Showing posts with label social justice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label social justice. Show all posts

Monday, February 28, 2011

Excavating the Future

¡Hola! Everybody...
The alternative online magazine, Subversify, has published my reflections on Wisconsin (click here). Feel free to go there and comment. The following is somewhat of a follow-up to that article...

* * *

-=[ The Future is Now ]=-

A public union employee, a tea party activist, and a CEO are sitting at a table with a plate of a dozen cookies in the middle of it.

The CEO takes 11 cookies, turns to the tea partier and says, 'Watch out for that union guy. He wants a piece of your cookie.'


I was raised to believe in the American Dream. I believed that if I worked hard enough, if I was smart enough, if I got good grades in school, went to a decent college, played by the rules, and worked really really hard, that I could grab at least a measure of that American dream. When I was a child, I was assured that the depth of American ingenuity and expertise would save us all and that we would become an enlightened society pursuing the further reaches of human nature with the increase of leisure time, as technology and human evolution converged to create a more noble model of society. A great society preoccupied with eradicating poverty, hunger, and disease.

I believed in an American future in which we would conquer space, where solutions for previously untreatable diseases were right around the corner. I was assured that the tension between technological innovation and the environmental havoc it sometimes caused would be resolved.

I believed in this dream because so many people were actually out there on the frontlines fighting to ensure such a society. Everywhere people were engaged in critically questioning the status quo. People of color, women, and people of different sexual orientation were fighting and challenging the oppressive institutionalized systems that kept us from becoming a greater whole. And in spite of all the conflict, there was the real sense of hope in that people were doing more than talking about it -- we were all somehow engaged in ensuring the American Dream for all people.

When I was a child, I was assured that we would develop viable alternative energy sources. Lies. A cure for cancer. Lies. I was told of a future wherein people -- for the first time in human history -- could commit the bulk of their lives for their intellectual, spiritual, and material benefit. Lies.

Welcome to the future, my friends. I live in a city where it is illegal to be black or brown. Here the color of your skin, not your grades, determination, or educational attainment, matters most. Today, being smart is considered elitist. Worst of all, today you work longer hours for less money -- if you’re fortunate enough to be working at all. You’re less likely to be able to have access to decent health care, if you have any health care options.

Welcome to the future, it is now -- a future of disappointment. And the only reason you haven’t noticed is because you’re too busy jerking off to the latest online celebrity sex tape or watching “reality” shows of “celebrities” whose talents apparently have more to do with sucking NBA cock than being able to actually sing or dance. Or perhaps you’re too busy watching American Idol or Snowdrift Snookie’s latest idiotic political pronouncements. Either way, we’re amusing ourselves to death.

For the past few weeks, regular, working-class people in Wisconsin have been staging mass protests in numbers that dwarf anything the Pee Farters -- with their access to billionaire dollars -- could only dream of. Sustained, mass protests fighting for the right to bargain collectively, arguably one of the main reasons we ever had a middle class of any worth in this country.

Sadly, the “libruhl” media (inexplicably owned by a handful of multinational corporations) has effectively ignored, misinterpreted, or downplayed this moment in history. God forbid some dimwit neocon Medicare recipient farts at a town hall meeting and the same quiescent media will stampede over itself to cover it, dissect its fragrance ad nauseum, and pontificate endlessly on its meaning.

The major economic theory of the past 30 years, the trickle down theory, is not just a cruel hoax, but most of the good industrial jobs have left the country, and the middle class has been disemboweled. There is no free time. You’re fortunate if you can get a job whose major requirement is knowing how to ask, “Want fries with that?”

Still, while you and I struggle to make ends meet, living lives of quiet desperation, the wealthiest Americans have quintupled their net worth, even in the midst of an economic disaster that only a fool would label a recession.

Here is the American Dream of the future today: no jobs, no prospects, no leverage, no short-term solutions, no long-term plans, no big ideas to save us. While the bottom four-fifths struggle to stay afloat, and the upper one-fifth cautiously tread water, the top 1 percent continue to accumulate wealth at a rate not seen since the Gilded Age.

