Detailed Outline of Chapter 4: Virtue & The Pursuit of Intercultural Meaningfulness

 

DETAILED OUTLINE: Chapter 4

I. OPENING: Invitational Stance (500-750 words)

A. Brief personal framing

• "What follows is my best attempt to think through some questions that have long occupied me: How do contemplative traditions relate to everyday life? Can we learn from them without accepting their metaphysical claims? What resources do we have for navigating a world of deep difference?"
• "I offer these thoughts as hunches worth exploring, not as settled doctrine."

B. Preview of what's coming

• "In previous chapters, I've argued that [brief 2-3 sentence recap of weak agency argument and why it matters]"
• "Here I want to examine specific historical cases where Tier-1 virtues—or their absence—made decisive differences in how human communities navigated difference and whether intercultural exchange produced synthesis or breakdown."

C. Transition

• "But first, I need to clarify what I mean by Tier-1 virtues by showing how remarkably similar attitudes recur across very different traditions..."

---

II. TIER-1 VIRTUES AS "REVERENT COPING COME WHAT MAY": Cross-Cultural Expressions (2,500-3,000 words)

[This is the section you've already written—place it here with minor tweaks based on feedback]

A. Opening frame: What I mean by Tier-1; family resemblance not identity; lived stances not abstract principles

B. Survey of traditions:

1. Christian mysticism and Orthodox kenosis (Eckhart, Philokalia)
2. Zen and Taoist equanimity (farmer parable, wu wei, Zhuangzi)
3. Confucianism and the calm junzi (Analects on steadiness under fortune)
4. Islamic sabr and tawakkul (patient endurance, "tie your camel")
5. Hindu karma yoga (Bhagavad Gita—action without attachment to fruits)
6. Jewish wisdom (Ecclesiastes, bitachon, Rabbi Nachman)
7. Humanism/naturalism (Dewey's "natural piety") [expand slightly based on feedback]
8. Einstein's "cosmic religious feeling" [trim or add sentence connecting to moral luck]

C. Synthesizing the pattern:

• Cognitive virtues: Epistemic humility, refusal to over-read, tracking consequences
• Affective virtues: Equanimity, patience, reverent acceptance
• Practical virtues: Tolerance, cooperation, non-resentful response

D. Key clarifications:

• Flag Tier-2 coexistence early: "Most traditions also contain Tier-2 metanarratives (providence, karma, cosmic justice). I'm not dismissing those—I'm pointing to Tier-1 resources that work even when Tier-2 stories strain under experience."
• In extremis point: "When felt consolation fails, what remains is cultivated way of standing in the storm"
• Agency payoff: "Accepting moral luck enhances rather than diminishes agency—shifts question from 'Why?' to 'What remains open to me?'"

E. Transition to historical cases:

• "With this Tier-1 profile in view, I can now turn to specific historical cases where these attitudes, or their absence, made decisive differences..."

---

III. HERMENEUTICAL PREFACE: Reading History for Virtues (1,500-2,000 words)

A. The methodological challenge

• "Before turning to cases, a brief note on method is necessary."
• "There is no single 'Cyrus' or 'Akbar' waiting to be discovered. Each exists in multiple, contested versions shaped by ancient sources, modern scholarship, and contemporary appropriations."

B. The interpretive moves I'm making:

1. Acknowledge multiplicity:
   • Cyrus as: Babylonian heir, biblical liberator, Xenophon's ideal, Iranian nationalist icon, UNESCO human rights pioneer, revisionist "ordinary Near Eastern king"
   • "These aren't neutral descriptions—each encodes assumptions about virtue, power, what's praiseworthy"
2. Own the interpretive stance (reading for functional virtues):
   • "When I attribute Tier-1 virtues in what follows, I'm not claiming access to inner motives"
   • Three levels: Inner motives (unknowable) / Public rhetoric (accessible but self-interested) / Institutional effects (most relevant for my analysis)
   • Key sentence: "When a policy is said to 'manifest' epistemic humility or tolerance, the claim is about its function in practice and the stance it publicly enacts—not a verdict on private psychology"
   • "I'm reading charitably but not romantically: looking for thin, defeasible virtues that coexist with conquest, hierarchy, self-interest"
3. Guard against romance and cynicism:
   • Romance: Treating figures as moral pioneers anticipating modern liberalism (ignores violence, self-interest)
   • Cynicism: Reducing everything to power (can't explain syncretism, accommodation, variation across leaders)
   • Middle path: "Tier-1 virtues coexist with less noble motivations; they're resources that sometimes get activated under favorable conditions, making cooperation more likely—but never guaranteed"

C. Use Cyrus as template case (demonstrates the method):

• Paragraph 1: List "the Cyruses"
• Paragraph 2: Show how same data (temples, Babylon spared, satraps) admits multiple readings (pure opportunism / opportunism + minimal respect / thicker pluralism)
• Paragraph 3: "In this book, Cyrus's policies are treated as exemplifying thin, defeasible Tier-1 virtues—without denying entanglement with conquest and imperial self-interest"

D. Explicitly Neo-Pragmatist framing:

• "This interpretive stance is itself guided by Tier-1 virtues: fallibilism about what sources support, epistemic humility about motives, attention to practical consequences of different readings"
• "The question is less 'who was the real Cyrus?' and more: what do different patterns of action and policy do in intercultural settings, and under what conditions do modest virtues matter?"

E. Transition:

• "With this methodological groundwork in place, I can turn to the cases themselves..."

---

IV. THE FIELD OF CONTINGENT INTERACTIONS: What "Everyday Life" Means Here (1,000-1,500 words)

A. Clarifying what I'm NOT claiming:

• "I'm not privileging Western sociological theories of 'ordinary interaction'"
• "I'm not offering Goffman-style 'primary frames' or universal interaction mechanisms"
• "I'm not proposing a unified theory of how interaction works"

B. What I AM pointing to:

• Historically documented fact: Value pluralism is persistent; incommensurability is partial (not total); cultural boundaries are porous (diffusion, borrowing, syncretism)
• "Field of contingent interactions": Site of diffusion, exchange, conflict, cooperation, understandings and misunderstandings, playing out over time and across space [Perfect place to cite and describe Ignatieff's findings and use them as evidence, see perplexity's advice on how to do so]
• No single ontology has priority: This is empirical-historical claim, not Western meta-narrative

C. Evidence: Syncretism is real:

• Trade languages (pidgins, creoles)
• Architectural borrowing (Islamic arches in Spanish churches)
• Religious syncretism (Santería, Buddhist-Shinto, Greco-Buddhism)
• Technological diffusion (printing, gunpowder, zero from India)
• Conceptual borrowing (algebra from Arabic, democracy from Greece)
• Against global incommensurability: "If Quine were right about radical translation being impossible, none of this would have happened—but it manifestly did"

D. The role of Tier-1 virtues in this field:

• "Within this field of contingent interactions, certain widely distributed dispositions—Tier-1 virtues—tend to make genuine cooperation and sometimes robust syncretism more likely when activated"
• Not conditions (Habermasian baggage); not minima (too strong); not guarantees (too utopian)
• Modest claim: "When Tier-1 virtues are activated alongside other factors—self-interest, pragmatic necessity, cultural pride, personal chemistry, luck—cooperation and syncretism become more probable"

E. The multivariate reality (NOT a simple formula):

• Avoid: "Tier-1 virtues → syncretism"
• Embrace: "Tier-1 virtues + self-interest + pride/ambition + pragmatic necessity + personal chemistry + luck → sometimes cooperation, occasionally syncretism"
• "Dogmatism, cruelty, apathy, contempt have always coexisted with virtues in the field of interactions. Tier-1 virtues don't eliminate these forces—they're resources that, in contingent circumstances, may get activated in ways that make destructive outcomes less likely"

