12 THOUGHT STYLE EXEMPLIFIED ‘The idea of the self ‘THE IDEA OF A THOUGHT STYLE In West Afvica cach person is composed of multiple souls. In India selves migrate from one body to afother. Widespread i the work! is the idea that a human person can be transformed fino an animal and back again. There i also the separate idea that fevery human person har an animal shape and that everyone ‘doubles back and forth between che two bodies, human’ and Ssnimal, In che Wes all these theories about the self are rejected. For us it sa fact that 2 person inhabits one body betwen birth sind death; normally che person in the Body iss rational, respon sible being, deviations from che norm have legal consequences I's very simple and staightforward. Psychoanalysts, 0 be sre, Ihave more complex ides about the machinery iside ie peeson: it ie Inyered into seat of contol, it may be an arena where diferent agencies contest, or segmented nto independent cogni= tive and affective realms. Apart from paychologit” weitngs ‘where something like homncal can be supposed to operate the part, thore are toms on subjectivity in erature and ar and Isto libraries of counselling on how to achieve seléawareness in counseling. But this counts as speculation or therapy, when it comes to law oF philosophy the central discussion focuses on fhe unity, rational, once and forall embodied person. In this say 1 wil take thitlemed consensus about a fact as an ills tration of 4 "hough sty TLodwik Fleck argued that any community (which he elled 2 thoughtcollective) developed ite own thought style, a more or less disciplined, consensually agreed st of principles about how the world sand what isa fact and whit i speclation." leck's au‘examples were drawn from scientific commits, In How ft: fuga! Think” I have tied to extend the idea, which to an anthropologist scems quite staightorwaed and acceptable. Many Blilorophers of science find it controversial, and others pug ‘hat. To help to present the anthropological approach ie may be ‘wef to give an illustration of a thought syle ouside of the Instary ofsiece. I wll ute the example ofthe broad consensi| about the nature of the self andthe person, Fist Iwill sy why itis so import to all our democratic institutions to beable co Ihave am articulate conversation about why other people's ideas of| the person seem bizate to us. ‘THE ENTERPRISE SELF Seuing up something called an enterprise culture is sometimes Justi by che claim ea it fees pessoas fms constraints onder ‘which they should not be. The person inthis context is suid to be driven by selBinureted motives. Community demands ‘imposed by bureaucratic regulation inhubie dhe pursuit of Feely chosen objectives, and 0 infings essential ibeces ofthe person ‘The utlitrian eae for the Fee market is transferred from econ comics where i can be tested, eo psychology where ic cannot. IF the market for ideas is important at all there would have to be important arguments about the nature of persons 38 well a: about their interests, However, although there is fortsight polical argument about the interests, on the nature ofthe person there is much dodging of the topic, skiting around or avoiding it Every culare protects some matters from questioning by dels ing thar enquiry about them is impouible. Such avoidance fs known a taboo behaviout, Iescems that in oue Western industria ‘ulare knowledge ofthe person and che selfs deliberately sunk into one of those arse of proteced public ignorance, “The case for maintaining that nothing canbe argued about che self thatthe idea of self is heavily locked into ideology. ‘The Frankfare philosophers aught unequivocally that ee sel ideal ‘ogy, and tredeemably enmeshed in political myth.” Trying 70 ‘become emancipsted from myth by the light of reson is ain reason i the instrument of oppression. To the eat of the ancheo- pologist, to whom ideology is in some ways synonymous with future, this is noc dhe pont to discard reasoning. On the con trary, by recognizing the ideological stuctae ofthe sel Adomo 212 ‘HoUGHT srvLE and Horkdcimer pointed to the right starting point for an invest tition, The iden of the self driven by slfrogarding mosives | ‘ondoubredly an ideological and culeural construct. This is well sccognied, but the comparative programme it indicates has not bbeen attempted. The proces of investigation neods to iden other self concepts, responding co other ideological demands, ‘within 2 typology of possible ideologies. The fmt task (0 explain more fly why’ our Larned converstions about the sf Se2 mulled, conficting, and inconclusive compared. with elk bout the mature ofthe sel in traditional African soceies that Sothropologist study. The sccoad iso start a moze anthropolosi- ‘ily sophiseatd conversation onthe subject, and then to work back from considering 4 variety of clerallyconsracted selves to considering what the self hast be like t0 be able to operate in an enterprise cure ‘The stating point is that ims vo kndw about human persons are pare of the sheworie of poideal coercion. Westemers have taken o hare the idea that the sof is an ideological comsensc. “The blank space im our theoretical scheme has been constructed precisely co meet that undersanding: beter dllow anything {hat may be sulin advance, rather than lend the notion ofthe petson to political abuse. Confronted with Nazi theories about fo kinds ofhuman persons, Aryan and other recs, Christianity had something to sa, bur its views eested om doctrine, not 8 | knowledge that could be validated inthe way of other depated| fica. A viable ide ofthe self cannot be entrenched by reference to religious doctrine, since the later isnot entenched. Anyone ‘his ready to eject the authority of the Church canbe fice of its dactrine. There is no immediate somatic feedback as there ‘world be fom denying she principles of grat. Tn eater European history Christan claims for orthodoxy Jvoked knowledge about persons beng constitted sith smmor- tal souls, the claims to knowledge about the person justified forcible protection fom the effects of sin and heresy. ‘That this teaching allowed violent poliieal coercion is one eeason why the ‘sid doctrinal claims have lost tei apeal: one doctrine conffont= ing another doctrine needs more chan loyalty in its defence. In Europe witchcraft ideas were used to inculpate persons wih the ‘wrong constituent elements in their souls: or two persons alle falyiside one body, ope controlled by the devi or to restrain 4 person alleged not fo be a fll human being a all, just a victim 213‘of demonic possession, whom it would be kinder to put out of| the way. Mle about penne se witches and sorcerers have been used int che past co justify crcure of marginals and deviants, and there would be no way in which the accused could rationally ‘defend themselves. Biologcal-determinis theoves of gender d= ferences ae also used to oppress.