Andrew, Edward G. 1941-

views updated

ANDREW, Edward G. 1941-

PERSONAL: Born 1941. Ethnicity: "White Anglo-Celtic Jew." Education: University of British Columbia, B.A., L.S.E., Ph.D.

ADDRESSES: Office—Department of Political Science, University of Toronto, Sidney Smith Hall, 100 St. George St., Room 3036, Toronto, Ontario M5S 3G3, Canada; fax: 416-987-5566. E-mail—[email protected].

CAREER: Writer. University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, professor of political science.

WRITINGS:

Closing the Iron Cage, Black Rose (Montreal, Quebec, Canada), 1981, reprinted, 1999.

Shylock's Rights: A Grammar of Lockean Claims, University of Toronto Press (Toronto, Ontario, Canada), 1988.

The Genealogy of Values: The Aesthetic Economy of Nietzsche and Proust, Rowman & Littlefield (Lanham, MD), 1995.

Conscience and Its Critics: Protestant Conscience, Enlightenment Reason, and Modern Subjectivity, University of Toronto Press (Buffalo, NY), 2001.

Patrons of Enlightenment: Patronage and Philosophy in the Eighteenth Century, University of Toronto Press (Toronto, Ontario, Canada), 2006.

SIDELIGHTS: A professor of political science at the University of Toronto, Edward G. Andrew has written articles, chapters, and books on various political thinkers and themes. His first book, Closing the Iron Cage, explores the politics of the managerial revolution and is used in university courses in social theory. His book on human rights, Shylock's Rights: A Grammar of Lockean Claims, generated respectful responses from academic critics. Deemed provocative and "idiosyncratic" by John Christman in the scholarly journal Ethics, the book examines the ways in which the language of rights developed in the works of such philosophers as Grotius, Spinoza, Hobbes, Pufendorf, Locke, Kant, Hegel, Hume, Smith, Burke, and Mill. Andrew begins with an analysis of Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice, arguing that Shylock and Antonio hold alternative moral positions regarding rights. For Andrew, Antonio stands for the tradition of natural law and divine charity while Shylock represents justice and the individual claimant of rights. Andrew argues that the purest defense of the Shylockian position is put forth by Spinoza and Hobbes, not Locke. Christman found that Andrew's argument is often difficult to follow and sometimes "too brief and fleeting," but nonetheless appreciated its challenge to the traditional thinking that posits the beginnings of rights-based morality in the Enlightenment. Michael L. Morgan, in the Journal of Religion, wrote that Shylock's Rights is "often insightful" and offers stimulating ideas. However, the critic also cited Andrew for sacrificing clear analysis for "obfuscating literary strategies" such as deconstructionist wordplay.

In The Genealogy of Values: The Aesthetic Economy of Nietzsche and Proust Andrew explores the development of the "language of values." He argues that the term "value," which originated in the sphere of economics, must signify concepts that exist in economic relationship, such as relativity, contingency, and inequality. Andrew points out that the value discourse developed by Friedrich Nietzsche and novelist Marcel Proust, rooted as it is in economic terminology, is inadequate to convey such concepts as equality or intimacy, and can thus be seen as a threat to democratic principles. "A moral language that suggests consumer demand," wrote Gerald Owen in Books in Canada, "amounts, in [Andrew's] view, to a 'privatization' of the common good." Owen, who appreciated the book's wit and earthiness as well as its analysis, called The Genealogy of Values "a convincing account of the origin of the subjectivist language in which we are entangled" and especially admired Andrew's comparison and contrast of Nietzsche's and Proust's views on will. Ethics contributor Julia G. S. Simon, however, considered The Genealogy of Values to be thought-provoking but "ultimately unconvincing." She observed that Andrew's analysis of Nietzsche's values discourse "falls short of an adequate assessment of Nietzsche's much more complex thoughts on value creation," which, the critic argued "depends upon, and takes place within, forms of cultural life which create the conditions of the possibility of life enhancement."

Conscience and Its Critics: Protestant Conscience, Enlightenment Reason, and Modern Subjectivity represents a scholarly consideration of what some critics have likened to the ancestry of an idea. The original concept of "conscience" emerged from a body of religious beliefs. Andrew reflects on the meaning of the word outside its religious context. Does the word have meaning in a secular sense, or has its usage in the secular arena served to change the definition of the concept itself? In the book, Andrew studies the usage of the concept of conscience through the ages, from religious thinkers such as Paul the Apostle and Martin Luther to philosophers such as Nietzsche, Locke, and Hobbes. "Andrew's thesis," wrote Joshua Mitchell in the Review of Politics, "is that there is no happy and easy conjunction between conscience and reason in modernity." B. W. Young, reviewing Conscience and Its Critics in Albion, suggested that Andrew "is making his case for a resurgence of conscience in the dynamics of modern life." While noting that some elements of the book seem "overwhelming," Mitchell nonetheless observed that "this book makes an important contribution to the debate about the origins of conscience."

BIOGRAPHICAL AND CRITICAL SOURCES:

PERIODICALS

Albion, summer, 2002, B. W. Young, review of Conscience and Its Critics: Protestant Conscience, Enlightenment Reason, and Modern Subjectivity, p. 322.

Books in Canada, March, 1998, Gerald Owens, review of The Genealogy of Values: The Aesthetic Economy of Nietzsche and Proust, p. 29.

Ethics, January, 1991, John Christman, review of Shylock's Rights: A Grammar of Lockean Claims, pp. 425-446; July, 1998, Julia G. S. Simon, review of The Genealogy of Values, pp. 847-848.

Journal of Religion, January, 1991, Michael L. Morgan, review of Shylock's Rights, p. 142.

Review of Politics, spring, 2002, Joshua Mitchell, review of Conscience and Its Critics, p. 358.