In the future of today, CEOs earn monster salaries, corporations receive taxpayer welfare, and we have half the U.S. Congress boasting of being millionaires. Meanwhile, medical liabilities bankrupt the rest of us at record levels, one person in ten is out of work, and food stamp usage sets new records every month.

Even with near-record unemployment, the Department of Commerce reported in November 2010 that U.S. companies just had their best quarter... ever. Businesses recorded profits at an annual rate of $1.66 trillion in the third quarter of 2010, which is the highest rate (in non-inflation-adjusted figures) since the government began keeping records more than 60 years ago.

Shrinking incomes, fewer jobs... but bigger corporate profits. Not a good sign. Somehow, many of you have been convinced that the answer is doing more of the same: give more to the rich and we’ll all benefit from the resultant odiferous trickle down. What’s obvious is that the rich are not only dedicated to hanging on to what they have (duh!) but also committed to accumulating more, gets maybe a yawn from the dumb-down, apathetic American voter. In fact, our country's concentration of wealth is worse than Egypt.

This is nothing but class warfare and when you try to show, whether through charts and graphs or real-life examples, that the system is rigged in favor of the wealthy and powerful, you’re labeled as unpatriotic, a socialist and/ or communist. What often happens is that, instead of yelling back, “Hell, yes, we’re talking fucking class warfare!” liberals usually fell over themselves in apology, vehemently denying the accusation. They react as if talking about class warfare is tantamount to treason. Center-right politicians like Obama get spooked and fall in line, saying “Look, Eddie, we can’t do social engineering through the tax code. And there’s no reason to declare class warfare.” It’s pathetic.

The wealth gap has become so alarming that even billionaires like Warren Buffett acknowledge that the Bush-era tax cuts should be allowed to expire. In fact, Buffett contends, the wealthiest Americans should pay even more in taxes. The people in Wisconsin, representative of the majority of Americans, that bottom 4/5 who are barely keeping afloat, are now fighting this fight and it barely registers a yawn from many of you.

Someone suckered us along the way. The future we bought into was great until we fell asleep and woke up to find that at some points the future becomes the present, and the fact that it was once the future doesn’t mean it’s all fucked up once it arrives.

My name is Eddie and I’m in recovery from civilization...

Monday, November 15, 2010

The Good, The Bad, The Ugly

¡Hola! Everybody...
Contrary to what many many right wing bloggers and would-be pundits would have you think as foregone conclusions (a priori), very little is clearly self-evident...

* * *


-=[ The Good: Justice ]=-

“Take, then, your paltry Christ, your gentleman God. We want the carpenter’s son, with his saw and hod.”

-- Upton Sinclair, quoted in The Cry for Justice


The idea that justice is more than a virtue that a good government should possess is something most people take for granted. Justice is fundamental to the institutions that transform a simple mass of individuals into a political community in the first place. Justice binds citizens to one another, and then all of them together to government. Justice, as long-standing tradition has it, is central to the justification of political authority. To paraphrase, what are kingdoms without justice but great gangs of thugs?

Saying that justice is central to good government is one thing; attempting to define justice is quite another, and that is what this post will attempt to address. Also, I am jumping to social justice rather quickly, and my starting off point will suffer somewhat; but how can I address the whole issue of justice in a one or two-page Word document?

My father used to like to say that Justice was blind, that if you took her blindfold off, you would see she had dollar signs for eyes... LOL

Let’s start with the basics. My father’s characterization notwithstanding, justice, we might all agree, has something to do with punishment and reward, and something to do with equality, but how to define it? Let’s start with an old definition, by the roman Emperor Justinian, who stated that justice “is the constant and perpetual will to render each his due.”

I know: Whoop-dee-doo!

Taken by itself, this definition doesn’t take us very far, but perhaps it points us the right direction -- a gopod place to start. First, it stresses that justice is a matter of each individual person being treated in the right way; it’s not a matter of whether society in general is rich or poor, culturally rich or culturally barren, and so forth. This doesn’t mean that the idea of justice for groups can be dismissed -- I will look more in depth at that aspect in a later post -- but the primary concern of justice is with how individuals are treated (and yes, this is a cultural bias). Secondly, the “constant and perpetual will” part of the definition reminds us that a central idea of justice is that people must be treated in an evenhanded way (“justice is blind”). There must be consistency in how an individual is treated over time, and there must also be consistency between people, so that if my friend and I have the same qualities, we should receive the same benefits, or the same punishment, depending on the situation.