* Likewise, we could be fooled by the theory thatthe self Horishes in an enterprise culture and i sted in a enlture of hierarchy. Unies we can tuba it to reasoned enquiry this idea of te self could be jure as coercive 38 ‘ny other It materea lotr beable t have a reasoned argument bout the sel’ constitution and capabilities s0 a8 to be able 0 fespond with reasons to arbitrary politcal coercion, Tisah Berlin was exercised by this very problem His essay on two concepes of fredom distinguished one, which he regarded a5 legitimate, ffeedom ffom interference. The other concep, it his wiew illegitimate and muisble, was the idea of freedom to become or be a certain kind of complet, falled person. He argued thit the second is « conteadicton of the iden of liberty. Who is going to define the fled person and he person's completers? Anyone eie’s definition of a penton is apt t0 become an instrament of coetcion.” To prevent the concept of fieedom being put to coercive utes he emped it of content. At the same stroke he emptied the concept of the person. The lbetal concer with ficedom has put around this kind of knowiedge a Ihedge of ineffbiiry. The strategy is to insist that inside the person's physical appearance there isan inne sl, the real person ‘who is Beyond knowledge, The sategy isto place the topic of| pperonhood under taboo. A strong protective response (ike {boo} prevent an articulated theory ofthe person, However, it is not trie that we lie cogether without any exchange of ideas about what constitutes a person. In practi Iie, without being. phlosopess, we need t0 know what can legitimately be expected from other persons. Over the past eee Inundeed years che self and the person have become separated it the discourse of our Wester civilization, The category of self his ‘ben elasitied a6 the subject, inherently unknowable. The cate sory of person has been fled by the ned to meet the forensic equicentens of law-abiding society and an effective, sation Jodicial sytem. As pragmatically viable ideas, the self and he ppeson are compatible and work However, they are weak as fogical ids for arguing against theories of personhood with aa congenial poiicl implications. If someone wanted to oppose the idea underying witarian philosophy thatthe human Beng motivated primarily by selinteres, there no lgially powerful Eegument in its favour to amend.” The cae for an altemative ‘ew of the motives and satisfactions of persons would only be Iestrong a= the gut reaction it could provoke init fvour. ‘THE INEFFABLE SELF The problem in its modem form vas posed by Hume who, like Locke, denied the existence of a ‘sel-substance’, something tnderlying the episodic expeciones we have of outseles. The ‘ea ofa unitary, continuous, responsible self fll under ce knife of his general philosophical septciam. For lck of evidence, and for lack of reasoning to justify, Hume concluded tha the ss Sdentty and unity ate fictions. We are Bundles of representations held together plavbly by the similarity ofthe experiences we fave fom moment to moment, There being no elesubstance fur ides of ovr slf arises out ofthe well-oiled grooves of mental tssocitons; our remembered experiences, andthe simiariis| between them, and other connections between them which We sccognie, cee relations between our ides. These habits prom luce our idea of a continuous, rational, responsible self, which nothing else can justify. This is where he fle compelled to leave the problem, with much regret, and this i more or less where ‘est lie: Many ditinguished philosophers have proposed alter native acount Of the sls existence, sometimes mystica, some Himes scholastic, sometimes idealist. The alternatives ean serve wre enough, for anyone who rejects Hume's empirical plo- sophy. But if you sty with the poblem inthe terms Home set for it che belef in che unitary self is objectively unjustifiable, necestary and toc, but founded on a great leap of faith For example, Hever suggested that we could get round the prablem by assuming the self to be transcendent to all experience, ke necessity ground. Saree made nonsense of this ateacivesok- tion by showing logical Gaw ifthe ttanscendent self ix the round of experince ie cannot itself inspect itself, 30 how can i be known? Whit we know ofthe elf based on what we see of ts activity of knowing, and we have no grounds fo postlat ing some intinsically unknowable self behing that activity. Ineit- ively we want fo side with Sarte in denying dat the ses 215something intinsiilly unknowable, forever inaccessible. What follows below isin sympathy with the project for knowing the self rough its activites. In everyday encounters che knowablty (oF he slf is heavy engaged. We aim with confidence to know Slot about ourselves, Bur we cannot validate ous knowledge of selves except by ite reliability in prediction. As to persons, for public knowledge about personhood we are left without any 2gzeed theory about when the person starts, oe end: we sand in ‘onl dilemmas about eansplant surgery, abortion, merey kill jing, bran death, We disagree, while lacking a way of airing our disagreements cohereny ‘Knowledge of God comes under the sume disabilities, The strategy of chiming inefiabiiey did noe work too well for the defence ofthe idea of God agains the European tie of disbelief ‘But making God undefnale and unknowable might prevent members ofa plural community from trying to impose thee idea oF God upon one another. Inefability wil do ar much for the Self. However, the claim that i ineffable i weak 35 an nlloc= tual defence: Ineffabilty blocks a certain kind of enquiry, but it will not protect the elf from arbitcary dictators with brand new ‘oreticl justifications for discriminating between us. The only rupports forthe ides