F. Contemporary urgency (without utopianism):

• "This matters more than ever: nuclear weapons, climate change, AI-generated pseudo-reasons, resurgent nationalism"
• "We need all the help we can get. Tier-1 virtues aren't sufficient—we'll also need luck, pragmatic self-interest aligning with cooperation, institutional innovation. But cultivating these virtues at least makes better outcomes more probable"
• "This isn't a solution or panacea. It's a modest wager: that dispositions which have sometimes helped navigate past conflicts are worth cultivating, even knowing they won't always prevail"

---

V. HISTORICAL VIGNETTES: Tier-1 Virtues in Practice (5,000-7,000 words total)

[For each case: 500-1,000 words depending on complexity; use micro-historical examples, not comprehensive treatments]

A. Ancient/Classical Precedents (brief—establishes pattern)

1. Achaemenid Persia: Cyrus and the Satrap System

• Brief setup: Cyrus Cylinder, temple restorations, satrap system with local autonomy
• Tier-1 virtues manifested: Epistemic humility (Persian ways not the only ways), tolerance (local cults coexist), attention to consequences (suppression causes revolts)
• Mixed motives: Pride ("King of Kings"), pragmatic necessity (empire too vast for micromanagement), genuine cosmopolitanism (?)
• Contrast with Assyria: More systematic reliance on accommodation vs. terror-based domination (acknowledge van der Spek's continuities without erasing differences)
• Counterfactual: "Emperor more like Assyrian kings would have produced more revolts, shorter-lived empire"
• Micro-example: Specific decree from Cylinder; how Babylon treated differently than under Assyrians

2. Greco-Roman Synthesis (very brief)

• Rome didn't plan syncretism—emerged from prolonged contact, elite borrowing, cultural prestige-competition
• Shows: Unintended consequences; self-interest (incorporating Greek culture as status marker) + curiosity + pragmatism

B. Medieval Flourishing

3. Abbasid Translation Movement: House of Wisdom

• Setup: Al-Ma'mun, Hunayn ibn Ishaq (Nestorian Christian translator), preservation of Greek/Persian/Indian texts
• Tier-1 virtues: Intellectual curiosity, epistemic humility (learning from non-Muslims), tolerance (employing Christians/Jews/Zoroastrians)
• Mixed motives: Genuine curiosity + competition with Byzantium + administrative needs (recruiting talent wherever it existed)
• Result: Islamic Golden Age—mathematical, astronomical, philosophical breakthroughs
• Limits: Eventually declines; theological conservatism reasserts
• Micro-example: Specific moment/anecdote from translation house; Al-Ma'mun's reported statement

4. Mongol Pragmatism: Yuan China and Il-Khanate

• Setup: Brutal conquerors who nonetheless enabled remarkable syncretism
• Tier-1 virtues: Pragmatic tolerance (didn't care about subjects' beliefs as long as tribute flowed), epistemic humility (employed administrators from conquered peoples—Persian, Chinese, Muslim)
• Mixed motives: Pure pragmatism (needed expertise); no ideological commitment to pluralism
• Result: Pax Mongolica—Silk Road flourishes, Marco Polo, architectural/cultural synthesis
• Shows: Even conquest can create conditions for exchange when pragmatism activates tolerance
• Micro-example: Kublai Khan's diverse court; specific policy decision

C. Early Modern/Modern Cases

5. European Union: Promise and Peril

• Promise (1950s-2000s): Marshall Plan, Adenauer-De Gaulle reconciliation, Coal and Steel Community
  • Tier-1 virtues activated: Epistemic humility (nationalism failed catastrophically), tolerance (former enemies cooperating), attention to consequences (two world wars taught lessons)
  • Mixed motives: Moral learning + pragmatic self-interest (economic recovery) + American pressure + Cold War context
  • Micro-example: Schuman Declaration moment; Adenauer-De Gaulle at Reims Cathedral
• Peril (2010s-present): Brexit, Orbán's Hungary, AfD, National Rally, economic asymmetries
  • Tier-1 virtues failing: Resurgent nationalism, contempt for Brussels, anti-immigrant rhetoric
  • Shows: Even favorable conditions + institutional design don't guarantee permanence; economic stress + nationalist rhetoric can reactivate prejudices
  • Micro-example: Orbán's 2018 speech explicitly rejecting "liberal democracy"

6. Northern Ireland Peace Process: Personal Chemistry and Moral Luck

• Setup: Good Friday Agreement (1998)—years of violence ending in negotiated settlement
• Tier-1 virtues: Willingness to talk with enemies (Hume, Trimble, Adams), patience, attention to consequences
• Personal chemistry mattered: George Mitchell's mediation; specific relationships among negotiators
• Moral luck: War-weariness + economic incentives + international pressure + individual courage
• Limits: Tensions remain; periodic violence; Brexit complicates
• Shows: Personal chemistry and contingency as important as structures
• Micro-example: "One more hour" moment; specific negotiation anecdote

D. Failure Cases (for contrast)

7. Aung San Suu Kyi and the Rohingya: Virtue's Instability

• Setup: Nobel laureate, democracy icon, who refused to condemn genocide
• Shows: Tier-1 virtues are not transferable across contexts—someone can embody courage/moral clarity in one role (dissident) and fail catastrophically in another (leader)
• Possible interpretations: Nationalist loyalty > universal ethics; political calculation; moral limits of individuals; context dependency
• Lesson: Virtues must be continually activated—not permanent possessions
• Micro-example: Her 2019 appearance at The Hague (ICJ)—the shock of reversal

8. Climate Science vs. Climate Politics: Knowledge Without Action

• Climate Science (IPCC): Tier-1 virtues working—fallibilism, epistemic humility (uncertainty ranges), international cooperation
  • Result: Robust scientific consensus despite complexity
• Climate Politics (COPs, national policies): Tier-1 virtues failing—dogmatic denial, contempt for expertise, indifference to consequences
  • Result: Insufficient action despite knowledge
• Shows: Epistemic virtues can succeed while political virtues fail; knowledge ≠ action; structural constraints (fossil fuel lobbying, nationalist competition) overwhelm individual good intentions
• Micro-example: Specific IPCC report moment (careful hedging) vs. specific COP failure (Copenhagen collapse)
• Footnote: Merchants of Doubt—organized cultivation of epistemic vices

---

VI. SYNTHESIS: What the Cases Show (1,500-2,000 words)

A. No simple formula:

• "These cases don't prove virtues guarantee success—they show virtues are resources that, under favorable conditions, make cooperation more likely"
• "Sometimes structures dominate (climate politics); sometimes individuals matter profoundly (Cyrus, Mandela); usually it's complex interaction"

B. Conditions beyond virtue (what else syncretism requires):

• Prolonged contact (not just brief encounters)
• Power asymmetries that aren't total (conquerors need something from conquered)
• Elites with incentives to borrow (prestige, pragmatic advantage, aesthetic appeal)
• Institutional spaces (translation houses, trade networks, intermarriage)
• Some stability (constant warfare forecloses exchange)
• The "diplomat's luck" (personal chemistry, chance friendships)

C. Why virtues matter even without guarantees:

• They're widely distributed (not invented by any one tradition—shown in Section II)
• They sometimes work (historical record shows this)
• They're all we have (no cosmic guarantees, but these resources exist)
• They make better outcomes more probable (modest but real difference)

D. The both/and position:

• Cyrus mattered and structures mattered
• EU founders' virtues helped and Marshall Plan + Cold War context mattered
• Tier-1 virtues are necessary but not sufficient
• Cultivation is worthwhile without being utopian

---

VII. CONCLUSION: Reverent Coping in a Precarious World (500-750 words)

A. Recap the journey:

• "I've argued that weak, mediated agency is philosophically coherent [Chapter 3]"
• "I've shown that Tier-1 virtues are widely distributed human resources [Section II this chapter]"
• "I've examined historical cases where these virtues, or their absence, made decisive differences [Sections V-VI]"

B. The modest wager:

• "History offers no guarantees. But it shows that certain dispositions—epistemic humility, tolerance, compassion, attention to consequences—have sometimes been activated in ways that made cooperation and syncretism possible"
• "In an age of nuclear weapons, climate change, AI, and resurgent nationalism, that's not much to go on—but it's what we have"
• "Cultivating these virtues is a wager: not a solution, not a panacea, but a modest bet that better outcomes become more likely when these resources are available and activated"

C. Forward gesture (if there are more chapters):

• "In what follows, I'll explore [next topic]..."
• OR end with: "These are my hunches, offered in the spirit of 'reverent coping come what may'—doing what I can with what I have, while acknowledging that outcomes always exceed control. I'd welcome your thoughts."

