liz Truss briefly tried to restore in the autumn of 2022 with her ill-fated ‘dash for growth’ – now seems a world away.”

Ultimately any political party that wants to survive has to respect these trends and work within them. Public opinion may well swing back in the other direction in the future, but for now anyone who thinks the Truss programme is one voters will buy is entirely delusional.

Duncan Green of Oxfam has a useful post about the report which focuses more on the increased libertarianism of the UK rather than on expectations about the State

This blog has, on occasion, confessed my erstwhile liberalism or “centrism”. For example I did recently find that this Rory Stewart video interview about “the truth about British politics” just before the UK general election of 2019 was “brilliantly thoughtful” – not least for the care with which he treated the questions; hardly the most common of a politician’s responses. But a devastating profile in The New Statesman about Stewart’s book tour promoting “Politics on the Edge” has made me realise how shallow that reaction was.

It’s a book of recrimination, anger, shame and oblivion. It is about the failures of the Conservative Party, the failures of Britain, and the failures of Rory Stewart who said “he kept coming back to Tacitus” as he wrote. The Roman historian’s Annals describe the eclipse of the senate: its powerlessness under successive emperors and its descent into servile degeneracy. “Politics on the Edge” has the same message: parliament once knew better days. Its members are squandering a precious inheritance. Their failures are moral. Stewart thinks it will “make a lot of people angry”.

Stewart’s big mate these days is, of course, Alastair Campbell – the two of them have presented for the past year what has become the UK’s favourite podcast “The Rest is Politics” which I find a bit too smug and self-satisfied but which does exude a good sense of the “centrism” which is the focus of my concerns. Campbell actively promotes The New European weekly which has gone so far as to feature an excerpt from Stewart’s new book

But why do I find this “centrism” so objectionable?

Is it just GUILT about my previous incarnation?

Perhaps this post from 12 years ago gives a sort of an answer

In 2011 I was invited by a Romanian journal to write a piece about the 10^th anniversary of 9/11. My article was entitled “The Dog that didn’t bark” but the editors carried the warning that it was “a view from the left”. At the time I posted that certain issues arose from such labelling -

• Do the editors not realise that use of such a label for one (only) of the articles is effectively an invitation to their readers to ignore it or treat it with suspicion? What does this say about freedom of expression?

• It has been recognised for a long time that the left-right labelling makes little sense. Wikipedia has an excellent briefing on this. And I recommend people do their own test on the political compass website - which uses two (not one) dimensions to try to situate people politically.

• Criticism of the logic and effects of “neo-liberalism” has come from a great variety of quarters – not least the ordo-liberalism which has been the backbone of the post-war German economy.

• Finally, there is the issue of whether I deserve the label which has been thrown at me – either from the article or from the range of beliefs I actually hold. The references in my article are impeccably mainstream academia (Colin Crouch; Henry Mintzberg) and a final section clearly signals that I have no truck with statism. All my political life I have supported community enterprise and been opposed to state ambitions. My business card describes me as an “explorer” – which refers not so much to the nomadic nature of my life in the last 20 years as the open nature for my search for both a satisfactory explanation of how societies and economies work; with what results; and the nature of relevant mechanisms for adjusting what societies judge (through democratic processes) to be unacceptable trends. I admit to having been attracted in my youth to the British New Left’s analysis of British inequality in the late 1950s - but I was profoundly influenced at University by people such as Karl Popper and his The Open Society and its Enemies, Schumpeter (his “Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy” and Ralf Dahrendorf; and, at a more practical level, by Andrew Shonfield and Tony Crosland who were also writing then about the benefits of the “mixed economy”.

More recently I have generally been a fan of the writings of Will Hutton (whose stakeholder analysis of UK society was disdained by Tony Bliar on becoming PM). As an academic I was convinced by the critical analysis of UK and US political scientists in the 1970s which went variously under the terms “Limits of the State” or “problems of implementation” and was the softer end of the “public choice school” of institutional economics.

But, unusually, the anarchistic/libertarian sweep of Ivan Illich and Paulo Freire also got to me in the 1970s (which is why I am (unusually) located in the south west quadrant of the political compass). I therefore not only disdained the injunctions of the dominant left and right extremes of British politics of the 1980s but, as an influential Scottish regional politican, used my role to create more open processes of policy-making. Indeed community activists and opposition politicians were more important partners for me than members of my own party.
I held on to my leading political position on the huge Regional Council simply because I belonged to neither the left or right factions amongst my colleagues but was their natural second choice! The definitions I give in Just Words - a glossary and bibliography for the fight against the pretensions and perversities of power reveal the maverick me.