of ineffabilty ate goodwill and consensus Suppose goodwill absent and consensus failed? Suppese se our- selves, fickle 10 our principles, should change our mind about the worthwhilenes of those liberal values which the ineabilicy Principle is devised to save? The idea of the inffible self i just 2 blank space, a no-go ares for logical discourse. Ie gives no entry for reasoning and no hold in rational debate against our own possible wishes to espouse arbitrary, cocteve theories of selfhood nd personhood. Its a peculiar cultura constrict. ‘THE BODY-MIND LINK In Westen culture whatever we sy seriously about slthood and persone needs fo some extent to be compatible with what jury na coure of law will acept. This demand imposes 2 non-nege- tile link between the person and the person's living body. Because of embodiment, we cannot cai to be able to be thee places, or two, atthe same time. For the jury the paces of he slf have to conform to the accepted constraints of space nd time, This means that for us there ate severl philosophical 216 probleme abou slthood which other civilizations do not find problematical. Fir, the concept ofthe mulple selfs sbsolutly Dbjectionable. The jury room has ao use fora concep of person ‘with several constituent selves because responsibliey must not be {ified So there is no pleading for 3 eiminal in the name of a theory of homunealt who take over diferent compartments of fhe ses choices and responsilies, Second, the concept of the pusive selfs unacceptable ei no good explaining in cour ehat 1 peron's actions are under the control of external agencies, such 18 fries, eapecious gods, demons, pesoified emotions. fe will ‘ot do to deny responsibility by saying that a sorcerer as eurmed the person into a aombie. For any of thse versions of diminished responsiblity to be acepted jn the courts would enal a great ‘eal of rewriting of the law-books. For any of them to be plilo- ophiclly accepted would make uitarian philosophy even more ‘lfc ro maintain than its sow. Bur though we may aot like them at the level of gue response, we are in 3 weak position for ‘ying thi they are wrong, since we have pat the topic of the internal constitaion ofthe self out of bounds. We cannot cither say how those dheosies are wrong or how they might be right ‘Other people's ideas about the self are stacked on anheopol- ogists" sheves,cehnogeaphie oddises not worth bothering about for a technologically superior Westem clization. The argument howe that che ies of 1 unitary self, becaote i concords so ell with our legal and economic snsietions, exces a stanglchold ‘on public dalogue like that of primitive philosophies, Fit with legal and cconomic institutions controls the possibilities of dis- ttsson. Thank God for the stranglehold lathe history of West- fm jorispradence this particular version of self, unitary and fally tmbodie, isthe comerstone of our civil liberties, a block against tbiary defamation, We cannot acute someone of doing harm bby occult means in 2 dsant place while there is good evidence that he was asleep in his bed The impossibility of being in 0 places at once puts evidence based on visions and dreams out of ‘our, On that imporsibiy, most verdicts of witchcraft would fal Ie snot atall my intention to disallow our entrenched view sf the person, only to show how and why ie is entrenched, with 2 view to using the notion of thought ssle co develop an argu rent about community and calrre ‘Approaching the sclf pragmatially by this extemal route detases the charge of political bias and gives us a way of compar~ 27ing ideas of self with the legal instittions they uphold, The forensic uses of the self accord with the ides of the se a8 an ideological consrut. The idea ofthe forensic ssf was proposed by Jon Locke to solve the phlosophial problem of jurstying ‘the notion of a continuously conscious and responsible self. He tried to defend the idea on grounds of theoiogicl necesiry. When we stind before the Judgement Seat of God at she end of ox lives, he asked, how could we be expected 10 answer for our seeds if we have multiple or fragmented personalities? Therefore there mast be a unitary responsible sol Person, as I cake it is the name for tis sel Wherever a rman finds what he calls himself there, U thnk, another may fy isthe same person. Iris forensic erm, appropesing fctions and their merit and so belongs only to intelligent agents capable ofa law, and happiness, and misery. This personality extends ise Beyond present existence to what 5S past, only by consciousness, whereby ie becomes con femed and accountable, owns and imptes t itelf part ‘esions, just upon dhe same ground and forthe tame reason that ie does the present... And therefore, conformable to this, the apostle tells us, that atthe great day, when every ‘one shall recive according to his doings, the vecrets of bis Incr shall be id open’. The sentence shall be jusied by the consciousness all persons shall have, that they chem selves, in what bodies soever they appear, or shat sub- Stanecs soever that consciousness adheres to, are the same that committe those actions, and deserve that punishment fe them? ‘To anyone who believes in Gods Lat Judgement thie may be san adequate jstfstion of the unitary sf lodged in ite body, ‘burt fis to convince anyone who dacs not believe in God snd it should not weigh with one who believes in God, but doubss 4 Day of Judgement. The link between the self and ite body ie pot an academic issue. Modem wansplan surgery makes real Hie pressure on the connection. The question of taser of the self from one body to another becomes a pratclisve which crows fous habits of thought into dsaray. Ik may become necesary 0 fadmic tha itis nether logically absuzd nor practically irelevant to. conceive of transferable and disembodied seves Daniel Dennett has invented a story that ilsrates the weak 218 nesses of contemporary thought on dhe body-mind link" In the SHory he has agreed to go on a dangerous mission, leaving his bain behind. Surgery would completely eemove his brain, which would then be sored in a hfe-upport system; each input and butpat pathway, as it was severed, would be restored by a pair of microminiaturized radio tanseivers, one attached precisely t0 the bein, the other tothe nerve stumps in the empty seal. When fhe Rero