Consistency explains why acting justly is often a matter of following rules or applying laws, since these guarantee consistency. However, consistency alone is not enough for justice: imagine a law that required that all white people be considered three-fifths of a human being, or that all people of color should be put to death. These examples show that justice also requires relevance; if people are going to be treated differently from one another, it must be predicated on grounds that are relevant to the question of justice. This also shows that where there are no relevant grounds on which to discriminate, justice requires equality: everyone should be treated the same way. This gives us a second requirement beyond mere consistency: justice demands that people should be treated equally unless there are relevant reasons for treating them differently.

One final caveat to my definition: the idea of proportion. This tells us that when people are treated differently for relevant reasons, the treatment they receive should be proportionate to whatever they have done that justifies the inequality. Many would agree, for example, that if people work hard at their jobs that is a relevant reason for paying them more. But, for the sake of justice, there must be proportionality: if Yippie works twice as hard as Yappie, he should be paid twice as much, but not ten times as much.

As you see, I have squeezed a fair amount of mileage from Justinian’s take, but I have not been able to say what it is that people are owed as a matter of justice, nor on what grounds we are justified in treating them differently. In fact, there are no easy answers to these questions. This is in part because people will disagree about what justice requires and because the answer given will depend largely on who is applying the treatment, what treatment is prescribed, and under what circumstances. To a great extent, our ideas of justice are contextual, meaning that before we can decide what is fair we have to know about the situation in which it is being applied. Allow me some room here...

Let’s suppose that I have been given $500 to distribute between five people. What does justice tell me to do? So far, very little. It tells me that I should treat them consistently, that if I treat them differently, that this should be for relevant reasons and that my allocations should be proportionate. Now, let’s fill in some details in different ways and see what distributions suggest themselves. The five people might be my employees, and the $500 might be the bonus they have earned this week, in which case I should consider each individual’s contribution and reward them proportionately. Or, I might be I might be an aid worker charged with distributing the cash to allow people to buy food, in which case I should try to surmise the relative needs of the five and give more to those in greater need. Or perhaps the $500 is a small lottery windfall, and the five people and I are a syndicate, in which case the money should be distributed evenly.

Most here would find my decisions on how to allocate the money under the varying circumstances self-evident, and it shows that though justice is a complicated affair we already have a grasp of what it involves in practice. Justice is not so much a way to measure than a box of tools. Faced with a decision, we know in most cases which tool to use. What is harder to express is a theory of justice. But we need to create a theory because there are going to be cases in which our intuitions will conflict, in which the decisions will not be so clear-cut. This is more so the case when it involves social justice -- justice not only between individuals, but also across a whole society. I shall explore this idea in a later post, but I first need to explore the general principles of justice.

Justice often has more to do with process than actual treatment. Let’s look at criminal justice before I end this post. It matters, of course, that guilty people are punished in proportion to their crime, and that innocent people go free but it is also important that proper procedures (process) are followed in arriving at a verdict. For instance, it matters that both sides are allowed to state their case, that the judge has no stake that would impede his impartiality. This process is important not only because it tends to ensure the right verdicts, but because it affords individuals the respect and right to be heard properly. The main dynamic in the OJ Simpson trial fallout wasn’t so much that he was black (though race certainly was a factor in how people reacted to his case), but that he could afford to rely on resources not often available to the less privileged. For blacks and other people of color, this wasn’t something new: criminal justice has often been an injustice. My father’s admonition is relevant here. For whites, who often experience social institutions from a more advantaged or benevolent position, the OJ case was a travesty of justice.

The above is a poor substitute for beginning a substantive discussion on social justice, but I’m already at one page, so I must move on and hope this suffices for the rest of the discussion.

Paz, Amor y Dinero,

Eddie

Saturday, July 31, 2010

On Activism [Sam Smith]

Note: I have been reading Sam for many years now (if you don' t subscribe to his review, you should). There are many times I vehemently disagree with him, but he always brings his “A game” and in the process, he challenges my thinking, or points toward a road not taken, a point of view not considered. This piece here speaks eloquently and passionately about activism. More importantly, it offers a counter to the hypocrites who sit back and tell us the world will end, that people are stupid, that there's no sense, but who don't lift a finger to make a difference. Check it out...

