Interview-with-Ruairidh J. Brown

The book is called Political Encounters: A Hermeneutic Inquiry into the Situation of Political Obligation. It was published in June 2019 with Palgrave Macmillan.

The title is a little bit of a mouthful, but the concept is more simple: Political Obligation just refers to the ethical arguments of why, or indeed if, we have a duty to the government and to other citizens. The unique approach of the book is that its does not try and convince readers if they do or don’t have an obligation to the government, which is what most books in the field attempt. Rather it interprets how a sense of obligation is produced through meetings and mutual experiences between citizen and State – their ‘political encounters’. This interpretative as opposed to normative approach is why the book is said to be ‘hermeneutic’, which is a type of philosophical interpretation that denies and Archimedean point of objectivity and instead tries to understand the world from the flawed subjective human viewpoint immersed within real situations.

In short then the book seeks to interpret ideas of obligation as they exist in real communities, rather than try and dictate ethical theories to people from the philosopher’s ivory tower.

Well, the book was my PhD project, so the kernel of thought came to me whilst I was doing my MLitt in Political Thought. At the time I was studying a lot of Kantianism and Hegelianism and, whilst finding the abstract logic impeccable, I struggled to relate their systems to the actual reality I was experiencing.  At this time, I was engaged in an existentialist reading group, and was particularly struck by the words of Simone de Beauvoir regarding the study of Hegel. She reflected on the comfort of reading Hegel’s perfectly logic system in the solitude of France’s national library, only to find such comfort evaporate when she left the library and found herself again amongst the bustling French capital.

This distinction between philosophical logic and the existential experience of life really struck a chord with me, and I began searching for inspiration for a philosophical approach which would better grasp this existential aspect to politics. I eventually settled on the Theological thought of Søren Kierkegaard, in particular his concept of ‘the encounter’, and began working on developing this ‘existential encounter’ as a category through which to study politics.  

I should mention here that, in my last meeting with my PhD supervisor, she remarked that my thesis was like a reflection on the current Scottish political situation. I was a little confused by what she meant, but, on reflection, I was writing my thesis in Scotland between 2013 and 2016, which was the height of the Independence Referendum and aftermath. So, I guess, maybe at the subconscious level, the book was inspired by these events. I was at the time living, working and socialising with people who were all questioning where their political loyalties lay, and this undoubtedly bled into my thinking.  

First, I had to research the work on Political Obligation, both contemporary and historical, to justify my claim that it had been largely written from an Archimedean vantage point and that an existential hermeneutic approach was therefore needed.

Developing my work from the thought of Kierkegaard, my next task was to be able to give a justified interpretation of his thought. This involved a reading through his work and then reading this against his intellectual and social context.

Finally, I had to develop the key Kierkegaardian concepts I wished to use into my own philosophical framework whilst not ‘abusing’ Kierkegaard’s original thought.

Given that the book originated from my PhD, the most support I received was from the University of St Andrews where I completed my studies. My supervisors, Dr Gabriella Slomp and Professor Patrick Hayden gave me invaluable support – and have continued to do so since I graduated three years ago. I also should acknowledge the financial support I received from St Andrews in the form of School of International Relations Scholarship 2013.

Also, at Nottingham Ningbo, I am very fortunate to have a good friend in the Academic Learning Development Centre, John Dourneen, who gave me invaluable advice on my rhetoric (helping me in particular identify where I sounded rational and convincing, and where I sounded a little more frantic and unhinged).

My biggest surprise actually came in my VIVA PhD examination. One of my examiners suggested that my thesis could be interpreted as post-truth. This was late 2016, and whilst I may have written my thesis against the political context of the Scottish Independence Referendum, I was being examined following the shock victories of Brexit and Trump. My examiner was concerned that my focus on existentialism and subjectivity could be ethically problematic in that they may be interpreted as theoretical support for Post-truth politics.

The surprise resulted in my book containing a much greater considerations of the ethics of hermeneutics in relation to the ‘Post-truth era’. This actually turned out to be beneficial as the engagement with Post-truth added contemporary relevance to the work. I was also able to present the Post-truth section at the World Congress in Philosophy in Beijing in 2018, which was an incredible opportunity.

So, I am currently working on a couple of things. The Post-truth surprise has made me much more interested in the relation between subjectivity and intersubjectivity. This has led me to consider more frameworks of human relations, in particular ‘friendship’. I have an article currently coming out in AMITY: The Journal of Friendship Studies on ‘friendship’ and ‘obligation’ this year.

I have also always had an interest in Marxism, which has only increased since coming to China. I have become particularly interested in how Marxist ideas can support State legitimacy, rather than just criticise it. I have a study due for publication in an edited volume with Routledge on Marxism in China this year, and I am hoping to develop a deeper study of Marxism in relation to obligation in the near future.

First, don’t think you have to know everything immediately. Often, when talking about Political Philosophy my students come to me worried that they know ‘too little’. Honestly however I also feel that I often know too little – which is probably to be expected given the extent of literature out there. My advice is not to worry too much about ‘how much you don’t know’ and instead focus on what you do; come to terms with the fact that learning philosophy is a continual life long process, accepting that you cant know everything immediately is the first step in this.

Second, have fun with it. Make sure you can see the strengths, weaknesses but also the humorous side to the philosophies that are out there.  Most Political Philosophers were colourful people, and smiling about this can bring a sense of levity to one’s studies. Find the humour in it all, as taking it seriously all the time will cause you to burn out.