Finding the "we" in civic engagement

People who want to improve the world often encounter problems of collective action (how to get many individuals to act in concert), of discourse (how to talk and think productively about contentious matters), and of exclusion. To get things done, they must form or join and sustain functional groups, and through them, develop skills and virtues that help them to be effective and responsible civic actors.

Peter Levine, one of America's leading scholars and practitioners of civic engagement, identifies the general challenges that confront people who ask the citizens' question and explores solutions in his most recent book, What Should We Do? A Theory of Civic Life. Democracy Works host Chris Beem also thinks through these questions in his most recent book, The Seven Democratic Virtues: What You Can Do to Overcome Tribalism and Save Democracy. In this conversation, Levine and Beem discuss how their approaches differ and how individual and collective actions can't be separated from each other when it comes to civic engagement.

Levine is the Associate Dean of Academic Affairs and Lincoln Filene Professor of Citizenship & Public Affairs in Tufts University's Jonathan Tisch College of Civic Life.

What Should We Do? A Theory of Civic Life

The Seven Democratic Virtues: What You Can Do to Overcome Tribalism and Save Our Democracy

‍Jenna Spinelle
From the McCourtney, Institute for Democracy at Penn State University, welcome to Democracy Works. I'm Jenna Spinelle. We have a special episode for you this week, Chris Beem is taking your turn in the interviewers chair, talking with Peter Levine, who is the Associate Dean of Academic Affairs, and the Lincoln filing professor of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Tufts University. And the author of the book, what should we do a theory of civic life? Chris and Peter have known each other and been colleagues for a long time. And in some ways, they both spent their careers thinking about a similar question. What can individuals and groups of individuals do to strengthen civic engagement and ultimately create a healthier democracy? As you'll hear in this conversation, Chris and Peter have slightly different approaches to answering those questions. Chris, his most recent book, The Seven democratic virtues, focuses on individual actions and thoughts and behaviors that we can all take in our own lives to strengthen democracy, while Peters work focuses more on the collective, how can we organize and push for social change collectively, in the most efficient way. So there's a lot to chew on in this conversation, Chris, and Peter, get into a little bit of the political theory behind some of these ideas and the beginning of the conversation, but then, towards the latter half shift to how we can really take these theories and ideas and put them into practice in our own lives. So I hope you enjoy this conversation between Chris beam and Peter Levine.

Chris Beem
Peter Levine, welcome back to Democracy Works.

Peter Levine
Thank you for having me.

Chris Beem
You know, you start I mean, this kind of theoretical argument with this critique of kind of the prevailing sense of democratic theory, that it's misguided or maybe better, incomplete. Do you want? Do you want to talk about that? And then we'll go into kind of, were you the hole that you're trying to fill here?

Peter Levine
Yeah, I mean, I think that's right, you said it, you summarize it right. I think I have a complaint about the kind of democratic theory, both for professional theorists and just for ordinary people, which is all about what kind of what kind of society should we have? And then the subsequent question is, therefore, what should the government be and do? And I just think that the question is, what should we do? Where the we is, all kinds of groups of different sizes and shapes? And those are those that's what matters? And so what kind of government we should have is a question that groups should ask. But they're they're really core question is, what should we do?

Chris Beem
And that does the title. And every word in that title, for every four words, is carrying a lot of weight, right? It's it's active voice, it's, it's a very considered pronoun, the should has a moral weight to it. Right. All that?

Peter Levine
Right. And actually, the We, of course, is probably the most important point because it's a pushback against to, I mean, partly, I just think our culture is set up so that the question of what we should do gets lost, then you see this everything from advanced theory to just what happens in a regular community meeting where the question shifts off to some others? So often, the question becomes, what should I do? Is it becomes highly individualized? Or it becomes what should they do some other group? And actually, we again, we have to just think of the week so if the of the four words, the one that probably is the most important is the Wii, but the we should do something? For two reasons. One, one, because that's what we need to do in the world is actually do things make the world better? And also, because there's a discipline involved in asking what should we do? Not just what do we think? What's our opinion? And then the shirt is critical, because it real groups do this. They try to figure out what is right, both both as means and as ends. They don't just say, oh, you know, what, what do we feel like doing? They say what we should we do? And the what is a hint at at the facts. So groups of people need to actually know what is going on? How much what what the trends are, how big the problem is, how much change would cost? So yeah, so you gave me an opening to you a little spiel, but each of the four words does matter. And I think the one that's most lost is we.