* * *

-=[ Becoming and Living as an Activist ]=-

SAM SMITH: Talk at Active & Compassionate Teens Conference for Social Justice

Tatnall School WILMINGTON DEL
March 6, 2004


You never know how it's going to work out…

About 16 years ago my youngest son, soon to graduate from high school, visited a used clothing shop with two buddies. One of them found a pink suit, pink tie, and pink fedora hat that fit him just fine and made my son's friend look like some strange character out of a 1940s movie. As a joke, he wore the suit to his graduation a few weeks later.

The other day, I picked up a copy of his school’s alumni magazine. There was a photograph of an African American girl in the pink suit with the pink fedora. For 16 years that outfit has been handed down from class to class to be worn at graduation by the person who best exemplified the spirit of the pink suit -- whatever that is.

You never know how it's going to work out…

In February 1960 four black college students sat down at a white-only Woolworth’s lunch counter in Greensboro, NC. Within two weeks, there were sit-ins in 15 cities in five southern states and within two months they had spread to 54 cities in nine states. By April the leaders of these protests had come together, heard a moving sermon by Martin Luther King Jr. and formed the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee. Four students did something and America changed. Even they, however, couldn’t know what the result would be.

One of the four, Franklin McCain, would say years later, “What people won’t talk (about), what people don’t like to remember is that the success of that movement in Greensboro is probably attributed to no more than eight or 10 people. I can say this: when the television cameras stopped rolling, the folk left. I mean, there were just a very faithful few. McNeil and I can’t count the nights and evenings that we literally cried because we couldn’t get people to help us staff a picket line.”

Four people… That’s you and the students on either side of you and the one in front of you. That’s all you need to make history sometimes.

I knew a civil rights leader named Julius Hobson. He used to say that he could start a revolution with six men and telephone booth. He seldom had more than ten at one of his demonstrations. Once in a church with about 30 parishioners, he commented, “If I had that many people behind me, I’d be president.”

But between 1960 and 1964, Julius Hobson ran more than 80 picket lines on approximately 120 retail stores in downtown DC, resulting in employment for some 5,000 blacks. He initiated a campaign that resulted in the first hiring of black bus drivers by DC Transit. Hobson forced the hiring of the first black auto salesmen and dairy employees and started a campaign to combat job discrimination by the public utilities.

Hobson directed campaigns against private apartment buildings that discriminated against blacks and led a demonstration by 4,500 people to city hall that encouraged the DC to end housing segregation. He conducted a lie-in at the Washington Hospital Center that produced a jail term for himself and helped to end segregation in the hospitals. His arrest in a sit-in at the Benjamin Franklin School in 1964 helped lead to the desegregation of private business schools. In 1967, Julius Hobson won, after a long and very lonely court battle that left him deeply in debt, a suit that outlawed the discrimination in teaching, teacher segregation, and the unfair distribution of spending, books and supplies. It also led, indirectly, to the resignation of the school superintendent and first elections of a city school board. A few years later he started a third party that got him elected to the city council. And a few years ago that party became the local Green party.

You never know how it's going to work out... or when.

In 1848 the first women’s conference took place at Seneca Falls in New York. 300 people were there but only one of the women present lived long enough to vote.

Usually I ask students: knowing what you know now would you have gone to the Seneca Falls conference or would you have said why bother? Would you have been an abolitionist in 1830, decades before emancipation? Would you have been a labor activist in 1890, a gay rights advocate in 1910? Or would you have said why bother?

I don’t have to ask you those questions because you're here even though you don't know how it’s going to work out. You have taken the leap of faith that is the necessary first step for progress: you have imagined that it is possible.

I’m not going to kid you. It’s hard. Producing positive social, economic, and political change in a country as locked down as ours is hard work. And your generation has already taken it in the chops.

With the sole exception of black Americans in the post-reconstruction era, no other generation has been so deprived of its constitutional rights and civil liberties. No other generation of young males has been sent to prison in such numbers for such minor offenses. And few generations of the young have been so consistently treated as a social problem rather than as a cause of joy and hope. Except for blacks in the post-reconstruction era -- no other generation has been so deliberately cheated of so much.

