The magazine has a new look and better navigation. Look out.
Upon reading this, you may have realized that the FBM’s new blog-centric format means that my former column has a new name: Classicism. The blog will carry the overarching perspective of being “more connected to the classical ideals than others, particularly the Age of Enlightenment, and some classicizing movements in Modernism”, to quote the most applicable part of Wikipedia‘s discussion on “the force of classicism”. Perhaps more important than the blog’s title, however, is it’s description: Morality Review.
This review of morality isn’t meant to focus on either the descriptive or prescriptive sides of ethics in public affairs. Rather, it’s meant to create a dialectic that reminds us of the fundamental moral agency that should propel expository writing—that by asking the right questions about public policy, more human values will come to the fore of our answers.
Gajo Petrovic best explains the difference between “neutral” analysis and the critical analysis of which I speak:
The idea of an ‘uncritical’ science using ‘neutral’ concepts is a contradiction in terms. And the idea of an ‘uncritical’ sociology is, in addition to that, a direct support for an apologetic social theory justifying the existing social order.
From this premise, “Classicism” delves into political philosophy, social movements, and the modern left, in that order. At the very least, it won’t be anything close to boring.