For the past 20 years, however, since I left the UK to work as an adviser on institutional development in central europe and central asia , I have not been involved in politics. My interest is to find some common ground in all the critiques of the current social and economic malaise – and to develop some consensus about the actions which might be taken.

Conclusion;

The heading to this post was deliberately eye-catching – meant only to challenge the all-too-easy liberal acceptance of the way things are. “So isst die Welt und musst nicht so sein” is still my watchword. Rory Stewart may have too high a profile for me but still remains a very interesting guy – this interview has him paarse UK politics in a quite fascinating way  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dw6ZyJ-3H8g&ab_channel=NovaraMedia

After thirty Years, how fares the system in Romania?

I'm having format problems with the blog and had to take down a previous post - here it is again

They say a picture is worth a thousand words – and documentaries can have an even more profound effect. I’ve just come across this documentary marking 30 years of democracy in Romania – made apparently 3 years ago. It’s a great introduction – with Romanians explaining the key events from 1988 with subtitles. My best friend (who is Romanian) tells me that it did, however, fail to deal with the continuing power of the security services over the political system.

I lived in Bulgaria and Romania between 2007 and 2017 – since then exclusively in Romania. 

For a decade I enjoyed crossing the Danube, with the last 100 km stretch of the drive on 

the highway through the Balkans and the sight of the Vitosha mountain which dominates Sofia 

always bringing a particular thrill. I wintered in Sofia and summered in my summer house in 

the Carpathian mountains – a picture of which heads this post

In the 1990s there was an interesting body of literature known as “transitology” which was 

effectively a retraining scheme for those in redundant Soviet and Eastern European studies 

University Departments as they tried to adjust to the new reality of “liberal democracy” and 

“free-market capitalism”.
The integration of many of these countries into the European Union seemed to leave the others 

in a state of suspended animation – still “transiting”. Except that the “integration” had not 

gone as planned – some countries (such as Hungary and Poland) had clearly reneged on their 

commitments and were challenging the “rule of law” canons; and others (such as Bulgaria and 

Romania) had been unable to satisfy the monitors that they had even got to the required 

judicial standards. Indeed Philippe Schmitter, one of the doyens of the field, went so far in 

2012 as to talk of “ambidextrous democratisation”
Bulgaria's world-renowned political scientist Ivan Krastev has (with US Stephen Holmes) 

written one of the surprisingly few books which attempt to assess the fortunes since 1989 

of the eastern countries – although its primary concern seems more that of “the crisis of 

modern liberalism”. It’s entitled "The Light that Failed – a Reckoning”. The book starts with 

a chapter on the psychological effects on central European countries of the “imitation game” 

they were forced to play and the demographic shock as millions left the country for a better 

future elsewhere; followed by one on how Putin’s Russia moved on in 2007 from imitation to 

“mirroring” Western hypocrisy; a chapter on Trump’s America; and a final one which takes in China.

The authors argue that part of the nationalist reaction in Hungary and Poland was the shock 

of realising that the European "normality" they had hoped for had been transformed into an 

agenda which included homosexuality, gay weddings and rights for Romas. But their emphasis 

on the “psychology of imitation” totally ignores the brazen way west European countries and 

companies exploited the opening which the collapse of communism gave them to extend their 

markets in both goods and people - with the consequences brilliantly dissected by Alexander 

Clapp in a 2017 New Left Review article “Romania Redivivus”.

Talk of “transitology” disappeared more than a decade ago and was absorbed into the 

Anti-Corruption (or governance integrity) field which grew into a "name and shame" industry 

- complete with league tables and Manuals. But the world seems to have perhaps grown weary 

even of its talk…
Alina Mungiu-Pippid is a Romanian social psychologist - appointed, in 2007, as Professor of 

Democracy studies of the prestigious Hertie School of Governance in Berlin - with a unique 

understanding and knowledge of the issue. This was her blunt assessment in 2009 of the situation

 in Romania

Unfortunately, corruption in Romania is not only related to parties and businesses, but cuts 
 across the most important institutions of society. Romanian media has gradually been captured, 
 after having been largely free and fair at the end of the 1990s. After 2006, 
 concentration in media ownership continued to increase in Romania. Three owners 
 enjoy more than two-thirds of the TV political news market. As long as Romania was a 
supplicant for entry to the EU, it had to jump through the hoops of “conditionality” to 
satisfy Brussels it was behaving itself. When Poland, Hungary et al were let in in 2004, 
the pressures started to relax – but The European Union’s Cooperation and Verification Mechanism 
(CVM) replaced that conditionality in 2007 and Bulgaria and Romania are still subject of an 
annual check of their legal and judicial health. Mungi-Pippidi therefore concluded her 2009 
assessment with a simple observation -

At the end of day, “democracy promotion” succeeds by helping the domestic drivers of change, 
 not by doing their job for them. Only Romanians themselves can do this.