If you think I exaggerate, consider these figures from the Department of Labor, figures that you won’t see on the evening news, or read in the morning paper. The earnings of everyone under 25 -- black, white, Latino, male and female -- have actually declined over the past twenty years in real dollars, about 5% for the most part. But get this: the earnings of black and white males under 25 are down 17 to 21%. A typical white male is earning $97 less a week in real dollars than 20 years ago.

Your rights as a citizen of the United States have also been steadily eroded during your lifetime. There have been increased use of roadblocks, searches without warrants, wiretapping, drug testing, punishment before trial, travel restrictions, censorship of student speech, behavior, and clothing; excessive requirements for IDs, youth curfews, video surveillance, and an older drinking age -- all of this before September 11.

Yet the system that envelopes us becomes normal by its mere mass, its repetitive messages, its sheer noise. Our society faces what William Burroughs called a biologic crisis -- “like being dead and not knowing it.” And even as we complain about and denounce the culture in which we find ourselves, we are unable bury it or to revive it. We speak of a new age but make endless accommodations with the old. We are overpowered and afraid.

To accept the full consequences of the degradation of the environment, the explosion of incarceration, the creeping militarization, the dismantling of democracy, the commodification of culture, the contempt for the real, the culture of impunity among the powerful and the zero tolerance towards the weak and the young, requires a courage that seems beyond us. We do not know how to look honestly at the wreckage without a sense of surrender; far easier to just keep dancing and hope someone else fixes it all.

Yet, in a perverse way, our predicament makes life simpler. We have clearly lost what we have lost. We can give up our futile efforts to preserve the illusion and turn our energies instead to the construction of a new time.

It is this willingness to walk away from the seductive power of the present that first divides the mere reformer from the rebel -- the courage to emigrate from one's own ways in order to meet the future not as just a right but as a frontier.

How one does this can vary markedly, but one of the bad habits we have acquired from the bullies who now run the place is undue reliance on traditional political, legal and rhetorical tools. Politically active Americans have been taught that even at the risk of losing our planet and our democracy, we must go about it all in a rational manner, never raising our voices, never doing the unlikely or trying the improbable, let alone screaming for help.

We have lost much of what was gained in the 1960s and 1970s because we traded in our passion, our energy, our magic and our music for the rational, technocratic and media ways of our leaders. We will not overcome the current crisis solely with political logic. We need living rooms like those in which women once discovered others like themselves. The freedom schools of the civil rights movement. The politics of the folk guitar. The pain of James Baldwin. The laughter of Abbie Hoffman. The strategy of Gandhi and King.

Unexpected gatherings and unpredicted coalitions. People coming together because they disagree on every subject save one: the need to preserve the human. Savage satire and gentle poetry. Boisterous revival and silent meditation. Grand assemblies and simple conversations.

Above all, we must understand that in leaving the toxic ways of the present we are healing ourselves, our places, and our planet. We must rebel not as a last act of desperation but as a first act of creation.

You can do it… in fact it’s pretty much up to you… you can tell when change is coming… it’s when the young demand it. We’ve had our chance and we blew it. And you’ve got at most about ten years to set things straight. Then you'll get busy with other things.

In fact, you have to do it.

I know it looks hard. We seem, as Mathew Arnold put it, trapped between two worlds, “one dead, the other powerless to be born.”

So how can one maintain hope, faith and energy in such an instance?

If we accept the apparently inevitable -- that is, the future as marketed to us by the media and our leaders -- then we will become merely the audience for our own demise. Our society today teaches us in so many ways that matters are preordained: you can’t have a pay raise because it will cause inflation, you are entitled to run the country because you went to Yale, you’re not good enough to go to Yale, you are shiftless because you are poor; there is nothing you can do to change what you see on TV, you don’t stand a chance in life if you don’t pass this test.