Chris Beem
Right I get it. But I think you know, it's also interesting to me listening to you, you know this the idea of shoe Good. I mean, you know, I continue to think that it has a moral dimension to it. It also has a strategic dimension and kind of a, you know, a policy dimension, right? It's, it's, there is a problem here. What should we do to solve it? You know, there's a political climate here, what should we do strategically that improves our chances of getting it solved? And what should we do as a moral question in terms of what's the right thing to do? Right? It's all kind of captured that right?

Peter Levine
I think so. And you're right. And it's so it's not just moral in a very detached way. Because as soon as you put should and do together, you have to be strategic, because what you shouldn't do is waste your time with kind of pie in the sky. moralizing. Right? I mean, I'm a moral philosopher by training, I believe in moral reasoning. But when you're a group of people who are saying what should we do, you know, the moral dimension is critical, because you got to do something good. But the pragmatic part is also critical, because you got to actually do something. So to have some kind of ideal that has no relation to your behavior is is useless. And so yeah, it's very strategic. It's got to be very strategic.

Chris Beem
Yeah, that's good. All right. So in service of this objective, you pick, you take up three thinkers that you think all have an important perspective analysis on, on this question, and, and so just like to take them briefly in order, right. Okay. So we start with Elinor Ostrom. And the the argument there is that, or her argument, um, you know, just quickly, is that political science research can help citizens discover how to develop and sustain groups, that it's not that it's not easy, and they're not self perpetuating, that they they need care, and thoughtfulness in terms of, you know, sustaining them over time and over difficulties. Is that a, is that a fair summary?

Peter Levine
Yeah, it's great. It's great, I might just build on it by saying that it takes not only care, but also skill, and the skill can be learned. So we can break it down and figure out, you know, for example, one of the problems that group has is that people stop contributing, they peel off and stop doing their bit. And we can learn mechanisms for monitoring ourselves and for rewarding success and, or a contribution and discouraging slackers. And those things are things that you can actually accomplish, you can teach, teach and learn.

Chris Beem
That's right. And that's, that was really the core of her research was just looking at people who were doing it effectively. Right. And and, and so it's, it's wisdom garnered from people who were doing it right. And so they all have a lesson lesson to teach us. Yeah. Okay. And so that so the next one is, you're gonna Habermas and there might be more people who who've heard of him. And you really focus on his earlier, I think it's fair to say earlier, where term terms of you know, just just the what it is to deliberate how we deliberate? What are the structures and mechanisms, the expectations that we go into this and what's the goal? Is that, that kind of, you know, the fifth sense summary of Habermas. Yeah.

Peter Levine
And you put it together, actually, yeah, yeah, it's good. Put it together with Ostrom because Ostrom tells you how to have a group at all, you know how to how to make sure there's pizza in a room, and that people will want to come and Hamas tells you had to deal with with disagreement, especially principal disagreement or disagreement about morals and ideals. I think the one thing I would I would say that my I don't know might possibly intrigue people is you know, there's this stereotype about Hamas that he's interested in somehow dispassionate, reasonable conversation. And it's just not in the works of you're gonna Hamas, a mean, it's coming from certain very tendentious readings. And so I mean, he was he's a very closely associated with a radical social movements all along, sometimes a little critical of their methods, but he's in favor of social movement mobilization. So his idea of a of a deliberation of the society is not that you gather a representative sample of people together and have a conversation. His idea is that by squatting and occupying housing in Berlin, in the 1960s, you force the conversation and then getting tear gassed that you force a conversation about housing. So I just I guess I spent a little bit of time in the chapter trying to kind of set the record straight about Habermas. I mean, that's an inside Baseball concern for most people, most people don't care who what to learn there.