Her latest book "Europe's Burden - promoting good governance across. Borders" (2020) is a must-read for anyone who wants to know why a quarter of a century of trying to build systems of government that people can trust has had so little effect in ex-communist countries. It starts with a sketch of Switzerland’s political development which reminds us that Napoleon was the catalyst for a 50-year period during which the Swiss embedded the basic structures we associate with that country. It is, however, Denmark to which most countries (according to Fukuyama) aspire to – although a study of its history suggests that, contrary to Dahrendorf’s optimism, that was more like a 100 year journey.
Her description of her own country, Romania, is quite damning –

• From 2010-17 there were 600 convictions for corruption EACH YEAR – including 18 

Ministers and one Prime Minister, Generals, half of the Presidents of County Councils

 and the Presidents of all the parliamentary parties

• The Prosecution system became thoroughly politicised through its connection with 

the powerful intelligence system – the infamous Securitate which was never disbanded

• The level of wiretapping used is 16 times the level of that used by the FBI

• Romania heads the league table of cases brought to the European Court of Human Rights 

dismissed for breaching the right to a fair trial – with a half of its cases so failing

• The annual CVM reports on the country are always positive and make no mention of 

any of this – on the basis that “questions about the intelligence services are outside our remit”!!

• TV stations run by those convicted of corruption have provided damning evidence 

of the prosecution service threatening judges and fixing evidence

One of Romania's most famous political analysts gave an extensive interview in 2018 which was important enough for me to summarise as follows –

• the so-called “revolution” of 1989 was nothing of the sort – just a takeover by the 

old-guard masquerading in the costumes of the market economy and democracy

• which, after 30 years, has incubated a new anomie – with the “social” media dominating people’s minds

• “European integration” has destroyed Romanian agriculture and industry - and 

drained the country of 4 million talented young Romanians

• After 30 years, there is not a single part of the system – economic, political, religious, cultural, voluntary – which offers any real prospect of positive change

• Even Brussels seems to have written the country off

• The country is locked into a paralysis of suspicion, distrust, consumerism, apathy, anomie

• No one is calling for a new start – let alone demonstrating the potential for realistic alliances

Dorel Sandor has clearly given up on the politicians and confessed to a hopelessness for the prospect of any sort of change in his country

“The stark reality is now that we do not have political parties any more. The Romanian political 

environment is in fact an ensemble of ordinary gangs that try to survive the process and jail and 

eventually save their wealth in the country or abroad. That's all! Romania has no rulers. 

It has mobsters in buildings with signs that say "The Ministry of Fish that Blooms".
One of the reasons why the EU is not too concerned about us is that it is that they reckon that you can only reform a driver with a car that works. We are a two-wheeled wagon and two horses, a chaotic space, broken into pieces. What's to reform? So it's a big difference.”

But he was least convincing when he tried to offer a way forward

I have a list of what to do – starting with the need for an exploration of what sort of Romania 

we should be aiming for in the next few decades. Such a process would be moderated by professionals using proper diagnostics, scenario thinking and milestones.
It would be managed by a group with a vision emancipated from the toxic present.

I have a lot of sympathy for such approaches – embodied, for example, in the "Future Search"

 method. But effective social change rarely comes from such an elitist approach; any such 

effort would have to demonstrate exactly how it would propose to deal with the astonishing 

level of distrust of others in the country.
In 2014, only 7% of the Romanian population could say that “most people can be trusted” 

(compared with about 20% in Italy and 40% in Germany).
The revelation of the collusion between the infamous Securitate and the Anti-Corruption 

