Learning from Integralist Students

Dispatches from the Busiest Two Months of My Life.

The past two months have been the busiest of my life. I’m grateful that this is due to my research doing well, not some darker cause. Still, until this week, I’ve barely had time to catch my breath.

My Travels

Over the past months, I’ve had the privilege of speaking at esteemed institutions such as the Acton Institute, Ohio State University, Notre Dame Law School, Baylor University, the University of Florida, the Center for Religion, Culture, and Democracy, the University of Texas at Austin, University of Chicago Law School, Franciscan University at Steubenville, the Central Division Meeting of the American Philosophical Association, the University of Toronto, and the University of Pittsburgh. I’ve also had the opportunity to share my thoughts on various podcasts.

Amidst these engagements, I've also been committed to my academic responsibilities. I’ve taught an online course on religious alternatives to liberalism to undergraduates through the American Enterprise Institute, led a new graduate seminar on the liberal political tradition, and contributed to research on a Templeton grant through the University of Pennsylvania. Additionally, I’ve been serving on a search committee for our PPE program at BGSU, and I’ve had to fulfill several promised essays.

Oh yes, and next week, I’m speaking at the University of Virginia and the Catholic University of America.

Integralist Students

I've mostly been speaking about my book, which has been great. I’ve also learned much that might interest you, chiefly from talking to integralist students.

(1) Generally, most students inclined toward what they call integralism think the “pure” version I assess goes way too far. Most want Christianity to play a much more central role in shaping American institutions, and they want Christians to push the culture away from secular liberalism, often through the use of state power. Young people use “integralism” more broadly than specialists, especially since the movement’s leaders have mostly stopped discussing it. One negative consequence of the movement’s leaders withdrawing from the discussion is that integralism’s opponents get to define it (as I often do!). That’s a price integralists have paid that may prove unwise.

(2) Many integralist undergraduates are unmoved by criticisms from the social sciences, as my Transition and Stability Arguments do. For whatever reason, they think they can set those matters aside. However, with several nice new reviews, most find the Justice Argument interesting. Some believe it presupposes liberalism, so I must clarify the argument in future writing. However, I was surprised at how uninterested the students were in determining whether integralism was a stable ideal. I thought they’d care about that, but they seem unmoved.

(3) Most people miss the book's main new move, which is to apply the framework of ideal/non-ideal theory in philosophy to Christian political thought, which was already present in Catholic political thought. The Notre Dame philosophy graduate students saw this most clearly. They think that’s the enduring contribution. I’d be thrilled if that turned out to be true!

(4) The hardcore integralist students are profoundly grateful that I take them seriously. Contrary to one review, they think I’ve been fair to their position. I’ve found enormous meaning in helping these students think through their views.

(5) Of similar interest are the Protestant post-liberals. They’re up for a Christian state, but they are often shocked that the core integralist thinkers would subject Protestants to canonical penalties for heresy. The Catholic integralists I talk to don’t talk much about it, but it creates a degree of shock among Protestants. I guess that’s not so surprising. But then most Protestant students say that integralism in the US is ridiculous because the US remains Protestant. Fair enough.

(6) Many students want to identify the social order that would stop the progressive social project and ultimately reverse it. They’re not precisely revolutionaries, but they are trying to think about how to beat the left once and for all. That’s a scary prospect, but the students often think we’re in a kill-or-be-killed situation.

(7) Most integralist students don’t know Thomas Pink’s work. My lectures cover Pink’s views in detail, as Pink laid the philosophical and theological foundations for the movement. For whatever reason, the young integralists often find much of his project too subtle. They don’t say “it’s too subtle”; instead, they almost want to think that integralism can’t be so subject to precise views about the nature of the Church, the power of reason, etc. Integralism is supposed to be intellectually obvious. It’s the Christ-centered alternative to liberalism. They sometimes manifest a bit of intellectual impatience, but far from always.

What’s Next?

My thoughts turn increasingly towards my next project. Much of the next year or two will focus on producing papers from the national survey we’ve run through UPenn. However, I want to embark on a big project in positive political theology. I’ve criticized integralism. Now, I want to explore what I think is the correct view. I already have five essays on the topic, but I must write ten to fifteen more before I’m ready to put them together in my next book.

I will continue to use this space to discuss various issues related to the book and liberal political thought in general, but I wanted to post to let you know I'm still committed.