On the expression 'the founders'

Intriguing post on the Legal History Blog argues that serious historians should stop using the phrase "the founders".

This is how one uses the phrase in a sentence: It is not clear whether the founders approved of a broad reader of the commerce clause when they wrote it.

The problem with such a sentence is that it suggests a sort of chicken-entrails reading of the constitution that "the founders" wrote. What they thought of the commerce clause depends on which one or which cluster you want to discuss. The clusters you might want to understand overlap and/or contrast in confusing ways, and using the phrase "the founders" as if it is itself a coherent cluster of individuals living and working in the US in the late 18th century adds nothing but confusion.

In that particular case, we could also have used the phrase "the framers". But part of the problem is that, complicated as "the framers" itself is as a concept, "the founders" is broader and more so. Best avoiding.

Interesting analogy: consider the set of all politicians in the 1860s who had some input into making the Reconstruction Amendments what they were. Legal historians do not have a collective noun for these important folk. Nobody talks of "the reconstructors" ot "the second founders." And discussion of the period is all the better for it.

Just a thought.

Legal History Blog: Ablavsky, "Why We Should Stop Saying 'The Founders'"

Comments

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere. At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak...

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge. We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave. First, Plato is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability. I only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable a...

Jamesian Philosophy Refreshed

Search This Blog