Chris Beem
I agree with you. But I also I think it is worth pushing you on this because, you know, it's not it's not an I don't it doesn't surprise me that I mean, obviously you're gonna Habermas is a very smart and and experienced person he's you know he's he is engaged in genuine political arguments, but by setting up the the process of deliberation around the idea of an ideal speech situation, it would seem to at least foster or or recommend a more measured rational discursive sort of argument as opposed to, you know, going and protesting and getting tear gas. So I want to hear what you what you what you would say to that?

Peter Levine
Well, you're right. And this is a question of, of interpreting a complex thinker who also is in his 90s, and has been talking about different things for a long, long time, was famous already in his in his late 20s. So you're right, and I guess, if I, if you want, if you want to accentuate the side, that's rational, and so on, you can. And it also in pragmatic terms, it made him, you know, critical sometimes of the student radicals of the 1960s, and so on. And he does believe in democracy and democratic processes, which at some level are also discursive. And, but what happens, but here's the counter, though, what happens when there is not an ideal speech situation?

Chris Beem
And there isn't, according to you, there's no such thing, right? I mean, in the world, there just is no such thing.

Peter Levine
Right so it's definitely we both agree, and everybody who thinks about him at all would agree that it's a counter factual. So what happens when you when you don't have that, so I think a certain kind of American, not too, not too closely associated with Hamas, but thinking that they, they know what hablamos thinks, thinks that what you do is you set up some forum and you invite people. So you know, you get a grant, and you create a org, a discussion forum, and you invite people together, and you have a moderator. So Habermas never talked to my knowledge. And I could be wrong, because he's written a million pages. But I don't think he ever talks about that. I don't think it would interest him, it doesn't fit in the framework that I understand and have, for him, something like the squatters, glitches, he does mention them at the end of your committee reaction, they are making the speech situation for the German Federal Republic as a whole more ideal, because they're basically forcing a conversation. So the act of occupying a unoccupied, you know, vacant building in West Berlin, in the 1960s, is actually a movement towards a more ideal speech situation. And I think that would kind of flabbergast people who think they know what wellness is, and don't really engage with them. I mean, the lady and wonderful, and I really did like her, and she was a very fun person. But Iris, Marian young, cause part of this problem, because she wrote that really compelling, beautifully written, much easier to read than Hamas piece about, in which she takes him to task for being and she, I forgotten the name of it now. But she puts she juxtaposes Hamas deliberate, or to an activist. And she has quotes and stuff. You're right. And she does the kind of she pulls out the kind of quality you just mentioned. But she sure is missing a lot of stuff. And it's very strange to treat the guy a guy who left the Social Democratic Party because they weren't revolutionary enough as as not an activist. So I just think it was a misreading, you know, let's take a moment to thank Iris Marion young for her life well lived, and everything. And I'm sorry that she also died young. But she was wrong about Hamas. And I think a lot more people know about that, that know about Habermas.

Chris Beem
And so you kind of like take these three, as kind of, I don't know, almost points on a triangle and are trying to find a way to incorporate them all. And then you you talk about you know how we have to make these strategic choices given where we find ourselves. And that is an incredibly difficult process. And it really reminds me of how, you know, Aristotle's ethics without prudence is nothing, right? I mean, he almost it's except that it's nothing. And in the same way, you know, you have to do this rigorous analysis of where you are, and it's changing by the moment, right. And you're probably not going to get it all right. But the one point that I think is worth kind of dwelling on And you you unpack it, but it's worth talking about here is this idea of leverage, as a as a, as a as a way in which you make these judgments and, and kind of a mechanism, but I don't want to put words in your mouth. How does leverage fit and? And how does the pursuit of leverage help you make these kinds of decisions?

