Ian Shapiro and Aditi

I'm really not sure when my college restaurant-reviewing self cropped back up and decided that it was crucially important to write about the restaurants that I visit (although I bet it has to do with my realization [and terror] that I'll be leaving DC quite soon). I've been to Aditi a number of times, mostly for Georgetown events, and, honestly, I've never had a complaint. It's always empty in there, which seems like a bad sign, but I think it's empty because it's not as fancy-shmansy as other Georgetown restaurants. And DC just doesn't have good Indian restaurants--it doesn't help that my only pre-DC experience with Indian food was at the award-winning India Garden of Pittsburgh (I'm dying to go back there! Oh for the Indian pop music on the big screen tv's!). But of the DC Indian restaurants that I've been to, Aditi is certainly the best. This latest visit I had the lamb saag (I love spinach!). And their samosas are really quite good. On other visits we've ordered a number of entrees and all shared, which is also a delightful way to eat (even for someone as individualist about food as I am).

But not only was the food good, so was the company. Ian Shapiro spoke (before dinner) about the state of political theory. He advocated what he calls adaptive political theory: he maintains that what is distinctive about humans is our ability to think about our circumstances and imagine alternatives to them (although we always do this imperfectly). Political theory, according to Shapiro, emerges out of our reactive condition and out of the fact that we know much more about what is unacceptable than what is acceptable. He advocates a political theory based on non-domination (he defines domination as a lack of freedom as a result of human action that is able to be changed). He maintains that building a political theory based on non-domination is superior to building a political theory based on some ideal like liberty or equality.

I was struck most by his pragmatism: he maintains that it is impossible to eliminate all forms of domination, so we should attend to the worst forms, and attempt to decrease them. I have a soft spot in my heart for really pragmatic people. But, of course, I was curious about marriage and family relationships--which he also found to involve a sort of domination (but advocated putting exit strategies in place rather than eliminating those institutions).

The best part of political theory dinners is that both religion and politics are topics that are totally in bounds. So Shapiro shared his critique of the Catholic Church's refusal to ordain women. And we all shared our thoughts on the Catholic Church. And the Amish. And raising children. While drinking red wine and eating Indian food. It was lovely.

(Small super nerdy addition: Shapiro and I discussed [and disagreed about] the importance of considering not only what political positions people hold, but also why they hold those positions [I tend to think that the reasons are important, as well as the particular position held]. His point, however, was pragmatic--it wasn't simply an avoidance of metaphysical questions, but rather a practical concern with what would be most effective. In fact, he mentioned a point from Quine's "Two Dogmas of Empiricism"--that you should avoid what is at the center of a person's beliefs, and work with what is at the periphery; it is not, however, the metaphysical beliefs that are always at the center--the opposite may be the case.)


(picture, picture)