| Can Rawls's ideal of public reason ever become widespread, whereby citizens willingly seek shared values and use them as a point of reference in political discourse? I begin with the premise that such a development would mark a dramatic improvement over the type of political discourse prevalent today. But Rawls never offers a satisfying account of how public reason might become widespread---for this we need a psychology of public reason. I respond to this challenge by marshaling empirical psychological evidence suggesting that human character is fundamentally situated and pluralistic---constituted by different and even contending moral commitments in different domains of our lives. We know how to seek shared values under conditions of cultural pluralism because we undertake similar negotiations within our own psyches. But can doesn't mean will---we still need an account of motivation. To address this, I advocate a pedagogy of public reason, which cultivates the requisite commitments among students through school democracy programs. Students who engage in political discourse in school are in a good position to recognize the benefits of public reason and to carry this practice into the polity as adults. But is the pedagogy of public reason just another instance of liberal soulcraft, undermining student autonomy? I insist it is not; public schools may legitimately initiate students into the habits of citizenship. Moreover, pluralism of character suggests that the pedagogy of public reason will not necessarily displace contending private commitments, as we often hold different commitments in different domains. I argue that this is not a weakness of moral character, but rather a strength that better prepares us to engage a morally heterogeneous world. Some may wonder if this account of character and selfhood is really consistent with liberalism, as it challenges Kantian notions of transcendence and universalism. But I conclude that this self is compatible with the promise of liberalism more broadly conceived, which I call immanent liberalism" and which posits that we can live together more or less peaceably, in spite of our differences. Public reason is indeed realistically utopian. |