Peter Levine
Yeah, so I think the great, the great problem is, is scale is affecting things at large enough scales, because a certain sort of spirit, after all, my book is very derivative of other people. And other people, I'm sort of like, end up being in that smallest beautiful camp where we can imagine gathering together with eight people we know and they're diverse, and we have relationships, and we decide what we should do. And meanwhile, the Earth is with another 8 billion people is heating. So how do you change the relative scale? The problem, so what you need to do, presumably, is use leverage, so to let leverages doing something to some intermediate thing that changes a lot of other people, for example, it's getting the government to pass a law that affects everybody or getting a celebrity to make a position that affects people's behavior. So it's leveraged. The problem with leverage is that it is one directional, so you're affecting people out there who, you know, can't help it. And even if it's democratic, it's it's one directional, and it breaks up all the kind of relational values that I'm talking about the kind of deliberative and carrying values. So I think the only way that I know that I can see this, where the circle, to put those things together, is to say you got to use leverage. So a group that asks, What should we do should be asking what leverage should we use, but you should be doing it in groups that are diverse and permeable, not kind of by yourself. So the original Archimedean metaphor is, you know, Archimedes were there on one side, pulling a lever. So one dude should not be on one side, pulling the lever, there should be groups of people who are kind of porous and accountable and diverse, because it keeps them wide. So, you know, it sounds very abstract. But what I mean, for example, is that, for example, a union deciding whether to strike is using leverage, because they're going to try to block the sale of some kind of product, thereby changing the policy of the government, or the of the of the corporation that they're targeting. And they can be right or wrong, because not every not I'm sort of biased in favor of unions, but not 100%. Sometimes they're wrong. The group that makes the decision ought to be permeable and sort of in touch with the rest of the community, including people who are not employees and and, and deliberative, internally deliberative and have a rich kind of internal conversation. And then if they decide to go on strike, then they're taking a unilateral action, but they're taking unilateral action in a way that might be informed by prior discussion and interaction.

Chris Beem
So this, this question of when, and how to employ leverage is yet another kind of dangerous, tricky question. That depends on circumstances, right? Yeah.

Peter Levine
Yeah. I mean, let me actually you've been, you've been, rightly, wisely kind of highlighting the difficulty. And it's true. I guess I do get questions that I appreciate. They're good questions, but I get questions along the lines of isn't your theory just way too hard? And a certain version of that is a critique. Because we don't need a theory. That's too hard. We need a theory. That's helpful. I think my main answer, well, first of all, that might be true. And that's the problem. But my main answer is you can't we can't do these things alone. So it's actually not hard to be part of a process like this. You know, if there is a union with a democratic internal culture, and that's connected to its community, then it isn't hard to go to the meeting and try to decide whether to strike or not. I mean, it's tough call. But we can do that. If you don't have a union, it's a lot harder. So this isn't really advice to the individual, like a, like, a lot of traditional philosophy or theology, sort of talking to the person. It's and saying, This is how to live a good life. This is a blueprint for how we got to operate together. Now, that means that if you don't have good groups around you, you have a problem. You may not be able to solve it by yourself, you may not even be able to solve it. You may not be positioned to solve it, but but I would go so far as to say we need to have good kind of good groups. So yeah, so So I push I would know you didn't do this, but I'll push back on people who think that this is just too demanding on the individual because I'm not really talking to the individual.

Chris Beem
Yeah, that's, that's true. You're not but the very end of the book. You're talking to individual activists and what they you know, Well, here's what you should do. And, and so I want you to talk about that. But then I also want to talk about, well go start there. And then then I'll ask my, you know, ask the next question.

Peter Levine
Well, I mean, yeah, so, even though, you're right, and even though I didn't, I don't want this to be mainly a bunch of sort of preaching to the individual, I do kind of end with what you should do as an individual. So one is to note that the glass is powerful. So we don't have enough opportunities for really good civic and political action, but we have a bunch, and they are, you know, you can, you can go join. So one thing is to realize the moral, spiritual and pragmatic advantages of actually being part of the civic life that exists and, and to treat it as if we live in a wasteland with nothing going on is itself a mistake, because lots of good stuff is going on. And the second claim is that if, when you are well enough position to do so you should be trying to expand the opportunities for people to participate in our society. And that doesn't mean participate in government, although that's good. But it means participate in the texture of our society, which has got lots of different Well, which, which takes place in lots of different forums. And so then write more of my advice at the end is all about how to expand those opportunities.