---

ESTIMATED WORD COUNTS

• I. Opening: 500-750
• II. Tier-1 Virtues Survey: 2,500-3,000 (already written)
• III. Hermeneutical Preface: 1,500-2,000
• IV. Field of Interactions: 1,000-1,500
• V. Historical Vignettes: 5,000-7,000
• VI. Synthesis: 1,500-2,000
• VII. Conclusion: 500-750

TOTAL: ~12,500-16,000 words (substantial chapter, maybe split into two if needed)

---

NOTES FOR DRAFTING

1. Voice: First person singular throughout ("I argue," "I see," "my hunch," "I'd welcome")
2. Tone: Invitational but substantive; modest but not apologetic
3. Examples: Specific, vivid, brief—not comprehensive treatments
4. Integration: Each section should flow naturally into the next
5. Remind yourself: This isn't trying to be exhaustive; it's offering a lens others might find useful---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Draft of Section I from above outline:  

 Introduction:

This essay grows out of questions that have been with me for a long time. How do contemplative and religious traditions relate to everyday life rather than just to monasteries and retreats? Can anything be learned from them without accepting their full metaphysical packages—about God, karma, rebirth, providence? And what resources do we have, now, for navigating a world in which deep disagreements about meaning and value are not going away? What follows is not a system or a “view from nowhere,” but a set of hunches: attempts to make sense of certain recurring patterns in history and to see what they might offer for our own situation.

In earlier chapters, the focus was on individual agency under conditions of uncertainty and luck. The argument, in compressed form, was that agency is neither the old sovereign self—standing outside history, fully in control—nor the mere illusion some post‑structural theories imply. Instead, what we have is a kind of weak, mediated agency: people act from within inherited practices, institutions, and discourses; their efforts are constrained and channeled in countless ways; yet their choices still make a difference, sometimes a very large one. Moral luck, on this view, is not an embarrassing anomaly but the normal background against which any meaningful action has to be undertaken.

Here I ask what happens when that weak, fallible agency is brought into contact with deep difference: religious, cultural, political. When empires meet, when traders cross frontiers, when scholars translate each other’s texts, when former enemies try to build institutions together—what makes the difference between mutual enrichment and mutual destruction? Why do some encounters, under conditions that look broadly similar, tilt toward syncretism and creative borrowing, while others spiral into crusades, expulsions, partitions? No single factor will ever explain that, but some dispositions seem to matter more than others.

I will call a certain cluster of those dispositions “Tier‑1 virtues.” The label is not meant to suggest a hierarchy of importance or a fixed taxonomy; it is just shorthand for a family resemblance among traits that keep turning up in very different settings: epistemic humility, tolerance, patience, curiosity about the other, attention to consequences, and a kind of steady equanimity under changing fortune. These are not full moral or religious outlooks. They do not tell anyone what to worship or how to order a society. They are thinner habits of mind and heart—ways of coping with contingency and difference—that can, in principle, be activated inside many thicker frameworks.

One of the surprises that emerged as I worked on this material is that moral luck and these Tier‑1 virtues are not in simple tension. Luck does undercut any picture in which virtue automatically brings reward or in which the world is guaranteed to be fair. But that very recognition can free agents from waiting on a providential script and push them back onto their own limited but real resources. When you stop assuming that “everything happens for a reason,” or that history is secretly arranged to vindicate your side, the question shifts from “Why is this happening?” to “Given that this is happening, what can still be done?” The stance I will call “reverent coping, come what may” is one answer: a mix of lucid acceptance and continuing care that shows up in Buddhist equanimity, Christian detachment, Islamic sabr and tawakkul, Confucian calm, Taoist non‑forcing, and even in naturalistic thinkers like Dewey and Einstein.

I have two aims: The first is to sketch this Tier‑1 ethos in a bit more detail by pointing to its expressions across several traditions, religious and secular. The second is to see how it actually fares in practice by looking at specific historical episodes, both hopeful and tragic. The cases will range from Achaemenid Persia to Abbasid Baghdad, from Mongol rule to the Ottoman millet system, from early modern experiments in accommodation to the creation and fragility of the European Union and recent peace processes. In each, I will ask a relatively simple question: when people facing difference and danger tried to act, what role—if any—did something like these Tier‑1 virtues play, alongside self‑interest, fear, pride, and sheer luck? The hope is not to extract a formula, but to learn something about the conditions under which interpersonal and intercultural life becomes more breathable, even when nothing guarantees success.

 

-Tier 1 Virtues as "Reverent Coping Come What May": Cross-Cultural Expressions-

Before turning to specific historical cases, I want to establish what I mean by Tier-1 virtues by showing how remarkably similar attitudes recur across very different religious and philosophical traditions. What follows is necessarily painted in broad strokes—I am highlighting certain strands and interpretations within complex traditions rather than settling longstanding textual debates—but the pattern is striking enough to warrant attention. These are not abstract principles but lived stances—ways of inhabiting contingency that combine lucidity about moral luck with steady, non-fatalistic agency. What I'm calling "reverent coping come what may" names a family resemblance among virtues that appear again and again when traditions confront the same basic human predicament: how to act well in a world where outcomes exceed our control, where fortune plays a decisive role, and where no cosmic guarantee ensures justice.

Christian Mysticism and Orthodox Kenosis

In the mystical strands of Christianity, particularly in figures like Meister Eckhart and the Orthodox hesychast tradition, we find a radical detachment from outcomes that is anything but passive resignation. Eckhart writes of Abgeschiedenheit—a "detachment" or "disinterest" where one acts "without a why," releasing the anxious demand that the world conform to one's will or that one's efforts be visibly rewarded. The Philokalia, central to Orthodox spirituality, cultivates hesychia (inner stillness) and kenosis (self-emptying), training practitioners to receive whatever comes—suffering, joy, apparent injustice—as occasion for spiritual formation rather than as proof that "things are as they should be."

This is not fatalism. The mystic continues to act, to love, to engage—but the self's grip on controlling or justifying outcomes loosens. External fortune becomes training ground, not vindication. What matters is the quality of one's inner state and one's responsiveness to the present, not whether history rewards virtue or makes cosmic sense. As the author of The Cloud of Unknowing writes, the contemplative learns to dwell in "the darkness" where God's justice is not legible but trust remains.

Zen and Taoist Equanimity

The famous Zen parable of the farmer captures a recurring East Asian attitude with particular clarity. When the farmer's horse runs away, neighbors say "Such bad luck!" He replies, "Maybe." When the horse returns with wild horses, they say "Such good luck!" Again: "Maybe." This continues through his son's injury and eventual escape from conscription—always "Maybe."

The farmer is not indifferent but refuses to over-interpret events as definitively good or bad, because he cannot see far enough to make such judgments. This cultivated equanimity—ataraxia in Buddhist terms—allows for wholehearted action without the paralysis of anxious overinvestment in outcomes. Taoist philosophy articulates the same insight through wu wei (effortless action): responsive spontaneity that works with circumstances rather than rigidly imposing one's will. The Daodejing's image is water—it flows around obstacles, takes the lowest place, yet nothing is stronger. Zhuangzi, reflecting on his wife's death, places grief within endless transformations that exceed human categories of good and bad. The cultivation of the "uncarved block" (pu) aims at inner simplicity that can meet fortune's reversals without shattering.