And what if we follow this advice and these messages? If you and I do nothing, say nothing, risk nothing, then current trends will probably continue in which case we can expect over the next decade or so:

More corruption, a wealthier and more isolated upper class, more homelessness, increased militarization, a growth in censorship, less privacy, further loss of constitutional protections, a decline in the standard of living, fewer corporations owning more media, greatly increased traffic jams, more waits for services and entertainment, more illness from toxic chemicals, more influence by drug lords, more climatic instability, fewer beaches, more violence, more segregation, more propaganda, less responsive government, less truth, less space, less democracy, less happiness, less love…

But what if, on the other hand, we recognize that the future of our society and our planet will in large part simply represent the sum total of human choices made between now and then? Then we can stop being passive spectators and become actors -- even more, we start to rewrite the play. We can become the hope we are looking for.

But how? Well let me offer a few suggestions, what I might call helpful hints for happy hell raisers:

- Discover that you are not alone. Begin right after my talk by introducing yourself to those around you. Find places where people like you can gather not just to commit social justice but to enjoy each other. Change comes not just from agendas, but from casual conversations, from communities of the caring, from having fun with people who share your beliefs.

- Even when you can’t change things you can change your attitude towards them. For example, we tend to think of the 1950s as a time of unmitigated conformity, but in many ways the decade of the 60s was merely the mass movement of ideas that took root in the 50s. Because in beat culture, jazz, and the civil rights movement there had already been a stunning critique of, and rebellion against, the American establishment.

Norman Mailer called such people “psychic outlaws” and “the rebel cell in our social body.” Ned Plotsky termed them, “the draft dodgers of commercial civilization.”

Unlike today’s activists they lacked a plan; unlike those of the 60s they lacked anything to plan for; what substituted for utopia and organization was the freedom to think, to speak, to move at will in a culture that thought it had adequately taken care of all such matters. To a far greater degree than rebellions that followed, the beat culture created its message by being rather than doing, rejection rather than confrontation, sensibility rather than strategy, journeys instead of movements, words and music instead of acts, and informal communities rather than formal institutions.

For the both the civil rights movement and the 1960s rebellion that followed, such a revolt by attitude seemed far from enough. Yet these full-fledged uprisings could not have occurred without years of anger and hope being expressed in more individualistic and less disciplined ways, ways that may seem ineffective in retrospect yet served as absolutely necessary scaffolding with which to build a powerful movement. In other words, even when you can’t act you can think, you can talk, and you can react in some way.

- If you want to scare the establishment, get people together who it doesn’t think belong together. If you have a problem with your principal or headmaster don't just go to his or her office with the usual troublemakers; walk in with some of the smartest kids, some jocks, a few punks, blacks, whites, Latinos, and, best of all, the kids who never seems to be interested in doing anything at all. Once when we were fighting freeways in Washington, I looked up on a platform and there was the Grovesnor Chapman, the chair of the white elite Georgetown Citizens Association, and Reginald Booker head of a black militant organization with a name so nasty I don’t think I can say it in school, and I said to myself, we are going to win. And we did.

- Have fun. Don’t be ashamed of it. You are not only fighting a cause, you are building a new sort of community. Back in the 1960s, a really good black activist told me, “You know, Sam, all I really want to do is sit on my stoop, drink beer and shoot craps.” After that, I never forgot what the battle was really about.

Our quarrel with the abuse of power should be not only be that it is cruel and stupid but that it takes so much time way from other things -- like loving and being loved, and music, and a good meal and the sunset of a gentle day. In a nation ablaze with struggles for power, we are too often forced to choose between being a co-conspirator in the arson or a member of the volunteer fire department. And, too often, as we immerse ourselves in the terrible relevance of our times, beauty and happiness seem to drift away.

- Remember the definition of a saint: a sinner who tries harder. You and your colleagues don’t have to be perfect, you don’t have to be always right, you just have to keep trying.

- And while we’re talking of saints remember what St Francis of Assisi said, “Always preach the gospel. Use words if necessary.” Which is to say that words are not always the answer. Justice can be expressed in many other ways. For example, if you volunteer at a homeless shelter, you don’t have to make a big deal of it. Just the fact that you are doing it will have an effect on those around you.