Chris Beem
Right, and make them bring them to scale, or at least how to think about bringing them to scale and how to engage bigger questions. And while you're continuing to do these, these, you know, kind of, you know, every day citizen civic acts to I mean, I think it's, it's, it was striking to me, but I also, you know, I think it's it's right, because, you know, first of all, I mean, democracy is pretty hard, right? It's, in some ways, it's distinctively, unusually difficult, compared to any other way of operating your, you know, operating a society and living in a society. There's just a lot this act of us. And so I don't, you know, I don't think that's, that's anything distinctive to you. But I also think that what you are arguing is that, you know, people have been doing this, from, you know, from as long as we had democracy, there's nothing different about them from you, you know, it may or may not be distinctively harder now, but it's still the same kind of mechanisms and the same features of success that were, you know, that obtained 200 years ago. So, go do it yourself.

Peter Levine
Right. I mean, there are some real worries out there about whether it just got qualitatively more difficult because of things like social media and fake news and stuff. But I basically, just might try to take those concerns seriously, I do land where you, you just suggested, which is that we've done this before we can do it again, I would also say I think we've maybe reached a kind of a low ebb in our estimations of people's capability for democracy, or maybe maybe one of a bunch of historic low abs. I mean, I kind of, and you address this issue in your most recent book, but I think, but you're not, I'm not arguing with you. I'm arguing with the kind of very mainstream social scientists right now, who I think is basically saying, people are stupid, and they hate each other is basically what we've learned from, right, what we've learned from, from social from, from behavior, the behavior revolution, and from an agenda and from social science, generally, is that people are stupid, and they hate each other. And I think people are context context dependent, and behave really differently depending on how things are set up. And things are not set up very well. And that's one of the reasons we read off that, you know, behavior, that's stupid. And so you know, so for example, if you set things up the way Twitter's set up, and I'm an avid user, and kind of like it, actually, but I understand the critiques. And so if you set things up the way Twitter's set up, you're gonna get a lot of bad behavior. But you can set up things, different ways than that, and you'll get other behavior. So I feel like the, you know, good old John Dewey was is often frustrating, because he's so kind of Willy, and not tough minded enough for me. But he is, there's something healthy about the spirit of I have kind of that there's untapped human potential that was typical of his era, when people also tended to build up things that expected a lot of people. And actually people rose to the occasion. So you know, it would you could have said, Oh, nobody will ever pay money to buy a high quality news source, which tells them challenging things about the world. Because people are idiots and they hate each other. Plus, in 1900, there was no such thing as that kind of newspaper. But the Progressive Era, journalistic reformers thought, Oh, I think people would buy that, you know, turns out people did for about 50 years and then they stopped But the 7075 years, they stopped, but we can, you know, we got up. So I'm just worried that there's a self fulfilling prophecy involved in thinking that people are so dumb and so hostile. So mutually entered into pathetical when actually they're, you know, it's a mix, as Elinor Ostrom always would say, it's a mix.

Chris Beem
Yeah, well, I think that's right. I mean, you know, you can make a pretty and I have made that, you know, the idea that, that the Christian anthropology is basically correct that, that both of those things, both of those aspects of human beings are true. That's right. And it just, but I do also think that it's, it's true that in the moment we find ourselves there's, there's more of that more of a sense of, you know, less concern with the Wii, unless it's just my me and my family, less concerned with, you know, living together in some kind of harmony, less concern with, you know, what do we do? And, you know, I, you know, yeah, social media. Sure, but also, you had a president that, you know, just just not only made made it okay, to to be uncivil, you know, he made it normative, right, if you're going to be a real patriot, people are gonna think you're a jerk, and I use jerk just because, you know, it's a family podcast. But so I do feel like, it is more difficult. And I do, you know, I push back a lot with, you know, my friends who are, you know, talking about trans partisanship and, and deliberative democracy and trying to find other structures be, because I just, I am not as confident that we're at a point where, where we can, we can't do anything more than, than fight, or anything other than fight, and maybe how we do that, you know, must conform to the kind of rules that are both laws, and also the things that Gandhi, you know, was referencing in terms of being the change, you want to see modeling behavior calling for, but it's also like, it's different than it was 10 years ago, or 15 years ago, or when we were Wingspread, or anything else. And sometimes I feel like the the deliberative democracy, people are not engaging those changes sufficiently in their in their theorizing,