Confucianism and the Calm Junzi

The Confucian tradition, often misread as focused only on social propriety, contains a profound account of inner equanimity under changing fortune. In the Analects (7.37), Confucius observes: "The noble-minded are calm and steady. Little people are forever fussing and fretting." The junzi (exemplary person) cultivates ren (humaneness) not because the universe guarantees it will be rewarded, but because it provides an inner stability that neither adversity nor prosperity can shake.

Another passage (4.2) makes this explicit: "Without ren, you can't dwell in adversity for long, and you can't dwell in prosperity for long." The point is not that virtue ensures worldly success but that it enables one to handle both good and bad fortune with equanimity. The junzi focuses on what lies within personal control—self-cultivation, appropriate conduct, understanding others—and releases anxiety about external recognition or material outcomes. As the Analects (1.16) puts it: "One is not concerned that others do not know one; one is concerned that one does not know others."

This is engaged agency—Confucius explicitly rejects withdrawal from the world—but agency that has relocated its ground from external validation to internal formation.

Islamic Sabr and Tawakkul

In Islamic tradition, sabr (patient endurance) and tawakkul (trust in God after having done what one can) capture this stance with particular clarity. Sabr is not passive suffering but active, disciplined management of fear, anger, and impulsive reaction—whether in obeying what is right when difficult, restraining destructive impulses, or accepting hardships without complaint. The Prophet Muhammad is reported to have said: "Whoever persists in being patient, Allah will make him patient."

Tawakkul names the balance between action and acceptance. The famous hadith captures this: when a man asked whether he should leave his camel untied and trust in God, the Prophet replied, "Tie her and trust in Allah." This is precisely weak agency plus acceptance: act responsibly within your limited sphere, then relinquish demand for control over outcomes. The psychological result—qana'ah (contentment)—comes not because the world is just, but because one has stopped insisting it be fully under one's control.

Hinduism and Karma Yoga

The Bhagavad Gita's teaching of karma yoga—action without attachment to the fruits of action—provides another powerful articulation of engaged, non-anxious agency. Krishna instructs Arjuna on the battlefield: act with full commitment and skill, but release your grip on results. The emphasis is on dharma (right action appropriate to one's role) performed with wholehearted effort, while understanding that outcomes depend on factors beyond individual control.

This is not a counsel to care less or act carelessly. Rather, it is recognition that agency is real but bounded, that one's duty is to act well, not to control history. The cultivation of this stance—acting without being "the actor" in the sense of claiming full authorship of outcomes—aims to free the agent from the oscillation between inflated self-importance when things go well and despairing self-blame when they do not.

Jewish Wisdom: Accepting What Cannot Be Changed

Jewish tradition, particularly in its wisdom literature and later Hasidic developments, contains similar resources. Ecclesiastes acknowledges the role of chance bluntly: "The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the intelligent, nor favor to those with knowledge, but time and chance happen to them all" (9:11). This is not cynicism but realism about moral luck.

Hasidic teachings on bitachon (trust) and simcha (joy even in adversity) cultivate an attitude where trust in God coexists with full engagement in the world's messy contingencies. Rabbi Nachman of Breslov's famous dictum—"The whole world is a very narrow bridge, and the main thing is not to be afraid at all"—captures the balance: acknowledge precarity, but don't let fear paralyze action or curdle into resentment when things go wrong.

Humanism and Naturalism: Dewey's "Natural Piety"

John Dewey, signing the Humanist Manifesto and writing A Common Faith, articulated a secular version of reverent coping that eschews supernatural guarantees while maintaining what he called "natural piety"—a sense of gratitude and humility before the conditions that make life and growth possible, combined with active intelligence in pursuing amelioration.

For Dewey, faith is not belief in providential design but "faith in the possibilities of experience"—a cultivated disposition to continue caring, experimenting, and acting responsibly under conditions of uncertainty. He writes of "enduring the undesirable while maintaining active interest in what is possible," which is a nearly perfect description of what I'm calling reverent coping. There is no cosmic guarantee that things will work out, no script ensuring that virtue is rewarded. But there are real possibilities for growth, cooperation, and amelioration if we can act intelligently and maintain hope without demanding certainty.

Einstein's "Cosmic Religious Feeling"

Albert Einstein, in his essay "Religion and Science," described what he called the "cosmic religious feeling"—a sense of awe before the intelligibility and vastness of nature that generates humility without requiring personalized providence. This feeling, he argued, is the source of genuine scientific motivation: the recognition that we are small, our understanding partial, yet understanding is possible and worth pursuing.

Einstein explicitly rejected both traditional theism and mechanistic materialism. What he affirmed was a kind of reverent naturalism: deep respect for the mystery and order evident in nature, combined with recognition that human purposes and sufferings are not written into the cosmic order. This generates what he called "a deep emotional conviction of the rationality of the universe"—not rationality in the sense of moral teleology, but intelligibility coupled with acceptance that the universe is indifferent to human projects. The appropriate response is not despair but a kind of disciplined wonder and humility, continuing to seek understanding and to act decently within the narrow sphere where human agency matters.

Synthesizing the Pattern

What emerges across these traditions is not a unified doctrine but a family resemblance—a cluster of attitudes and practices for inhabiting moral luck that recur despite vast differences in metaphysical commitments. We might name the shared elements:

Cognitive virtues: Epistemic humility (recognizing one's perspective is partial), refusal to over-read events as deserved or part of a knowable plan, willingness to track actual consequences rather than defend doctrine

Affective/temperamental virtues: Equanimity under gain and loss, patience without bitterness, what I'm calling reverent acceptance—a stance that can encompass Zen, Taoist, mystical Christian, Sufi, Confucian, and secular naturalist versions

Practical/social virtues: Tolerance and forbearance toward difference, willingness to sustain cooperation and exchange even under tension, non-resentful response to structural constraints one didn't choose

This is what I mean by Tier-1 virtues: not a philosopher's abstract list but a widely attested, tradition-crossing way of being in the world. These virtues do not deny luck or guarantee outcomes; they train agents to act responsibly and steadily within a world where contingency always has the last word.

Importantly, this Tier-1 ethos often coexists with Tier-2 metanarratives—providence, karma, Pure Land, cosmic justice—that promise ultimate sense-making. But when those metanarratives are strained by severe suffering or moral luck, it is precisely these Tier-1 resources that people draw upon. The mystical paths, the hard disciplines, the acceptance practices all effectively say: in extremis, when felt consolation and visible justice fail, what remains is a cultivated way of standing in the storm.

And crucially—accepting moral luck in this way does not diminish agency but paradoxically enhances it. When we stop waiting for providential alignment or external justification, more paths of action become thinkable. The question shifts from "Why is this happening?" to "Given that this is happening, what remains open to me?" As argued in the previous chapter on weak agency, Tier-1 virtues are thus not just compatible with moral luck but are the form that robust, flexible agency takes when agents relocate initiative into inner-directed resources rather than relying on cosmic guarantees.

With this Tier-1 profile in view, we can now turn to specific historical cases where these attitudes, or their absence, made decisive differences in how human communities navigated difference and whether intercultural exchange produced synthesis or breakdown.

 

Draft - 3 - Weak Agency After the Interpretive Turn: A Neo-Pragmatist Rehabilitation

I. Introduction: The Agency Deficit

By the late twentieth century, the interpretive turn had fundamentally transformed the human sciences. Foucault's genealogies, Derrida's deconstructions, Gadamer's hermeneutics, and Taylor's historicist moral philosophy converged on a shared insight: the autonomous, self-transparent subject of Cartesian and Kantian philosophy was an ideological fiction. The "sovereign subject"—disembedded, rational, authorial—gave way to the situated interpreter: historically formed, linguistically constituted, structurally mediated. This was an intellectual achievement that liberated inquiry from naive voluntarism and ahistorical individualism.