- Among the other ways are art and music. Music is often the forerunner of political change. Billie Holiday was singing about lynchings long before the civil rights movement. Cool jazz was a form of rebellion. And when they write about what led up to the important Wilmington student conference of March 2004 the smart historians will give credit to punk rock. Because it kept the idea of freedom alive at a time when few others were interested. As the webzine Fast ‘n’ Bulbous noted:

“Punk gives the message that no one has to be a genius to do it him/ herself. Punk invented a whole new spectrum of do-it-yourself projects for a generation. Instead of waiting for the next big thing in music to be excited about, anyone with this new sense of autonomy can make it happen themselves by forming a band. Instead of depending on commercial media to tell them what to think, anyone can create a fanzine, paper, journal or comic book. With enough effort and cooperation they can even publish and distribute it. Kids were eventually able to start their own record labels too.”

In other words, it was a musical version of democracy.

And it can lead to profound political change. By the end of the 1990s, an unremittingly political band, Rage Against the Machine, had sold more than 7 million copies of its first two albums and its third, The Battle of Los Angeles, sold 450,000 copies its first week. Nine months later, there would be a live battle of Los Angeles as the police shut down a Rage concert at the Democratic Convention. Throughout the 1990s, during a nadir of activism and an apex of greed, Rage both raised hell and made money. In 1993 the band, appearing at Lollapalooza III in Philadelphia, stood naked on stage for 15 minutes without singing or playing a note in a protest against censorship. Other protest concerts followed. And in 1997, well before most college students were paying any attention to the issue, Rage’s Tom Morello was arrested during a protest against sweatshop labor. Throughout this period no members of the band were invited to discuss politics with Ted Koppel or Jim Lehrer. But a generation heard them anyway. So Rage T-shirts became a common sight during the 1999 Seattle protest.

- Be patient. You are not winning a game called justice, you are living a life called justice. Bertolt Brecht tells the story of a man living alone who answers a knock at the door. There stands Tyranny, armed and powerful, who asks, “Will you submit?” The man does not reply. He steps aside. Tyranny enters and takes over. The man serves him for years. Then Tyranny mysteriously becomes sick from food poisoning. He dies. The man opens the door, gets rid of the body, comes back to the house, closes the door behind him, and says, firmly, “No.”

- Be fair to each other. There's been a sad side to social activism. Some people get delusions of grandeur, some rip it off. And some don't apply the principles of which they talk to those around them. For example, both the civil rights and the 1960s anti-war movement were rife with behavior that denigrated the women involved. So remember the old Mahalia Jackson gospel song and you won't go wrong: “You can't go to church and shout all day Sunday, come home and get drunk and raise hell on a Monday. You've got to live the life you sing about in your song.”

- As far as getting along with folks of different cultures and backgrounds, listen to my old friend Chuck Stone. Stone really knows how to get along with other people. When he was columnist and senior editor of the Philadelphia Daily News, 75 homicide suspects surrendered to him personally rather than take their chances with the Philadelphia police department. Black journalist Stone also negotiated the end of five hostage crises, once at gun point. “I learned how to listen," he says. Stone believes in building what he calls "the reciprocity of civility.” His advice for getting along with other Americans: treat them like a member of your family.

- I can’t emphasize that too much. Show everyone respect and you’ll walk comfortably among every class, subculture and ethnicity in this land. Don’t show respect and you’ll live a lonely life.

- Part of that respect is towards yourself. Don’t apologize for who you are. Don’t be afraid to argue with someone just because they are of a different ethnicity. Arguing with someone is a form of respect too, because it means you really care about what they think.

- If you are a member of an ethnic or other minority, remember that as an activist your role is to provide solutions to problems and not merely be a symptom of them. To be a survivor and not a victim. It is hard these days because basically all the corporate and political establishment want any of us to do is to consume and comply, and the poor and the weak more so than the rest of us. For example, they not only want you listening to hip hop but to accept its culture as the outer limit of black aspiration. There is nothing wrong with hip hop except when all doors leading beyond it are closed.

Ethnic politicians have a similar problem. During the civil rights movement, black leaders spoke not only to those of their own culture but to many whites, especially young whites like myself. The most influential book I read in college was Martin Luther King’s “Stride Toward Freedom” and it wasn’t on any required reading list. Cesar Chavez had a similar cross-cultural appeal. But then as African Americans became more successful in politics there was an understandable but unfortunate tendency to retreat to a constituency you knew you could rely upon. And so black leaders became much less influential in the white community.

