Michael Sandel: The Public Philosopher

This series of podcasts by the philosopher and Harvard Professor Michael Sandel are simply amazing. Sandel has achieved, in what he consciously calls a public experiment, a triumph of public debate, humanity at its most profound and a model for public discourse that we desperately need in the twenty first century. When so many spaces for discussion are being squeezed out or invaded by those who consider any sense of actual discussion an admission of weakness, Sandel’s attempt to create such a space is inspirational.

The three podcasts (which can be found on ITunes or via the Reith Lectures) are titled Michael Sandel: The Public Philosopher. I’m not going to review each of the lectures – you should listen to them yourself. The reason I was moved to review them was because of how Sandel has created his space for debate. By having a series of public meetings at the LSE where he introduces a controversial topic as a question and then connects with the audience using the Socratic method of responding to answers with further questions, he holds together people with wildly different views and helps them see other perspectives. He doesn’t engage in promoting particular conclusions but instead focuses on helping people understand why they think what they think, why others think differently and why both may have strengths and weaknesses. I don’t know if anyone could walk in and do it – Sandel clearly has the philosophical chops and this comes out when he pulls people’s poorly articulated reasons and ideas together into coherent summaries and throws them back out into the debate. I also think Sandel brings a clear and calm perspective – that he isn’t interested in a right answer but in the discussion that leads us to think about  the question. For Sandel, it seems that ensuring that the dignity of each participant is as important as the discussion itself. Indeed, it seems as if the nature of participation is as important as what is being participated in. This is hugely welcome and I hope it will be repeated, not just by Sandel but by others.

One other thing I want to highlight. There were no politicians involved. Now this might sound trite but this was a key difference between this experiment and something like Question Time. Sandel was engaging in public philosophy on important issues. The questions were loaded – they’re big issues – but the debate was non-partisan, considerate and open. There was no sign of point scoring, no sign of humiliation of others and no sign of spin. I’m not sure you can avoid it when it’s the people running the show who are answering questions – so I’m not attacking Question Time or News Night but take note – the public engaging in their own discussion with themselves about issues they care about. That’s profound in a way that can’t be underestimated and why I opened by saying that it showcased humanity at its best.

If you’re at all interested in public debate, contentious issues or just modern life I urge you to find these podcasts and listen to them. They will be like fresh spring water to a thirsty soul.