But in correcting the excesses of Enlightenment humanism, interpretive theory often over-corrected. Once dethroned, the individual agent risked disappearing entirely. Causal and moral efficacy migrated upward to abstractions: discourses, epistemes, effective histories, horizons of meaning. Post-structuralism succeeded in demolishing the sovereign subject but struggled to install a workable successor. The result is a pervasive agency deficit—a reluctance, even an inability, to speak coherently of historically situated persons bearing virtues, making consequential choices, and affecting outcomes in ways that matter for explanation and evaluation.

This creates a genuine problem for anyone engaged in interpretive history, comparative ethics, or normative political theory. How can we attribute virtues like epistemic humility, tolerance, or practical wisdom to historical figures—Cyrus the Great, Akbar, Mahatma Gandhi—if individuals are merely "sites where discursive forces converge"? How can we make meaningful counterfactual claims about what might have happened under different leadership if persons are just epiphenomenal effects of structural determinations? How can we assess responsibility if agency itself has been redistributed to impersonal systems?

The task here is to recover a concept of weak agency—weak not in causal power but in metaphysical commitment. This account makes no appeal to sovereign subjectivity, transcendental egos, or disembedded rationality. Agency is "weak" in the sense that it requires minimal philosophical apparatus while nonetheless remaining efficacious yet situated, socially constituted yet capable of meaningful intervention, mediated but not reduced to structural effects. Drawing on pragmatist resources—particularly Dewey and Mead, with some modifications—I propose a rehabilitation of individual agency that preserves the insights of the interpretive turn while restoring the possibility of attributing choices, virtues, and influence to historically embedded persons. This does not involve a return to sovereign subjectivity or Great Man theory of history. It does, however, insist on symmetrical mediation: if structures are mediated and yet causally efficacious, so too are individuals. The question is always at what scale and under what conditions we attribute influence—a question to be answered by examining specific cases, not by theoretical fiat.

II. How the Interpretive Turn Dissolved the Agent

The dismantling of the sovereign subject proceeded along multiple trajectories, each contributing to the current impasse. Foucault's genealogies revealed how subjects are produced by disciplinary regimes and discursive formations rather than standing outside them as autonomous legislators. The modern "soul," far from being a pre-social essence, is an effect of power-knowledge configurations. In "What is an Author?" Foucault argued that even the concept of authorship—seemingly the paradigm of individual creative agency—is a historically contingent "author-function" serving specific ideological purposes within discourse.

Derrida's deconstructive strategies radicalized this dissolution. His analyses of writing, trace, and différance suggested that meaning and identity are always already deferred, constituted through an endless play of differences rather than grounded in self-present consciousness. The subject becomes a temporary effect of textual dynamics, not their origin. Where humanist thought located agency in the intending consciousness of autonomous actors, deconstruction revealed an endless deferral of presence, with no stable ground for attributing intentions or agency.

Gadamer's hermeneutics, though less radically anti-subjectivist, nonetheless emphasized how understanding is always "historically effected"—shaped by traditions, horizons, and prejudgments that precede and constitute any individual act of interpretation. We do not stand outside our effective histories to survey them objectively; we are always already within them. Taylor's genealogies of selfhood extended this insight, showing how even our most intimate experiences of moral identity are culturally and historically mediated through "social imaginaries" and "horizons of significance."

These moves were diagnostic and, in many ways, liberating. They exposed the ideological work performed by the myth of the self-possessing subject within liberal political theory and modern epistemology. They revealed the social, historical, and linguistic mediations that constitute what Enlightenment thought imagined as pure, unmediated consciousness. But the combined effect was to render the individual agent nearly metaphysically impossible. Once all intention is traceable to discursive formation, once all will is revealed as sedimentation of language games and power relations, the actor threatens to disappear into the scene of writing or the field of power.

The problem is not that these thinkers denied that action occurs—obviously people do things. The problem is that they relocated efficacy almost entirely to the level of structures, discourses, or traditions, treating individuals as conduits or sites rather than as agents in any robust sense. Philosophy became a theater of impersonal forces, with persons reduced to positions within fields of power or moments in the play of signification.

III. The Asymmetry: When Structures Act More Directly Than Persons

The result of this overcorrection is an unacknowledged and philosophically incoherent asymmetry. Contemporary theory routinely insists that individual action is too mediated, too constituted by language and power, to bear straightforward causal or normative weight. Yet it simultaneously describes structures, discourses, projects, or systems as if they acted with clear intentionality: "neoliberalism restructured labor markets," "the Enlightenment project invented the individual," "global capitalism demands austerity," "the carceral archipelago disciplines subjects."

This is conceptually unstable. To deny efficacy to embodied, historically situated persons because they are mediated, while simultaneously attributing efficacy to abstractions that are even more abstract and impersonal, involves a double standard. It rests on what might be called the asymmetric application of mediation. Structures and discourses get treated as if they possess something like agency—they decide, organize, demand, resist—while actual persons are reduced to passive bearers of structural relations or nodal points where forces intersect.

Consider a typical formulation: "The neoliberal project reorganized global finance to prioritize capital mobility and labor flexibility." What does it mean for a "project" to reorganize anything? Projects don't deliberate, calculate trade-offs, negotiate with opposition, or enforce compliance. People occupying specific institutional positions do these things—policymakers, central bankers, corporate executives, legislators. The language of "the project" obscures rather than clarifies by attributing intentionality and efficacy to an abstraction.

Or consider: "Foucault shows how the discourse of sexuality produces subjects rather than subjects producing discourse." True enough as a corrective to voluntarism. But if we push it too far, we face a puzzle: how does discourse do anything? Discourses don't write texts, design institutions, enforce norms, or resist challenges. People embedded within discursive formations do these things. If we deny that individuals have efficacy because they're discursively constituted, we cannot then turn around and attribute greater efficacy to discourse itself without falling into mystification.

The pendulum has swung from anthropomorphic individualism to hypostatized structuralism. Abstractions—markets, systems, discourses, projects—get anthropomorphized, treated as quasi-agents with intentions and powers, while actual agents get dissolved into structural effects. This isn't progress; it's replacing one incoherence with another.

Recent efforts to restore agency from within hermeneutic and sociological traditions deserve recognition for grasping the problem's urgency. Charles Taylor, Pierre Bourdieu, and Anthony Giddens each attempt sophisticated middle paths between atomistic individualism and structural determinism. Yet despite their considerable sophistication, all three ultimately attribute causal powers to abstractions in ways that replicate rather than resolve the core difficulty.

Taylor's account of selfhood insists that persons remain efficacious moral agents who engage in "strong evaluation" and reflexive self-interpretation within culturally mediated frameworks. Unlike post-structuralists who dissolve subjects into discursive effects, Taylor preserves genuine individual agency. Yet his framework simultaneously grants "social imaginaries" an "irreducible social reality" with "causal efficacy"—they "enable and constrain" action as ontologically robust forces. This is conceptually unstable: either imaginaries are patterns of shared understanding internalized in individuals and enacted through coordinated practices—in which case individuals and groups do the enabling and constraining—or they're hypostatized as independent causal powers, which Taylor officially denies yet tacitly requires.

Bourdieu's concept of habitus attempts to explain how social structures become embodied dispositions that generate practice without conscious deliberation. The habitus doesn't "act" as agents do, Bourdieu insists, yet it possesses "structuring power"—it organizes perception, generates strategies, reproduces social positions. Here again we encounter non-agential forces attributed with causal efficacy. Habitus is internalized within individuals' bodies and dispositions, yet Bourdieu writes as if "the field" or "the habitus" operates with its own logic beyond the aggregated practices of situated persons. The "structuring power" dissolves into a metaphor for what people reliably do given their socialization—useful descriptively, but doing no independent causal work.