Peter Levine
I agree with that. And that is why I also think that you need that we need both the kind of organizational acumen that Elena Roshan would recommend, which is to say we need to build up the robust kind of business models for better behavior. And we also need to know how to make organized sacrifice, because it's not just a matter of conversation. But so I agree completely. I also just think, though, that this, this pessimism, the pendulum of that pessimism will just go too far, to the point where we say forget about it, which is pretty much think what a lot of current political scientists would say that we just, you know, anything that you might imagine to be, for example, trans partisan. So I'm not really I'm not I don't really my work is not about trans partisan dialogue. But I can just imagine, but but somebody like, you know, the Arkadin. Martel's book about, about democracy basically says that would be a complete joke. Trans partisanship, because, because people's identities are partisan. And I just think that's reading lots of recent data to a too much and not recognizing that we change our we change our behavior, depending on what opportunities we have. Not easy. But, of course, the great examples are the huge cataclysmic ones. I mean, the very same people who were running after running along in support of Adolf Hitler, a couple generations later have one of the best sort of pluralist liberal democracies in the world and like it, and they're the same people. And it's because it's because the context change.

Chris Beem
The context, the structures, the expectations, the Yeah, all of that, you know, the society just changed his mind about what it was what really should expect from each other. Right.

Peter Levine
I mean, it was partly due to the you know, US Army in the event and also the so exactly losing the ward army,

Chris Beem
You know, yeah. makes that kind of necessary, right. Absolutely. Well, that that I think, I don't know how much farther we'll go but I want to at least ask you make sure I asked you this, because I I'm I'm curious to hear what you think about this. There, you know, among, you know, people like you and me and probably 100 other people who are writing about, here's what I think the problem is, and here's what I think we should do about it. Right. And, and they're there, you could, I think make a distinction between those who think the, the, the lever that you need to, you know, the Archimedean lever that you need to pull on, is associated with structures and procedures. So the problem is that we have two parties, the problem is that, that we have money in politics, the problem is that we don't let 16 year old vote, we don't have, you know, you've heard these arguments. And then there's another set of arguments like mine, that argue that the problem is cultural, and we need to address, you know, what it is that we understand about what we owe to ourselves what we owe to our society and what we owe to others. And I'm wondering what you think of that distinction, whether you think it's, it's correct, and also where you put yourself in that distinction.

Peter Levine
If I can be autobiographical for a moment, my first job out of grad school was working for a common cause on campaign finance reform. And so I had a structural analysis, I thought we needed to change my in politics. And I, as I was there for just two years, we lost about half our membership, I like to say Not, not because of me, because I was just a junior researcher, but only love the EU anyway, that's only because we lost about half our membership. And it was because or at least a third in those two years. And it was because of the problem that Robert Putnam was about to write about two years later Bowling Alone problem, which was that we had loss of habits of associating. And so I guess I basically, I mean, it's a very cheap answer to say we need both. But I often think that the that the soul, the cultural change, to a significant extent has to precede at least some cultural change in certain circles has to precede the structural change, because you don't get the structural change if you don't have the culture. So common cause went from a more powerful lobby for campaign finance to a weaker one, because it lost most of its membership, it's also much more dependent on when I was there, we, we wouldn't take any contribution of any type in greater than $20, because we thought that it would distort our agenda. And now it runs on grant money. I'm not criticizing them, they had no choice. It was the absolutely, part of the the handwriting was on the wall, they had to do what they did. But you know, you can't have a mass, we had a quarter of a million members paying $20 Each, when I got there, we can't do that anymore. And that's a culture change. And I think it's also that we also need culture to include sort of savvy, and artisans. And how do you design. But so it's not just purely ideals. It's also know how, but we had a certain kind of know how the mid 20th century that was really useful for getting structural change. And now we don't quite have the right know how for that we have we have some floating around, but we don't have, we don't have the one what we need. So I don't think you can get so I'm for structural change, but I don't think you can get it without richer, a richer, underlying infrastructure of organization.