Agency (DNA) has understandably fanned the flames of paranoia for which the Romanians 

can be forgiven - given the scale of the surveillance of the population the Securitate enjoyed

 under Ceausescu. Little wonder half of the population are Covid sceptics

Conclusion
In the 1980s it was Solidarity in Poland; Charter 77 in Czechoslovakia; and reformers in Hungary who were challenging the power structure – I remember taking the opportunity of being in the country to visit the Party’s “White House” in Budapest in 1987 to talk with a spokesman for the latter.
Bulgaria and Romania, on the other hand, were monolithic and frozen societies – with 

the only sign of discord being the odd Romanian poet – and on the Danube where protestors 

against a chemical plant included a few establishment figures such as Svetlin Rusev.
But the street has become much more active in the past decade – even if it is the more 

educated and “entitled” who are prominent there. And it is “the Crowd” that the power 

elite has always feared – particularly in the last century eg the infamous “Revolt of the Masses”

 (1930). And who can ever forget the moment when the massed crowd turned against Ceausescu 

in December 1989 – within minutes, he had been hoisted from his balcony by helicopter and, 

within days, summarily tried and shot.
It’s noticeable that the figures whose words I’ve quoted – Dahrendorf, Canetti, Krastev, 

Mungiu-Pippidi and Sandor – all represent the intelligentsia. I was brought up to take their 

words seriously - but they are not activists!
The sadly-missed David Graeber was one of the very few such people prepared to get his 

hands dirty… to work across the barriers that normally divide people and to try to forge 

new coalitions…The Crowd needs people like Graeber who understand how to bridge such 

barriers…………..particularly between the “downtrodden masses” and the “entitled”
Where is Bulgaria’s Graeber? There are, actually, several eg Vanya Grigorova – the 

economic adviser of the labour union “Podkrepa” (Support) and leading left-wing public 

figure – who has been travelling the country to present her latest book on labour rights 

and how to claim them. A year ago she gave this interview to Jacobin, which positioned 

her on the side of social change in Bulgaria and the region.

Both Covid19 and the greater concern about global warming – as embodied, for example in 

the recent Extinction Rebellion – suggest that the “normality” being sought by the 

entitled is a will o’ the wisp.
The Sofia protestors would therefore be well advised to widen the scope of their agenda. 

After all, smaller countries generally seem better able to “do” change viz Switzerland, 

Iceland, Denmark, Singapore, Estonia, Slovenia – particularly when they have women at 

their helm who have a combination of trustworthiness and strategic vision!!
Especially for them I updated my list of essential reading for activists – adding my own 

“opportunistic” theory of change which emphasises the element of individual responsibility 

as well as the dynamic of the crowd viz

“Most of the time our systems seem impervious to change – but always (and suddenly) an opportunity 

arises. Those who care about the future of their society, prepare for these “windows of opportunity 

– through proper analysis, mobilisation and integrity. It involves–

• speaking out about the need for change

• learning the lessons of previous change efforts

• creating and running networks of change

• which mobilise social forces

• understanding crowd dynamics

• reaching out to forge coalitions

• building credibility

I grant you that the time for preparation is over in Sofia; and appreciate that 

some of this may come across as rather elitist but the process it describes is still 

a crucial one – prepare, analyse, network, speak out, build coalitions, mobilise, 

no hidden games…..It’s a tough combination……

Our Desperate Need for Humility

This blog may strike many readers as an opinionated one but let me assure you that I am more of a hesitant mugwump – with my bum on both sides of the fence. I am loathe to choose sides – not least because I can see so many. Indeed it’s why the blog carries the name it does. It’s a celebration of the benefits from looking at the world from different angles. An article by Agnes Callard n the current issue of the Boston Review impressed me both for the clarity of the language and the message it contained about the importance of questioning loose thinking.

This blog may strike many readers as an opinionated one but let me assure you that I am more of a hesitant mugwump – with my bum on both sides of the fence.

I am loathe to choose sides – not least because I can see so many. Indeed it’s why the blog carries the name it does. It’s a celebration of the benefits from looking at the world from different angles. An article by Agnes Callard n the current issue of the Boston Review impressed me both for the clarity of the language and the message it contained about the importance of questioning loose thinking.