Giddens's structuration theory comes closest to the pragmatist approach defended here. He correctly insists that only individuals possess consciousness and agency, that structures exist as "memory traces" in individuals rather than as external entities, and that research should focus on resource flows and power dynamics in specific cases rather than on a priori theoretical commitments. His practical methodological guidance—examine who controls authoritative and allocative resources, attend to reflexivity levels, trace circuits of reproduction—aligns well with scalar attribution principles. Yet Giddens insists that structures have "virtual existence" as "abstract models" existing "outside time and space" with independent ontological reality that constrains action. This metaphysical commitment proves superfluous when examining Giddens's later applied work. In The Politics of Climate Change (2009), faced with analyzing who and what drives climate inaction and what might enable effective response, Giddens focuses on nation-states controlling regulation, corporations controlling capital investment, technological capabilities, and political institutions—concrete actors with real resources and powers. The "virtual structures" of his ontological framework play no role in this analysis. When pushed to explain actual outcomes at scale, even Giddens attributes influence to concrete actors and mechanisms, revealing that the metaphysical apparatus does no explanatory work that pragmatist attributions don't accomplish more parsimoniously.

The pattern across Taylor, Bourdieu, and Giddens is consistent: each recognizes that pure structuralism eliminates the possibility of meaningful historical explanation and moral evaluation, so each attempts recovery. Yet each also reserves special ontological or causal status for abstractions—social imaginaries, habitus, virtual structures—that function in their theories much as "discourse" or "episteme" function in post-structuralism, only now with hermeneutic or sociological rather than post-structuralist vocabulary. Whether framed as having "causal efficacy" (Taylor), "structuring power" (Bourdieu), or "virtual existence" (Giddens), these abstractions end up doing theoretical work that concrete agents and their patterned interactions could do more parsimoniously.

IV. Blunden's Attempted Recovery and Why It Replicates the Problem

Andy Blunden's work exemplifies another attempt to restore agency from within the Marxist and activity theory traditions. Blunden, drawing on Hegelian and Vygotskian resources, seeks to avoid reducing subjects to passive effects of structure by locating agency in collective projects and activity systems rather than in isolated individuals. His goal is admirable: preserve some notion of historical efficacy and intentionality without returning to atomistic individualism or the sovereign subject.

Yet this solution re-reifies at a different level. "Projects" and "activity systems" become the new quasi-agents, endowed with continuity, purpose, and causal power. The core problem afflicting structuralism—treating abstractions as if they were subjects—reemerges in slightly different vocabulary. We've moved from "discourse produces subjects" to "collective projects actualize through individuals," but we haven't escaped the underlying difficulty.

Moreover, privileging collective agency over individual agency obscures crucial asymmetries within collectives. The Bolshevik project, the Zionist project, the European integration project—all contain internal heterogeneity, competing factions, and depend heavily on the contingent decisions of key individuals acting within institutional fields. When we say "the Soviet project of socialist construction" produced collectivization and terror, we've abstracted away from precisely what makes that history intelligible: Stalin's specific choices, dispositions, and actions within (and transforming) the party-state structure he inherited.

Blunden's move appreciates that passive, effect-only subjects won't do for historical explanation or normative evaluation. But his solution—elevating collectives to the status of primary agents—just relocates the reification rather than dissolving it. We still face the question: when the "collective project" makes a decision or changes direction, aren't we actually talking about specific persons in specific roles making choices with real consequences? And if so, why the detour through collective abstraction?

V. The Stalin and Mandela Cases: Why Privileging Collectives Fails

The case of Stalin exposes the inadequacy of any theory—whether Foucauldian, Derridean, or Blundenian—that attempts to demote or dissolve individual agency in favor of structural or collective agency. Consider the historical facts: Between 1928 and 1953, the Soviet Union underwent radical transformations—forced collectivization, industrialization at breakneck pace, the Great Terror, strategic decisions during World War II, postwar occupation policies in Eastern Europe. These developments occurred within a relatively stable structural context: a Bolshevik party-state system, command economy, conditions of international isolation and later Cold War pressures.

Now suppose we adopt the position that attributes primary agency to "the Soviet project of socialist construction" rather than to individuals actualizing that project. What does this buy us explanatorily? We would have to say something like: "The project demanded rapid industrialization, the project required the elimination of kulak resistance, the project executed the purges of 1936-38."

But this obscures more than it clarifies. The same party-state system, operating under similar structural constraints, produced dramatically different outcomes under different leaders: Lenin's New Economic Policy involved market mechanisms and tactical retreats; Stalin's approach involved forced collectivization and mass terror; Khrushchev initiated de-Stalinization and limited reforms; Brezhnev presided over stagnation; Gorbachev's glasnost and perestroika contributed to the system's collapse. If "the project" is the primary agent, how do we explain this variation?

The structuralist or collectivist faces a dilemma:

Option A: Attribute these differences to changing structural conditions (international pressures, economic circumstances, technological capacities). But the structural variations across these periods, while real, are insufficient to explain the dramatic differences in policy and outcomes. The party-state system remained fundamentally similar; what changed were the specific individuals at its apex and their dispositions, ideologies, and choices.

Option B: Deny that the differences are significant—claim that beneath surface variations, structural continuities dominated. But this is historically implausible and explanatorily weak. Soviet history under Stalin versus Soviet history under Gorbachev are not minor variations on a structural theme; they represent profoundly different trajectories with world-historical consequences.

Option C: Acknowledge that individual leadership mattered, that Stalin's paranoia, ruthlessness, ideological rigidity, and tactical calculations shaped Soviet outcomes in ways that Trotsky's leadership or Bukharin's would not have. This is the most historically defensible position—but it requires attributing significant agency to Stalin as a historically situated individual, not just as an "actualizer" of collective determinations.

The meaningful counterfactual—"Soviet history 1928-1953 would have been significantly different had someone other than Stalin led"—is only coherent if we grant that individual agency, however mediated by structures, made a real difference. If we try to cash out Stalin's role entirely in terms of "the project" or "the structure," we lose the ability to explain variation, attribute responsibility, or make sense of contingency.

This is not a return to Great Man history. Stalin's efficacy was thoroughly mediated by the party-state apparatus he controlled, the ideological commitments of Bolshevism, geopolitical pressures, economic conditions, and the legacy of War Communism and civil war. But mediation is not elimination. Stalin, operating within and through these structures, made choices that bore his particular stamp—choices that reflected his distinctive combination of paranoia, ruthlessness, Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy, and political cunning. Those choices mattered. They shaped outcomes. A different individual in that structural position would have produced different outcomes.

This analysis applies equally to individual agents whose considerable influence operated constructively rather than destructively. Consider Nelson Mandela's role in South Africa's democratic transition. Between 1990 and 1999, South Africa underwent a profound transformation from apartheid state to constitutional democracy. These developments occurred within constraining structural conditions: deeply entrenched racial capitalism, threat of civil war, international pressures, economic inequality, competing liberation movements, and the organizational resources of both the apartheid state and the African National Congress.

Suppose we adopt the collectivist position and attribute primary agency to "the liberation project" or "the democratic transition process." We would say: "The project demanded negotiations, the transition required reconciliation, the democratic movement produced the new constitution." But the same structural context—the same apartheid legacy, the same economic pressures, the same competing factions within the ANC and National Party—could plausibly have produced radically different outcomes under different leadership.

Consider the counterfactuals: Had the ANC been led by someone committed to immediate revolutionary transformation and redistribution, the transition might have descended into prolonged civil war. Had negotiations been led by figures less committed to reconciliation, South Africa might have achieved formal democracy while remaining mired in cycles of retribution. Had leadership lacked Mandela's particular combination of moral authority from imprisonment, strategic patience, and commitment to constitutional procedures, the fragile compromises enabling transition might have collapsed.

Mandela's specific qualities—his capacity for forgiveness after 27 years of imprisonment, his political prudence in balancing ANC factions, his strategic use of rugby and other symbolic gestures for national reconciliation, his willingness to serve only one term despite immense popularity, his insistence on constitutional constraints even when commanding overwhelming democratic legitimacy—shaped outcomes in ways that cannot be reduced to structural determinations or collective projects. Another individual in that position, facing the same constraints, would plausibly have made different choices producing different trajectories.