Chris Beem
Yeah, that's exactly what I think. And, and maybe that's a good point to end on. Just let me just give me a minute, I just want to look and see if there's anything that I've forgotten that I want to ask you. Let me ask you this. And, you know, I mean, if genitals like it's shown to cut it, but Jenna was saying, you know, you should ask him about the we versus I. Because, you know, you're, you know, you have the Wii. AND, and OR, you Peter have the Wii in your title, and I have the you in my subtitle. Right. And, and, and so, you know, I'm, I was actually thinking, you know, when I heard this question, I'm like, wow, you know, there is no such thing as a Wii that isn't made up of eyes. Right. And, and so, you know, there at some level, there has to be that kind of introspection among the individuals that are part of the Wii. But yeah, I don't know that. That's what you think. And so I wanted to know whether you think there's a distinction between my argument and yours.

Peter Levine
I probably do think Well, I do think there's a need for introspection at the individual introspection. And I think that of course, one of our choices is to exit that's available, should be an available choice. And sometimes that's the choice you got to make. I think the So partly it's just about rebalancing because a lot of moral philosophy and moral thinking is very much about the eye. And and one of the reasons to bring the Wii in is just the recognition that by ourselves when we're not very smart, and so we need other people. So we shouldn't think we know what's right without being with other people. I mean, on the very philosophical end, I kind of agree there's no way that's not made of eyes. But I also think there's no i That's not made of wheeze, that we come into good point, we come into the world, you know, already part of groups, we think in a language, it's a group, we're already in a family, the minute we were born, or at least some were in a dyad. With with a mother. And so I actually think the interplay between AI and we metaphysically is pretty complicated. I don't specialize that in that. But I've read a little kind of social ontology. And I think it's actually pretty complicated. The other thing is that we is not only people, because it's actually other stuff, like, like buildings and logos and bank accounts and stuff. And so you know, you can have, you can actually have an orderly as you do in a university on a regular basis, you can have an orderly replacement of all the people. And the Week continues. So the is what I'm talking about the students. Right, so yeah, there's a continuous students, though, right?

Chris Beem
Yeah. I mean, the faculty are slow turns over, right? Yeah. Human life,

Peter Levine
The we actually continues. So it's not really true that the Wii is it is true that the Wii is made up of eyes. But it's also it's not only mirror. Yep. Penn State is more than the the students and faculty of Penn State at the moment that we're trying to say,

Chris Beem
But you know, the one thing I was going to add to your list of the other things that are part of the Wii is is history. Right? I mean, that there is this legacy, that, that you can't just, you know, that you are, I mean, this is part of what we were talking about before, right that you you have no choice but to operate in the in what that legacy has produced, what that legacy, how that legacy manifests itself in the, in the in the current climate, and start your work there.

Peter Levine
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And so understanding yourself, this is kind of Berkey. And but understanding yourself as part of a dialogue with the future and the present the past and the future is, it's part of it, although it's only the current way that can actually have a conversation with you. Right,

Chris Beem
I was actually thinking, because I remember when you were saying, you know, I really liked kind of our end, but I'm going to leave her off. But I was thinking when you were just talking about how, you know, that's basically a rent argument for that's the only mechanism we have for determining what's true. Is through conversation. Yeah, honest, open conversation with each other, saying, This is how the world appears to me. And so there yeah, there is no there is no truth. If And insofar as it's merely mine, it has to be ours.

Peter Levine
Yeah. That's a core belief.

Chris Beem
Good. I really, I really appreciate your time and thanks. Thanks for all your work. Look forward to hearing more down the road. Yeah.

Peter Levine
I enjoyed it too. Chris, thank you so much for having me.

me

‍