Socrates did not write philosophy; he simply went around talking to people. But these 

conversations were so transformative that Plato devoted his life to writing dialogues 

that represent Socrates in conversation. These dialogues are not transcripts of actual 

conversations, but they are nonetheless clearly intended to reflect not only Socrates’s 

ideas but his personality. Plato wanted the world to remember Socrates. Generations 

after Socrates’s death, warring philosophical schools such as the Stoics and the 

Skeptics each appropriated Socrates as figurehead. Though they disagreed on just 

about every point of doctrine, they were clear that in order to count themselves as 

philosophers they had to somehow be working in the tradition of Socrates
Over and over again, Socrates approaches people who are remarkable for their lack 

of humility—which is to say, for the fact that they feel confident in their own 

knowledge of what is just, or pious, or brave, or moderate. You might have supposed 

that Socrates, whose claim to fame is his awareness of his own ignorance, would 

treat these self-proclaimed “wise men” (Sophists) with contempt, hostility, or 

indifference. But he doesn’t. The most remarkable feature of Socrates’s 

approach is his punctilious politeness and sincere enthusiasm. 
The conversation usually begins with Socrates asking his interlocutor: Since you 

think you know, can you tell me, what is courage (or wisdom, or piety, or justice . . .)? 

Over and over again, it turns out that they think they can answer, but they can’t. 

Socrates’s hope springs eternal: even as he walks toward the courtroom to be tried

—and eventually put to death—for his philosophical activity, he is delighted to 

encounter the self-important priest Euthyphro, who will, surely, be able to say what 

piety is. (Spoiler: he’s not.) 

Her article resonates with those of us who are sceptical of the mainstream media (MSM) and the polarisation brought by the social media

Most people steer conversations into areas where they have expertise; they struggle to admit error; they have a background confidence that they have a firm grip on the basics. They are happy to think of other people – people who have different political or religious views, or got a different kind of education, or live in a different part of the world - as ignorant and clueless. They are eager to claim the status of knowledge for everything they themselves think.

Socrates saw the pursuit of knowledge as a collaborative project involving two 

very different roles. There’s you or I or some other representative of Most People, 

who comes forward and makes a bold claim. Then there’s Socrates, or one of his 

contemporary descendants, who questions and interrogates and distinguishes and 

calls for clarification. This is something we’re often still doing—as philosophers, 

as scientists, as interviewers, as friends, on Twitter and Facebook and in many 

casual personal conversations. We’re constantly probing one another, asking, 

“How can you say that, given X, Y, Z?” We’re still trying to understand one another 

by way of objection, clarification, and the simple fact of inability to take what 

someone has said as knowledge. It comes so naturally to us to organize ourselves 

into the knower/objector pairing that we don’t even notice we are living in the 

world that Socrates made. The scope of his influence is remarkable. But equally 

remarkable is the means by which it was achieved: he did so much by knowing, 

writing, and accomplishing—nothing at all. 
And yet for all this influence, many of our ways are becoming far from Socratic. 

More and more our politics are marked by unilateral persuasion instead of 

collaborative inquiry. If, like Socrates, you view knowledge as an essentially 

collaborative project, you don’t go into a conversation expecting to persuade any 

more than you expect to be persuaded. 
By contrast, if you do assume you know, you embrace the role of persuader in advance, 

and stand ready to argue people into agreement. If argument fails, you might tolerate 

a state of disagreement—but if the matter is serious enough, you’ll resort to enforcing 

your view through incentives or punishments. Socrates’s method eschewed the pressure 

to persuade. At the same time, he did not tolerate tolerance. His politics of humility 

involved genuinely opening up the question under dispute, in such a way that neither party 

would be permitted to close it, to settle on an answer, unless the other answered the same. 

By contrast, our politics—of persuasion, tolerance, incentives, and punishment—is deeply 

uninquisitive. 

But the additional message it contains is the value of geniune exchanges – of real conversations and here we enter the realm made famous by Theodor Zeldin (who will be 90 in a few weeks and is perhaps best known for his encouragement of the art of conversation). He is also a maverick historian whose books have searched for answers to three main questions

• Where can a person find more inspiring ways of spending each day?

• What ambitions remain unexplored, beyond happiness, prosperity, faith, love, technology, or therapy?

• What role could there be for individuals with independent minds, or those who feel isolated, different, or are sometimes labeled as misfits?

His work has brought people together to engage in conversations in a variety

 of settings – communal and business – on the basis of some basic principles
His latest book is The Hidden Pleasures of Life It's an epub so does need 

conversion

Socrates did not write philosophy; he simply went around talking to people. But these conversations

 were so transformative that Plato devoted his life to writing dialogues that represent Socrates in 

conversation. These dialogues are not transcripts of actual conversations, but they are nonetheless

 clearly intended to reflect not only Socrates’s ideas but his personality. Plato wanted the world to 

remember Socrates. Generations after Socrates’s death, warring philosophical schools such as the 