The meaningful counterfactual—"South Africa's transition would have been significantly different without Mandela's specific leadership"—is only coherent if we attribute genuine agency to Mandela as a historically situated individual operating within and reshaping structural constraints. If we dissolve his choices entirely into "the liberation project" or "structural dynamics," we lose explanatory purchase on what actually happened and why.

This is not Great Man historiography. Mandela's efficacy was thoroughly mediated by the ANC's organizational strength, the particular form of South African capitalism, international anti-apartheid movements, the weakness of the apartheid state after the Cold War, and the democratic aspirations of millions of South Africans. But mediation is not elimination. Mandela, operating within and through these structures, made choices that bore his particular stamp and influenced outcomes. A different individual in that structural position would have produced a recognizably different transition.

The same logic applies in everyday contexts far removed from world-historical figures. Clinical family-systems work, from Salvador Minuchin onward, routinely describes how particular members' characteristic responses reshape the family "system" under shared structural pressures, without denying those larger forces. Consider a household in which one parent—say, the mother—is struggling with addiction, frequently absent, and leaving the children in precarious circumstances. That situation is plainly shaped by broader forces: the availability of substances, economic stress, gendered expectations about care work, and so on. Yet within that shared context, different fathers can make dramatically different contributions to what happens next. In one scenario, the father is indecisive, needy, and easily overwhelmed; he allows the family to slide into deterioration. In another, the father is galvanized; he mobilizes intelligence, diligence, and a strong sense of responsibility to stabilize routines, seek help, and buffer the children from some of the worst effects. Here too, the meaningful counterfactual—"were it not for this particular person's dispositions and responses, much in this family would have unfolded differently"—tracks a real difference in mediated influence, without positing any sovereign ego outside structure. Family-systems therapists and case studies regularly describe how specific members' characteristic responses reshape the "system" under shared structural pressures, acknowledging both individual agency and broader constraints.

The attempt to solve the agency problem by demoting individuals and promoting collectives or structures just creates a new version of the same problem: you end up attributing intentions, decisions, and responsibility to abstractions—"the project," "the system," "the discourse"—which are less tractable as agents than historically situated persons ever were.

VI. The Neo-Pragmatist Alternative: Symmetrical Mediation and Scalar Efficacy

A more defensible path forward draws on pragmatist resources, particularly Dewey's and Mead's accounts of action and selfhood. For Dewey, action is experimental inquiry: a process of reconstructing problematic situations through creative adaptation of means to ends within changing environments. For Mead, the self arises through internalized social interaction—the "generalized other" becomes part of individual consciousness—yet the self retains capacity for novelty and reflexive reorientation through what Mead called the "I" moment of experience. The "generalized other" here functions as a useful way of talking about converging forces—values, norms, beliefs, stocks of knowledge, tacit assumptions, customs and habits—that shape individual consciousness, not as any kind of "being" with independent ontological status.

These pragmatist insights point toward an account of agency that is neither sovereign nor epiphenomenal but weak in metaphysical commitment, mediated in practice, and contextually efficacious. Agency, on this view, is not a property of isolated individuals standing outside social relations, nor is it a mere illusion masking structural determinations. It is the socially constituted yet experientially real capacity of situated actors to intervene in ongoing processes, to reconstruct habits and institutions, to make choices that, while always constrained and enabled by contexts, nonetheless make a difference to outcomes.

Crucially, this framework insists on symmetrical mediation. Both individuals and structures are constituted through relations; both are mediated by historical, linguistic, and social factors; neither possesses pure, unmediated causal power. The question is never "do structures or individuals really act?" but rather "at what scale and under what conditions does efficacy operate most saliently for the question at hand?"

This leads to a negative methodological principle: never fix the level of analysis or locus of agency a priori. Determine the appropriate scale of attribution from the specific question being asked and the evidence available. Different inquiries require different scales of explanation:

When structural scale dominates: Consider the question "Why have atmospheric carbon concentrations risen since 1850?" Here, searching for a small set of responsible individuals would be misguided. The phenomenon reflects systemic features: fossil-fuel-based industrialization, capitalist growth imperatives, regulatory failures, international coordination problems, technological path dependencies. Even specific corporate CEOs or policymakers are largely replaceable within this system—the structural logic would produce similar actors making similar choices. Attribution belongs primarily at the structural level.

When individual scale matters significantly: Consider Napoleon's reshaping of European politics and law between 1799 and 1815. Here, structural factors (the French Revolution's legacy, European monarchical systems, military technologies, economic conditions) clearly mattered. But Napoleon's specific qualities—his military genius, administrative vision, political ambition, capacity for rapid decision-making—were not structurally determined or easily replaceable. A different individual leading post-Revolutionary France would have produced a recognizably different trajectory. The counterfactual "without Napoleon specifically, European history 1800-1815 would have been radically different" is historically meaningful because individual-level efficacy was salient here.

When institutional scale dominates: Consider US lawmaking. How laws get made reflects primarily institutional and collective processes: congressional procedures, committee systems, party coalitions, interest group lobbying, federalism, judicial review. Individual legislators matter at the margins—particular skill in coalition-building, key committee positions—but outcomes largely reflect aggregated actions within strongly constraining institutional logics. Attribution belongs primarily to institutional analysis.

When individual scale is decisive: Consider lawmaking in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Here, while structural constraints existed (oil economy, sectarian divisions, international sanctions, Ba'athist ideology), Saddam's personal dictatorship meant that laws and policies reflected his individual choices to an extraordinary degree. The same structural conditions under a different leader would have produced markedly different governance. Individual attribution is not just defensible but necessary for explanation.

The critical move is recognizing that the appropriate scale of attribution varies with the question and the evidence. There is no a priori answer to whether individuals or structures matter more. Sometimes structures overwhelmingly dominate (carbon emissions), sometimes individuals are highly consequential (Stalin, Napoleon, Mandela, Saddam), and often—indeed usually—it's complex interaction at multiple scales (individuals operating within structures they both inherit and transform).

Talk of "scales" here is not quantitative. It does not imply that influence can be measured in units or apportioned in percentages. Rather, it is a way of talking about which level of description—global system, state, organization, household, person—yields the most illuminating answer to a given question. This is not a call to operationalize "degrees of agency" in numerical form; attempts to quantify complex historical roles often obscure more than they reveal. The point is to make explicit, and defend, the qualitative judgments that inform explanation when we say that certain actors or structures "mattered considerably" to a given outcome.

This also helps clarify why we should speak of influence rather than causation. "Causation" carries connotations of unilateral determination—A causes B, decisively and independently. "Influence" better captures the situated, mediated, contributory efficacy that both individuals and structures exercise. Stalin influenced Soviet history profoundly, operating through and reshaping the party-state structure; he did not unilaterally cause outcomes independent of those structural mediations. Similarly, capitalist imperatives influence corporate behavior without mechanically determining every choice.

This framework shows why, for inquiry that aims to explain variation and contingency, scalar attribution to individuals is philosophically coherent. Some historians—Lynn Hunt's work on the French Revolution is one example—employ individual agency in their substantive work while grappling with post-structuralist skepticism in their methodological reflections. Such practitioners need not feel methodological tension: they can continue using individual-level attributions where these illuminate their questions, without theoretical embarrassment. When writing about the Cuban Missile Crisis, for instance, focusing heavily on Kennedy's and Khrushchev's specific decisions, dispositions, and judgments makes sense because at that scale and for that question, individual agency mattered considerably, even though structural factors (Cold War bipolarity, nuclear deterrence logic, bureaucratic politics) were also operative. When writing about the rise of industrial capitalism, focusing on systemic transformations—enclosure movements, technological innovations, market expansions—makes sense because individual capitalists or even political leaders are largely replaceable within that structural dynamic.

The problem arises when theory tries to legislate in advance that only one scale ever matters. Some theories insist everything reduces to individual choices; others insist individuals are epiphenomenal. Both are wrong. The pragmatist alternative treats scale of efficacy as an empirical question, not a theoretical axiom, refusing to prescribe in advance where agency must be located for all inquiry.