has had the process explained he says: Ac first 1 was a bit reluctant, Would it really work? The Hosston brain surgeons encouraged me. "Think of i, they said, as a mere ating ofthe nerves. If your brain were {ust moved over an ind in your skll, tat woul not alter ‘or impair your mind. Weve going to make your nerves indefiitely’ elastic by splicing radio links into them.” “The operation is saccesfl, and when hf comes out ofthe anacs~ thesi he i taken «o sce his own brain douting ina ligud, and covered with lle electrodes, circuit chips and other electrical pacaphermalia, To tes whether ie realy is his own brain, be hits 2 switch connected cot, and eallapses ffom the blow. When he comes sound, he thinks 10 himsell “Here 1 am, siting on a folding dsc, staring ehough piece of plate glass ae my own brain. But wait’ Tsaid 0 myself, ‘shouldnt I have thought, here am I, suspended ina bubbling Aid, being stared at by my own eyes?” ‘When I thought "Here Lam", wheee the thought occuced o-me was here, ouside che vat, where I, Daniel Dennett, ‘was standing searing at my brain. (pp. 311-12) ‘Eventually he leaves his brain in the vat in Houston and goes on his dangerous, subtecancan mission. A¢ all times he an ell ‘operation control and receive instractions, While he is working tanderground on dismanding a warhead the cerebral links brea He finds himsel Blind and deaf and dumb in radioactive hole 4 mile underground. Ie takes him some sme wo eeaze dat the fealization that his poot body i dead underground mils aay is {aking place in his rain inthe va in Hovston, But where is he, really? Or which is he: the dead body, or his brain’ As the story 10¢3 on, having been disembodied, eis given by the skill of the Sientits new body, Then all che problems of the legendary Hind sages erasformed into outessts or kings, or of kings tans 219formed imwo women, oF of outcasts tansformed inco kings, ae Jimplicidy before us in our own vemacular philosophy. Denner’ fanny story makes the point that personal transfer atilgy between bodies i not necesarily Snconsitnt with our space-time theories. So why do philosophers resist the impli ‘aeions of Home's suns? Why cam we not scape a momber of Self theories, involving muluple selves, pusive sles, invaded and possessed selves, each serving diferent forensic purposes? ‘Are we to condide that ll other cviigations are wrong if they encourage notions of transfers of the self between one Body and apocher? Philosophers cannot say that they are Wrong, except On| the forensic grounds that they would make society unworkable, but in fact many societies built upon these ideas work well The objections we read are based more on morality and politcal acceptability than on feasibly. They argue that there has to be 2Dunitary self, because the individual person has 10 be able (0 be held accountable. Thus is John Locke's religious agument secolaried. Instead ofthe Lat Jadgement, the coherent, anitary Self is validated by che demands of the secular law courts and by ‘moral principle. Terence Penelham svaxes indignant on “the tmoral trickery” of anyone who would represent is desires 35 sternal 1 himsel?Parrorting Locke i a Secular vein, a unitary, responsible seifagent must be supposed to exist because it inellecnully, jrsealy, and morally necessary. This isthe pro ‘alling forensic model of the pessoa that Best suits our culture INTENTIONAL SYSTEMS “Te secu forensic model ean invitation to attend tothe tension Teeween self tnd the jodges to whose pennies ene awards the self is having to conform. ‘The judges and jury are the other members ofthe cular, who have scp its standards and enforce them. If we could compare alerative ideas about the person we Would be half way to geting past the inelecal block hat prevents 1s from resoning about selves in general. The forensic ‘ode of the pecton affords a poaiity of setting up an external, ‘empirical method of comparison. To tis end, we look ound for ideology-fce, science-like descriptions of persons. The wtlarian model af the self purports to be ene such, but as we have shown, itis loaded wih ideological assumptions. Furthermore, i hes ‘only one person, and no way of taking account of other persons = xcept to make a simple aggregation of thee saiFctions. edocs hot incorporate the ceule of policing except by pushing into the negotations the same analysis of costs and Benefits which ‘ary the burden of explanation forthe selection of stein [Being content with an incvidalice method is part ofits declogi- cal burden. Always focused on one actor, ie fan analyse human cial Behaviour as if ll the other individuals were organized 35 | marke, ia other words a if there were no community. If we axe looking fora cultareffee approach, we have to bracket away the welitarisn account of perons at forensic model generated by asteong cultural bss, We wanta method of finding alternative fevensic models Daniel Dennet has proposed an all-purpose, minimal moda of the person which he describes at an “Intentional System. The awkward language testifies to the effort to be ftee of adhering ‘uur bias. For lack ofa beer theory Bf de set he has had to Jnvent 2 now way of thinking abou che neuron pathways inthe ‘body to the inividvl bean, and about the pathways between the brain and the society, and he means the Same model 10 do 1s wel for thinking of the communication between communities, [National states trying to calculate the intentions of other nation stator and making infrences wef for forign policy count as “ntestional systems.” An intentional system needs three con dliions: rationality, mentions, and a reciprocal stance towards Sand from other intentional systems." Persons ate tational Beings ‘whose actions ate to be understood in tems of thee intentions, these being. construed from the logical relations between thet beliefs and desires. Intentonality & = capability which persons aturibure ro ane another. Since ie works only in an envionment ‘of other persons this it radially efferent from methodological individvaliam. The “intentional stance™ expects to predict how totes persons ae going to behave, and makes this knowledge the buss for statis. Predictions in terms of intentions are diferent fom predictions in tems of physial laws. He uses the word intentions o inciode hops, fear, intentions, perceprions, expectations, te. We