Stoics and the Skeptics each appropriated Socrates as figurehead. Though they disagreed on just 

about every point of doctrine, they were clear that in order to count themselves as philosophers they 

had to somehow be working in the tradition of Socrates.
Over and over again, Socrates approaches people who are remarkable for their lack of humility—which 

is to say, for the fact that they feel confident in their own knowledge of what is just, or pious, or 

brave, or moderate. You might have supposed that Socrates, whose claim to fame is his awareness of 

his own ignorance, would treat these self-proclaimed “wise men” (Sophists) with contempt, hostility, 

or indifference. But he doesn’t. The most remarkable feature of Socrates’s approach is his 

punctilious politeness and sincere enthusiasm. 
The conversation usually begins with Socrates asking his interlocutor: Since you think you know, can 

you tell me, what is courage (or wisdom, or piety, or justice . . .)? Over and over again, it turns out that 

they think they can answer, but they can’t. Socrates’s hope springs eternal: even as he walks toward 

the courtroom to be tried—and eventually put to death—for his philosophical activity, he is delighted 

to encounter the self-important priest Euthyphro, who will, surely, be able to say what piety is. 

(Spoiler: he’s not.) 

Her article resonates with those of us who are sceptical of the mainstream media (MSM) and the polarisation brought by the social media

Most people steer conversations into areas where they have expertise; they struggle to admit error; they have 

a background confidence that they have a firm grip on the basics. They are happy to think of other people - people 

who have different political or religious views, or got a different kind of education, or live in a different part of 

the world - as ignorant and clueless. They are eager to claim the status of knowledge for everything they themselves think. 

Socrates saw the pursuit of knowledge as a collaborative project involving two very different roles. 

There’s you or I or some other representative of Most People, who comes forward and makes a bold claim. Then 

there’s Socrates, or one of his contemporary descendants, who questions and interrogates and distinguishes and 

calls for clarification. This is something we’re often still doing—as philosophers, as scientists, as interviewers, as 

friends, on Twitter and Facebook and in many casual personal conversations. We’re constantly probing one another,

 asking, “How can you say that, given X, Y, Z?” We’re still trying to understand one another by way of objection, 

clarification, and the simple fact of inability to take what someone has said as knowledge. It comes so naturally 

to us to organize ourselves into the knower/objector pairing that we don’t even notice we are living in the world 

that Socrates made. The scope of his influence is remarkable. But equally remarkable is the means by which it was 

achieved: he did so much by knowing, writing, and accomplishing—nothing at all. 
And yet for all this influence, many of our ways are becoming far from Socratic. More and more our politics 

are marked by unilateral persuasion instead of collaborative inquiry. If, like Socrates, you view knowledge as an 

essentially collaborative project, you don’t go into a conversation expecting to persuade any more than you expect 

to be persuaded. 

By contrast, if you do assume you know, you embrace the role of persuader in advance, and stand ready to argue 

people into agreement. If argument fails, you might tolerate a state of disagreement—but if the matter is serious 

enough, you’ll resort to enforcing your view through incentives or punishments. Socrates’s method eschewed the 

pressure to persuade. At the same time, he did not tolerate tolerance. His politics of humility involved genuinely 

opening up the question under dispute, in such a way that neither party would be permitted to close it, to settle 

on an answer, unless the other answered the same. By contrast, our politics—of persuasion, tolerance, incentives, 

and punishment—is deeply uninquisitive. 

But the additional message it contains is the value of geniune exchanges – of real conversations and here we enter the realm made famous by Theodor Zeldin (who will be 90 in a few weeks and is perhaps best known for his encouragement of the art of conversation). He is also a maverick historian whose books have searched for answers to three main questions

• Where can a person find more inspiring ways of spending each day?

• What ambitions remain unexplored, beyond happiness, prosperity, faith, love, technology, or therapy?

• What role could there be for individuals with independent minds, or those who feel 

• isolated, different, or are sometimes labeled as misfits?

His work has brought people together to engage in conversations in a variety of settings 

– communal and business – on the basis of some basic principles
His latest book is The Hidden Pleasures of Life It's an epub so does need conversion

A Zeldin Resource

http://www.gurteen.com/gurteen/gurteen.nsf/id/book-conversation

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263330798_Zeldin_Theodore_1998_Conversation

http://www.oxfordmuse.com/media/muse-brochure[final].pdf

hidden pleasures of life http://www.anilgomes.com/uploads/2/3/9/7/23976281/gomes_tls.pdf

http://delarue.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/OLC-April-2011_DeLaRue_Art-of-Conversation.pdf