No Moral Insurance

Judith Shklar, John Cowles Professor of Government, is learning how to type. Every word of Ordinary Vices was written in pencil--"six times over." Shklar was interviewed recently about her book and her work here at Harvard, a few of her responses follow.

What attracts you to political theory?

"I always tell every class. I think one ought to tell people why one is doing something--they have a right to know. There is no question. I come out of the Second World War. I was a child in that war and it just seemed to me very important to try and understand what had happened to me, to my family, to people I knew in that completely disastrous series of events. There are, of course, different ways of coping. My way was to try and understand how people think, what processes of thought had brought us to such a past. There's no doubt...[it was] a direct response to a very intense experience."

How is it different willing political theory for a wide audience--is it one of the reasons, perhaps unstated, that you drew so heavily on literature to mirror the complexities you deal with?

"I never think about the audience. That's a dreadful thing to admit. I think very much about a reader. But I'm not able to visualize a group of readers. I simply assume there is somebody who's interested in what I'm interested in. It's important for me to tell him clearly--and entertainingly, if possible--what we're both interested in.

Do you see political attempts to legislate morality as a way of impeding our "epic" flight against vice?

"I think that the use of fear to inspire what is thought to be moral conduct can only have the effect of producing the grossest deformities of character associated with fear: servility, and the tendency to pass on the pain suffered oneself to those beneath one who look weaker. There is no insurance system for moral conduct. But there are things known to fail."

How does Harvard's public face measure up to its private vices--particularly with regard to your discussion of cliques and exclusive societies?

Some of those cliques exist to exclude. I sometimes think they have no other purpose. It is very difficult not to resent that. I would prefer for such cliques not to exist. I think particularly that one could argue that in a university they impede education and interaction so much that they have no place here. Nevertheless, one has to recognize the paradox of friendship. Exclusive groups often create friendships, very deep character builders for the individuals who belong to them. These are valuable for those individuals. I can think of nothing to say against that...Without friendship, what are we? What are we without friends? I can't decide...Everything has a cost emotionally.