ascribe imtentons #9 dogs and fish, or even to tees, 50 the intentional ance does not ony include persons." When he ascribes bel tnd desies to the computer chess player Dennet is not saying that the machine wally has beliefs and desiees, but tha is ‘behaviour can be explained and prediced by ascribing to it a‘machine equivalens for belief and desires. Thus he can describe 2 computer in the sme terms cis much eae to deide whether 2 machine cn be an intentional system than iis co decide whether ‘machine can really think, or be conscious, or morally respons sible" ‘A larger inentional system inchsdes others, the commanity| Includes the person, the person includes the neurones. Dennett docs not speify the relation between one level and the nex How isa level determined? The levels are supposed to connect nd interact, but his model does not sy how tis happens. We in improve his model quit simply by incorporating the forensic proces a the connecting medium and by giving calralequiva~ Tents of person's beliefs and deste. Change his term "belie t0 ‘theories about the world: dhen change is teem “dsies' to “daime’, so a= to psy attention only to tha pact of intentions ‘which enter dhe forensic process because they can be formulated 2 claims on others then postulate that the daims iavoke the ‘hories in thei support. "These three slight adaptations give an abate context of intrstion between individual members of ‘community. ‘Then the higher level or community can be pre- Scoted as# syste of claims sorted out by logic applied to nego- Sltlons and deals, Claims are the very substance of the higher level IS. At the community level the equivalent of individual claims are collective claims, or caims made on behalf of and in he tame ofthe colecvity. The community eguivalene of individual bait ae collectively held belies, public Knowledge, and gener~ ally accepted theories, o clture. Sel-perception of = community ‘will correspond to what ts members think proper, and likewise, fhe knowiedge of the self chat i avaable to members will be limited by the forensic process CLAIMS “The project of this ena i to find 4 way of evaluating the claims about the sf in che enterprise culture. This involved noting the Strong resistance to subjecting the idea of the self to reasoned Eegument, evidence, if evidence was needed, fr its ideological embeddedness, The ide of the self is made to sit upon huge blank spaces of missing evidence. Admitely this i the case for all ideas, 30 i ig not che evidence tha i missing but che theory tha would indicte what would count as evidence in an angi 2 sHouGHT sr¥Le ‘ment. We have no such theory of the self because (for good easons) we have deliberately pur it ito tha inaccessible enbo tha cannot be opened for theoriing. A theory of knowledge bbsed on chime does not inte into that domain. It doce not pretend to revel anything about the inner experiences ofthe self nly about its user in negotition, A theory aboue claims made fon the Self has the advantage of not being grounded on an appeal to the transcendental. Ie i limited fo knowledge that is made publi, speatcally co culture “Teasfoem, forthe sake of argument, the judgement seat of God and the formal jadgement sext of tribunals ito the informal judgement of pours In Dennett's tems they are intentional y2- teals continually mentoring your behaviour and tying to make predictions about what you are going to do. The word ‘dain Fetes to demands that'2 person makes, on the dime or other resources of others. Acceptable claims af any point in time are ‘cqvivalent to society, Clsims ince ll Kinds of pretensions, requests, calements, expectations, demands. The gamut of claims runs from great confidence that an established claim exists ‘nd wil be honosred, to 2 very tentative request for consider ‘ion. Disputes about claims on a person's time and property if rot quikly resolved are always put to some testing of the con Aion ofthe world. Whoever can dispue + knowledge cams used 1 bucking by his opponcnts can escape fiom the charges they feck to ay on him Ae I have argued, the two kinds of ims, fon persons and on knowledge, establish each odhee.® Dennet’s ‘model needs to insert the connection between responsibilty and {hcories The gamut of theories runs from fics well extablshed to very tentative hypethese. there sa sustainable pattern of cams ii a cura system. CCaleare isthe poine at which claims and counteraims come to rest and where authority i atsibuted eo thesis about the woud ‘The content of claims and counter-lims sets up 4 pressure for consistency. Only a viginely maintained set of reasoned state~ {nents about the 4lf will hold off the aime of others who wil pounce on he lest sign of contradiction, intellectual or moral ‘weakness, Tobe able to invoke dhe sels an indapensable Forensic resource for Hiving in sory.INTERACTION BETWEEN INTENTIONAL ‘SYSTEMS Keeping a new concept fee of content is a good strategy for starting an investigation at an abstact level. Dennet i eaefal rot tobe saying anything a all abou the content of consciousness beyond the belicft and dese tnd the power of inference, He never treads on the forbidden ground of subjective experience. His account is always fom the outside, never risking 4 specu Jaton on which beliefs or whit kinds of desires could be found ‘within. This is how he avoids importing unwanted metaphysical and politcal Biases into is account” A txt of bis theory sbout pevsons would have to be the same as dhe vst that persons nor- Inully apply to their own theories about persons predictive power ennet’s empty slots for beliefs and desies would be use for predicting theories of the sf iF only the said life and desires could be qualified bie more. He dos not try to sess the influence ‘of the containing intentional system over ite ‘ements. He docs not show how its internal relations ate atic Javed. He cannot (and does not aim to) develop 2 critique of folk prychology, sil less provide the basis for 2 etique of the self sn the enterprise culture. But he docs provide the bepianings of 2 model fice of ideological adhesions that coun theory can fmend and vse 'As a bewsisi, act up four kinds of clare each sustained by sts member actively invoking 4 patcular idea ofthe sl. One of the four types will be che enterprise culture, one, the