In Search of Rational Validity and Motivation: A Critique of William E. Connolly in the Ethical Turn

Through writings such as The Ethos of Pluralization and Why I am Not a Secularist, the American political theorist William E. Connolly has played a pivotal role in the “ethical turn” in contemporary political theory. Believing in the need for ethics in improving democratic politics, Connolly presents “critical responsiveness” toward any newly emerging cultural identity as an indispensable civic virtue for all democratic citizens. Unlike the extant criticisms on Connolly’s ethical writings, this paper discusses their deficiency in terms of reason, validity, and motivation. First, I point out that the validity of his normative demand for the cultivation of critical responsiveness has not yet been established through a convincing rational argument. Second, I argue that even if Connolly’s ethics of critical responsiveness is indeed valid his reluctance for articulating a sound rational ground for his ethics can still be criticized for precluding the possibility of rationally, non-manipulatively motivating citizens toward ethical self-cultivation he so desires.