VII. Methodological and Normative Payoffs

This rehabilitation of weak agency yields several important payoffs for interpretive inquiry and normative evaluation:

First, it enables meaningful counterfactual reasoning. If we want to say "Persian governance might have looked different under an emperor more like the Assyrian kings," we're making a claim about individual agency—that Cyrus's specific choices (however mediated by Near Eastern imperial traditions and geopolitical constraints) made a difference to outcomes. This counterfactual is impossible to formulate coherently if individuals are merely sites where forces converge. Yet such counterfactuals are essential for historical explanation.

Second, it allows fitting attribution of responsibility. We can say Stalin bears significant responsibility for the Terror and forced collectivization—not sole responsibility (the party-state structure enabled his actions, Bolshevik ideology shaped his worldview, international pressures created perceived threats), but genuine responsibility arising from his choices within that context. This is impossible if agency resides only in "the Soviet project" or "the discourse of socialist construction." Abstractions can't bear responsibility; persons in positions of power making consequential choices can be held answerable for their actions.

Third, it makes virtue ethics possible for historically situated agents. Virtues—dispositions like epistemic humility, tolerance, courage, practical wisdom, attention to consequences—must be borne by persons, not by discourses, structures, "the project," "social imaginaries," or other abstractions. We can say "Cyrus exemplified epistemic humility in recognizing that Persian ways were not the only ways, and tolerance in allowing subject peoples to maintain local cults and governance structures." This attribution is defensible without claiming that Cyrus possessed sovereign agency or that his choices were unmediated by imperial traditions. It requires only that we grant him weak agency—the capacity to make choices within constraints that bore his particular stamp and influenced outcomes.

Fourth, it respects the interpretive character of historical inquiry while maintaining defensibility. Historical sources are incomplete, contested, propagandized, and mediated by successive layers of interpretation. The case of Cyrus exemplifies this: we have his own propaganda (the Cylinder inscription), Xenophon's idealized portrait, biblical celebration, Enlightenment reception, Persian and Iranian nationalist appropriations, and recent revisionist scholarship (like van der Spek's) emphasizing continuities with Assyrian/Babylonian practices. There's no view from nowhere, no unmediated access to "what really happened."

Yet we still must make interpretive judgments. We cannot simply average competing interpretations or throw up our hands in agnostic paralysis. Given the messy, contested evidence we have, we make the most defensible judgment we can: that Cyrus's governance reflected distinctive choices about tone, frequency of terror, systematic use of local elites and cults that marked Persian rule as different from Assyrian precedents, even if (following van der Spek) we acknowledge greater toolkit continuity than older scholarship supposed. This judgment is provisional, revisable, and contestable—but it's not arbitrary. It's constrained by evidence, answerable to criticism, and better than alternatives (pure hagiography, pure structural determinism, or refusal to attribute at all).

In one important strand of interpretive, case-based historical work, practitioners make these scalar judgments constantly, informed by tacit knowledge developed through immersion in sources and historiographical debates. They don't follow algorithms or apply decision procedures. They exercise judgment—and that judgment, while fallible and contestable, is nonetheless often defensible and improvable through argument.

What the neo-pragmatist framework provides is not a shortcut to correct interpretation but a philosophical defense of this practice against theoretical moves that would rule it out in advance. It shows that attributing agency to individuals is not naive or ideological but coherent and defensible. It clears conceptual space for those who want to make defensible interpretive judgments about who and what influenced outcomes, at what scales, under what conditions, without methodological embarrassment.

Finally, it enables the virtue-ethics project. My larger work attempts to identify what I call Tier-1 virtues—dispositions like fallibilism, epistemic humility, tolerance, compassion, attention to consequences—that enable cooperation and inquiry across deep cultural and metaphysical differences. These virtues must be exemplifiable by historically situated persons, not just by abstract "traditions," "practices," "projects," "social imaginaries," or other reified abstractions. We need to be able to say: "Cyrus exemplified these virtues in these ways, and Persian governance might have looked different without his particular dispositions and choices." The account of weak agency defended here makes such attributions philosophically coherent for those who want to pursue virtue ethics with historical exemplars.

VIII. Conclusion

The interpretive turn's critique of the sovereign subject was necessary and valuable. Enlightenment humanism's picture of autonomous, self-transparent, disembedded individuals was indeed ideological and ahistorical. But the solution is not to dissolve individuals entirely into structural effects or to relocate agency to abstracted collectives and discourses. That move replaces one philosophical problem with another.

The neo-pragmatist alternative defended here treats both individuals and structures as mediated, neither as possessing pure unmediated efficacy. Agency operates at multiple scales; the appropriate scale for attribution depends on the question asked and the evidence available. Sometimes structures dominate (carbon emissions, systemic economic transformations), sometimes individuals matter profoundly (Stalin, Napoleon, Mandela, Cyrus within their respective contexts), and usually it's complex interaction requiring attention to multiple levels.

This framework makes no claim to algorithmic precision or quantitative measurement. Historical interpretation remains an art requiring judgment, tacit knowledge, and immersion in contested sources. What this account provides is a defense of practices that attribute mediated agency to individuals—a defense against theoretical positions that would foreclose such attribution, whether through structural reductionism that eliminates individual efficacy or through residual anxieties about returning to naive individualism.

Individual agency is neither sovereign nor epiphenomenal, but weak in the pragmatist sense: demanding little metaphysically while explaining much historically. Stalin's catastrophic efficacy and Mandela's transformative leadership exemplify not "weak" power but weak theory—agency that operates without requiring transcendental subjects or ahistorical rational actors. Agency is weak in its philosophical commitments, strong in its capacity to support defensible attributions of influence, counterfactual reasoning, and calibrated assessment of responsibility. This is sufficient to make talk of individual virtues, counterfactuals, and responsibility philosophically coherent and defensible for those inquiries that want to pursue them—without reviving sovereign subjects or denying the insights of the interpretive turn.

Once we've established this philosophical groundwork, we can return to substantive questions: Did Cyrus exemplify epistemic humility and tolerance? Did Akbar's policies reflect practical wisdom? How did Mandela navigate the tensions between reconciliation and justice? These are interpretive questions admitting of contestable but defensible answers—and the account of weak agency defended here shows why such questions are both coherent and worth pursuing.

---

Bibliography

Blunden, Andy. "The Origins of Collective Decision Making." Historical Materialism (2005).

Bourdieu, Pierre. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Trans. Richard Nice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977.

Derrida, Jacques. Of Grammatology. Trans. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976.

Foucault, Michel. "What is an Author?" In The Foucault Reader, ed. Paul Rabinow. New York: Pantheon, 1984.

Foucault, Michel. The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. New York: Vintage, 1970.

Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Trans. Alan Sheridan. New York: Vintage, 1977.

Gadamer, Hans-Georg. Truth and Method. 2nd rev. ed. Trans. Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G. Marshall. New York: Continuum, 2004.

Giddens, Anthony. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1984.

Giddens, Anthony. The Politics of Climate Change. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2009.

Hunt, Lynn. Politics, Culture, and Class in the French Revolution. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984.

Hunt, Lynn, ed. The New Cultural History. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989.

Kotkin, Stephen. Stalin: Waiting for Hitler, 1929-1941. New York: Penguin, 2017.

Lodge, Tom. Mandela: A Critical Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Minuchin, Salvador. Families and Family Therapy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1974.

Muller, Jerry Z. The Tyranny of Metrics. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2018.

Porter, Theodore M. Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995.

Taylor, Charles. Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989.

Taylor, Charles. Modern Social Imaginaries. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2004.

Taylor, Charles. A Secular Age. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007.

van der Spek, Bert. "Cyrus the Great, Exiles and Foreign Gods: A Comparison of Assyrian and Persian Policies on Subject Nations." In Extraction & Control: Studies in Honor of Matthew W. Stolper, ed. Michael Kozuh et al. Chicago: Oriental Institute, 2014.

Xenophon. Cyropaedia. Trans. Walter Miller. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1914.