hier- archical culture, on, the culture ofthe dissident minority enclave Jn each of these culrures power and authority ae atively con texted. The four isthe type of culture in which the members sre not involved in the dialogue about power. Each culture i farvied in a community, an intentional system connected by claims with its own sub-systems, the persons. Each culture pro- fdaces, in the proces of negotting claims, ies own compatible theory of the world and the self. Ie also ells forth the desires fom the persone 2€ the same time that i defines good and weong, behaviour. ‘Society prepares the crime’ as Quetelet sid,” and at the same time it defines the persons, 26 Durkheim sai, ‘Consider hierarchy as one type of higher level intentional, system. The tes of a hierarchy is not stratified ranks but the 24 HovGHT STYLE overarching whole which comains them. Ie may be necessary to remind readers that every bureaucracy is not hierarchical. N tes every king reign over a hierarchy; nor is = grest industria ‘corporation a hierarchy if the chic, whom Hoekheimer ells “Tataian cartel lords» tea its members as transient, dispens- ale resources. An individualist clare can have huge bureatcrac= jes which make no moral daims on their owm behalf, which are treated as private assets, stripped if posible by theit members, (rested as 2 Kind of seafolding o natural advantage which can be disposed of when it suite the individoal member. Other Dbucaueracies, just as big, may be hierarchies, according tthe rncaning of the term, that is sits whose parts contribute to the ‘maintenance ofthe whole and which never sbundon responsibility for members. By definition, hiertchy is maintained by claims scceped on behalf ofthe whole commonity:becase claims over- fading those of indvidaal members are aSeeptale, auzhority can be exerted on behalf of the community: es member penons perform public ceremonial, invest in public goods, and jusify 2 High degree of organization in order to stengthen the public ‘aims they cherish, One result is that a well-run hierarchy has 3 Tot to offer is members, and in consequence itis not wosried lest they recede. Loyalty being secure, dhe main concern is that the up-down sracture be not weakened Tn contrast, consider the dissenting minority enclave culture, which often fends to be sectarian, The main concem willbe the fear of secession: ansety lest the fitful lak away weakens authority and encourages 4 tendency 10 egalitarian organization Here, © be acceptable, cms should invoke the principle of equality. Thied, che enterprise culture is distinguished from both fof these by the weakness of the claims of the community over those of ss members Fourth, isolates who are not involved in economic or politcal or social compesition, either having been forced out, of having chosen not t© be involved, also have a typi culture characterized by absence of atempt to explain or Infuence events, feedom from the ideological commitments which control so much of other persons’ lives. Iti as hard to find » pare hicacchy or a pure ype of enclave caleare ait to find an extreme kind of enterprise culture or completely isolated ‘members ofthe isolates cults. ‘We look now for simple test t9 show how incompatible cul~ tures res on distinctive, incompatle partes of claims. One test 25should concer the clams that links the levels. How docs + person become a member of a larger intentional sytem? It is eater «0 answer the question from the other angle: how doce excision ‘work? A second txt should show the way the higher level system Shapes individal desires conformably to its acceptable claims. A third test should shove how the bundle of accepable claim affects theories about scalty, and particulary about the self. If we eas develop a discussion on those lines, we can stato argue about persons in 2 way that includes thei ideological bis, DOWNGRADING AND EXCLUSION FROM THE ‘CLAIMS SYSTEM, ‘The diningishing feature of hiersechy is that every decision is refered to the well-being of the whole. A whole transcending its pats is what hicrarchy means." fei a claims system from ‘hich itis very difficule for anyone to be dropped. Everyone is there forever, and thie claims ate to be kep alive in some fora fo other Inveterte disloyalty and unrepentant disobedience dis- ‘quay. Incompetence and iafemicy do ot. In che hierarchy the Tobby ofthe wel is powerful since ee good strategy to claim to represent it (ln consequence much distinctive reglation is centile ~ for example, the protection of pension schemes wil hve priority over sisky profits.) By what administaive arrange- ‘ments is this result procured? By maintaining the infuence of tinct sectors in the overll decision proces. Each person it Such a ieratchy has to be enrolled within recognized sector Ihave any claims a all, andthe sectors have to be formally related tthe whole. Since no one can be eliminated, all have to be signed places in the system, and the claims of che places have te be recognized. This type of higher level intentional system, the hierarchy, would be suffocated by the mutually conficting claims between lower level systems unless it had ways of grading and reconciling them. Inequality of sata and inequality of cams is baile in to the constution. Succssfil claims are backed by reference to some expected good for the whole, and in chis sytem, though some can claim more and others less, all have claims. The eistncive pont is that people can drop down, bit (On this issue there i te difference between 4 hierachy and an endave. In the later, membership is theoretically for ever. 26 ea a However, ii geerly an egalitarian claims system,” 2 there tr no lower level for incompeents to drop down t. Dsloyal trator and subversive elements may be expelled fom suc a System of chim, bt completely expelled. They will not be seen Hanging around beeore nether incompetence nor infemity wil Ive cuted their eacasion, only polite animosity in an indvidalin markccoriented socery incompetence di ‘uals. The sytem tends to honour the person who organize SMfcive networks. As exchange theocy shows See ave to be fuller in uch a sem, prone whom He worth no Ones wile to count aan aly. Falling Yat inemiey oF otherwise Showing weaines i a sure way of filing out ofthe nework af worthy partner.” In the enerps elute apaling