112 humanizing the worldTh e absence of any natural ordering of society reveals the link be-
tween the po liti cal and the metaphysical limits to the humanization of
the world. Because there is no such natural ordering of our relations to
one another— or no ordering that we have reason defi nitively to accept
as the framework for our eff orts to come to terms with one another—
the struggle over the or ga ni za tion of society must and will go on. It
may be temporarily contained and interrupted. However, it will not
long be suppressed.
Th e advancement of all our interests and ideals, as we understand
them at any given time, requires that we criticize and change pieces of the
structural background of social life. Th ere is, however, always more
than one defensible understanding of the direction of change that our
ideals and interests require. As we progress in the work of reconstruc-
tion, the disharmonies in the content of the interests and ideals that
guided us in the fi rst place become apparent, and provide further occa-
sions for confl ict.
Th e perennial nature of this struggle over the terms of social life ex-
poses the limitations of this approach to life. It also casts doubt on the
metaphysical conception informing the humanization of the world.
Th e assumptions of the humanizing campaign become patent in the
eff ort to establish a meaningful order, within a meaningless cosmos: a
clearing that bears the imprint of our concerns within a dark and in-
hospitable universe.
Ongoing struggle over the terms of social life, made possible by the
indefeasible contestability of every social order, ends up tearing down
some of the barriers of social division within humanity even as it erects
others. Whether it undermines or creates such divisions, it reveals, by
its continuance, their contingency, and thus invites further practical
and visionary strife.
It is not just the walls within society that end up, in this way, coming
down or being moved around. It is also the walls around society: the
clarity of the distinction between the social order, constructed on our
scale and to the specifi cation of our concerns, and the great stage of
nature, vastly disproportionate and indiff erent to our desires. Any re-
gime of social life remains forever contestable. Its contestability is made
manifest by per sis tent confl ict over the terms of social life. As a result,
we cannot expect any such regime to bear the full weight of our desire