black spot. ‘of poverty should noe provoke sorprhe, pecially sn ce of immense private wealth. Though need indde te sing feoeraon, and west sincogporate tei inc the compete Sework, the lame of ole flres and the demands for salty net for the weak ae incompatible with the doctrine of uniie Shed penonal responsibilty. The srngth of the entrpise Gature the ceston of wealth by a sealant meritocracy. Inevitably i has a large cs of recs They are not the low fade ctens of the Boom be overs in coke. For eter or Wore, consumers Bags within the erecrpeise cate Ie is nce fo ‘ties tobe comumeram dt he sane Un wo mace oreservely tothe individualist values ‘THEORIES ABOUT THE SELF Now we cn set to thse bizare f se bizare foreign ides about the son This cy started ot by explaining the Kn 0 ams thacare sustained by the theory Of he airy, ana, rap, able sel They are aims that are ted at lve The eo idea ofa forensic se well adaped vo scala which Some complete sceountaiy fom ie member, the nght ies ofthe Sel for an indvidls ature. I'cbewhere zombie and dors osc tunof pay sande em, ‘re can be sure that ehey se lio bing employed inthe making td ting of ins Folk pyelogy» not a specs ae ‘ed fr preciing, explaining. and Pepaing anos Thi the ‘weaness of Dani Deane’ ile sory abewt the bain ties 28 plant thas interesting confrontations but nothing about conic Er claims, Only by sving how che theory of the self is ased in “eaing with conficting dims can we have che rational conver~ Sasion about persons and selfhood that sso difcalt in or West~ fn cular ‘Sure with a hierarchical cleure where, as we have seen, the claims of fellow members of the community cnnoc be ejected Sur of hand. Each person belongs ideally to a sector that makes ‘Hetive dims on their Beal. Inthe enclave culture likewise, members are anious to avoid a schism. The outsiders can carry the fall burden of responsibility for what they do, but insiders ie emily let off the hook, In both cultures, beease of the desire Of members to honour the canis of the community, instead of| prtnure to pin ceoponsiblty on individual, there i pressure to Tewiate ie, Pining blame on weaklings will achieve nothing: so Tong as they are loyal, they cannot be elimiated. When they er, Iria beter seategy to relive them of too much responsiblity, fd work for them to be eeincorporated. Split personalities, pass ive persons, rombies,ghos-haunted, bewitched, and cursed per- Sons may be theatis the pass che Blame on to some other person, tut ehey may also serve it kindly, forgiving theories which show the sinner at victim Side by side with the forensic model, a herpeutie model of the self develops, The therapist does not want the patient to sffer from a sense of gle or rejection. So he does noc rab sale ito the sores by insiseng om unambiguous personal aceounabiliy He diagnoses misforsne as an stack of the unwitting patient by Benn awho ean be fairly easly exorcised Noone in the “ommonity isto blame, the misfortune was cused by a capricios Spintual being. Or the patient learns tat his own self ina pe= lal stage of existence chore touble.* In this usage the theory Uf the muleple self dilfises responsibility. A. verdict chat the patent brought his troubles on himsef means that other people re not to Blame, yet st the same ime the patent cannot fel f00 ‘aponsibe since the self hat made the bad choice was not himself a be is now. GUILT AND RESPONSIBILITY “The context ofthesapy apd consultation is more pratice~oriented than the context of philosophical enguiry. Passive modes of con- 2ISK AND BLAME ceiving the person permi the patient o join the therapeutic pro- Jet as an independent agent! They distance him ffom moral esponsibility but they do not necessarily absolve him fom | responsiblity in the lw courte, Oar own peychiarits se the len of the passive self, by way of not forcing blame. In. hie account of the language of psychoanalysis Roy Schafer cxscized| the overuse of what he called ‘passive voice’ language instead of "aeion lingsage’2 The analyst wil say: "Your chronic deep sons ‘of wortlesaness comes fiom the condemning voice of your mother of "You are anid of your impulse ro throw caution to the winds, both passive forms, allowing the patient to think of himself as's victim, without bearing responsiblity for what he In personal contents where we want to evade Blame, we also ‘work happily withthe philosophically nonsensical ideas. We tall about being bese ourselves with rage, or our of our minds, ‘objects lip sway from ou tuinds or ener them, as ifthe mind ‘war house with rooms, We are evidently quite able co entertain aid fo make everyday ute ofthe ides of mliple personality. In other coments, we ae determined that cach shall bear the cont ‘of hs actions. Accused by the traffic warden or the speed op {he sinner will do himself no good at all by citing his eherapn’| emissions of responsibilty. The therapeutic model ofthe Blame= fice self works where che contexts of blame aze segmented, The Ailleren selves are active ideas i different pattems of claims. Foe the context of healing, the law is peripheral. For the context of Jistice, healing is peripheral. There need be no problem about Using the ida of muliple selves in one context and the single, continuous self in the other context, s0 long as the contexts fan be distinguished. Thus far we have exonerated the freiga iviliaations which operste with ideas ofthe sof repagnane in oot ‘own, We are not more rational than they, and they are more forgiving than we. But that was noe the main objective for thie ‘The frst objective in taking seriously a cange of alien deat about selves is t0 complete Daniel Dennete's model by linking Jdeas about the self, Uuough daime, with the larger intentional system. The latter isthe community without which the self i ‘meaningless. The community isthe loews of ideology connecting the idea of the person to the culture which ics members are ‘making, Ie is interesting t0 compare the tade-ff foreach cal 230 tural ype, In economic terms the individuals entepeis) cule tases the standard of living all ound. The hirarchial culture ‘Soonger on solidarity and stability. The enclave cultoce it good for pricking the conscience ofboth the other types” but no very ood a raising the material standard of living. Ie tends co have Tot of woury about the loyaly of ie members.® bat the later ‘would sem to have 3 good opinion of themselves. Theee has been av yet no research combining assesments of cule bias with psychological assessments of personality. In default, 2 gues foggests thatthe isolate would be mose contented with hi lo and lest idden with gu, while che cultre that tends give its mmbece a sense of iredeemable gui and inadequacy isthe enters culture, Te has long been recognized in peychoanalysi that modem Indust society is hard pon the person’ seltimage. Perhaps for lack of 3 dncourse in which self-contepes can be studied a5 aspects ofclture, rather face explanations of psychological stress fhve been proposed, such as consumeriam, buresucracy, ia sanity, fascism, ndustiism. The barely arculated diagnos is pict of the choughe style® of the emerpise culture, That the Sceiant, aueonomous, responsible self shouldbe its ideal is ‘understandable, but clearal theory can give bewer explanations than psychology for why the ideal is 50 hard eo achieve. First there f the burden of responsiblity, often uni. Fale eo carry ietmeets with none ofthe kindly exonerations that failure mess ina hierarchy. The cultre i 0 oxganiged that incompetence and ‘wenknest cannot be compensited for, Rewards goto performance ind merit, there is lens readiness to carry mediocrity, dete is more failure, and punishment for failure is more severe. Inthe ‘esprise culture excasion can be 3 silent process, almost pes epiible, by simple exit at in the market, not by complaining voice” as in enclave, or by formal edict asin hierarchy. fn the tspriseeultare the person excinded need not know what has happened ntl some time afte. No one else needs 10 notice ster: the enterprie culture just waves a wand and is ejects become invisible in concasion, the public idea of the self part of a cultural ‘commitment, ad 30 ts determined by a thoughe style which wil wary according tthe thought collective, to use Fleck’ tems. [Because of the active role played by the calms of the self in the ‘making of elke ei dificult to pot a septical bracket around =it, Our culture stalls on enquiry into the mature of che private self 20 28-20 protect the Fcedom of persons from idealogized oeecion. Ici presented 10 us as something we should not and fannot analyse, Bor now we have entered the clims of the com- ‘munity imo the accoune of the person the idea of de self runs fut to be something which can be and ought to be critaly| fxamined. Both self and community have to be examined togecher. Refusing to go into deals shout the ideological con= struction of the self is nor the bes way to resist the would-be tyrants claims. Far safer to practise being articulate about the ‘extemal and ideological bases of selfhood, because this leads £0 Straight alk about the kind of community and the kindof elere swe want to protect. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT “The frst version of this artile was writen for The Buerprie Gultre, Thones in the Work of Mary Dawglas, edited by Shaun Hargreaves Heap and Angus Ross (Edinburgh University Press, 1992), pp. 1-62. This version was presented at dhe Berliner Inet tue fr Verpeichende Soziaiorschung, 11 December 1990. Tam srstefl to Jonathan Miller for advice on the philosophy of the sa, NOTES 1 Ludowik Fk, The Gonos and Developmen of « SenicFar st fused 105, tnsiten, Casago Une’ Pras, 197) 2 Racy Deeg, How hurtin Tie Gyacte Univer Pres, 1983. 3 TW" Adamo and M, Hodes, The Dita of Enighennen (Fran Jim Cuming, NY, Herder Hender (872 ison {oor Veso, 197, onal Geman Dall or Aufonng: New Tote Soci Stud Asse, 1984) 4 Sephen. oul The Mime of Man (New York, Norn, 1980, 5 tna Bein “Two Concerts of ibe in Pow Ey Liey (Gated Unvenny Pros 6 6 Derek Pate Reaou nd roe (Oxford Clarendon, 1988 5 Jobe otk (039 En Cocoa Fin Unto te {eon 3s Cd in J Pry ed) Perea awit (iver of Gites Pre. 197) Dane Dem "Wher am 1 in Bas: Pipi! Ey o ind on coy (eset, Besord Books, MT Pres, 1), pp 3038, 232 {9 Terence Peto, (197) “The Importance of Sl enit’ Jusl °F Pipy LXVIILONO2. assed Harry anu ene ‘nd Ester, Amal ory (ed), The Monies of Peron (Ca iin Uneersiy Bes 1970, pp 2-51 10 Benne cst absence cent ge the various acenes del ingwoth the ming, arial itlignce game ther), eulogy, Pthalgy. sed piasopy. is meant 0 apy wherever the tor= esau the peictowe da loge enge parcule sae: Itching abst ech other bchaviour fom dedocons aout it ‘iets and dense A pariclr thing sa tent sen ony [Sila cote tice of someone eho i eying to expan ed fot tr btiiou Dani Denner (971) asain Stems eat of Phe 11 Dane! Bennet Brest, Phobia! Ey: a Mind and Py ‘logy (ado Books: MIT Pres 181. pp. 28-9. 12 Din Demet, The Inco! Ste (MIT Pros, Besord Books, toa 15 Dan Deane in Amelie Rory (Te Manis of Pron (Cai pio 14 Donel Demcte “Whee aor Se Brat: Pop aye 0 ‘ind a Puyol (Cambrigge, Bradord Books, NUT Pre, 18), 15 Tegument i development of tae boat in Mary Dovghs, Fn Innis Think Syracuse University Pret, 196) 1 Ma Gluckman eh), TW Alloa of Repo (Manchester Uni tecsy Pes, 197 17 Br Hannum (930) "Cee Notice, The Intent Seance’, Ming, Seyi Apel 291 1 Michel Thompson, Richard His and Aaron Wilavky, Coll “Thy (Weseew Pubcon, 159, 19 Quetey,guoted in lin Hacking, The Taming of Chae (Cambridge Stivers Pes, 1980) 1 2) TW. Adorno aad Max Hoi, The Dison of Elion Were. 198), p87 21 Lows Damo Bot sr Vhdiviume (Pacis, Seu, 1988), wr faints Thins (yracne Univesity Pree 23 An erample of systematic rection in a indivi wor i ie by Gul Macs ofthe soiy of longharemen in xe Pst of Se ‘Bass, Newfoundland, Cans “ouphore dking, economic Sec nd ion otis Newnan Mary Boul) Cousin Braking, Peper Dit tou “attr (Cat Shige Univenty Ban DH, pp. eo 24 Brus Kupfer, a Calton of Bons (Bloomington, Universi lis Pres, 198) 25 Meyer Forts, Oediuran ohn West Aiton Religion, with a ey Uy "RotinFlcson (Cantey Unive Pres, 1585) 2 Roy Sette, A New Longe or Placa (New Haves, Yale Untensy res 1976. 23RISK AND BLAME 27 Mary Douglas and Anton Wildaaky, Rok and Cue, nw Bip the Sao of Techland rome Danger (Canis Univers Sty Pes 1382) 2 Mary Doula, How Iviiou Think, Chapter 3 (Syraine Univer thy Pen 186) 12 Ludwik leak, The Geves and Deopnent of « Scie Fan st Publsed 1983, easton, Universty ot Cheapo Press, 17) a RO"Hirscnman Bn, Voce ou yay, Rep Deve on Foms, enti and Sater (Hareaed Univer Pres, 190),