It’s an important lesson for any young black or Latino activist. Don’t let your story be ghettoized; instead take that story and find the universal in it, and use that story to move those who don't look like you but can understand the story because you made it theirs, too. The greatest ethnic success stories in America have come when a minority learned to lead the majority, as the Irish and Jews often did in the past century.

As an example, I hear over and over that blacks and Latinos can’t work together politically, but I can almost promise you that the next great ethnic leader in this country is going to be someone who ignores that cliché and creates a black-Latino coalition which, after all, will represent one quarter of the people in this land. Perhaps that leader is in this room.

- Look for consensus. There's a lot of either-or in political activism. But within your own groups, it helps to emphasize consensus. Before we got the national Green Party off the ground we held a conference in the early 1990s that many would have said was doomed to failure. We had 125 people from over 20 different third parties ranging from the Socialists and the Greens to the Libertarians and the Perot people. It was asking for trouble.

But we also had two rules: first, we were there to discuss what we agree upon, not what divided us and two, we would discover it by some form of consensus. And we did; by the end of the weekend we had come up with 17 points of unanimous agreement.

- Finally, trust in courage and not only in hope. The key to both a better future and our own continuous faith in one is the constant, conscious exercise of choice even in the face of absurdity, uncertainty and daunting odds. We are constantly led, coaxed and ordered away from such a practice. We are taught to respect power rather than conscience, the grand rather than the good, the acquisition rather than the discovery.

But as Lillie Tomlin noted, even if you win the rat race, you are still a rat.

Any effort on behalf of human or ecological justice and wisdom demands real courage rather than false optimism, and responsibility even in times of utter madness, even in times when decadence outpolls decency, even in times when responsibility itself is ridiculed as the behavior of the weak and naive.

There is far more to this than personal action and personal witness. In fact, it is when we learn to share our witness with others -- in politics, in music, in rebellion, in conversation, in love -- that what starts as singular testimony can end in mass transformation. Here then is the real possibility: that we are building something important even if it remains invisible to us. And here then is the real story: even without the hope that such a thing is really happening there is nothing better for us to do than to act as if it is -- or could be.

Here is ultimately a philosophy of peace and even joy because we have thrown every inch and ounce of our being into what we are meant to be doing -- which is to decide what we are meant to be doing. And then to walk cheerfully down the street, through our school, and over the face of the earth doing it.

Monday, April 26, 2010

Why Aren't You Outraged?

¡Hola! Everybody...
No foreplay today.

* * *

-=[ Moral Outrage ]=-


On March 13, 1964, Kitty Genovese was murdered near her home. Her neighbors were fully aware of the struggle between Genovese and her attacker, which lasted nearly thirty minutes in length, yet were unresponsive (later research disclosed that the actual events of that night were misreported). The failure of the neighbors to come to her aid is now known as the bystander effect. It refers to the phenomenon in which the greater the numbers of people present, the less likely people are to help a person in crisis. When an emergency situation occurs, observers are more likely to take action if there are few or no other witnesses. It’s as if in a large crowd, everyone is expecting someone else to do something, so no one acts.

I’m no hero -- by no stretch of the imagination. In fact, I am as far removed from “hero” as is possible. I do have a problem, however. For the life of me, I cannot stay quiet in the face of injustice. If I see something that’s just plain wrong, I can’t let it go, I can’t stay quiet. I have to act. Throughout my life, I have paid a steep price for that character defect.

But, no, I am no hero...

For me, real heroes are spiritual warriors who are alive with moral outrage and who enter the gladiatorial arena to wrestle with the mystery of evil in its many different disguises. Fierce men and women, rich in wise judgment, who still have thunder and lightning in them. Not the middle-of-the-road fence sitters these people. Give me the “hot” Bill Moyers (or Rachel Maddow!) who takes chances, calls presidents liars, and breathes fire at secret wars and hidden government over any of the “cool” stenographers who report the news and lead discussions as long as the perspectives expressed won’t keep them from access to the very power they should be holding accountable.

One of the most troubling issues of today is the absence of moral outrage in the American public. The ongoing revelations of wars justified by fabricated lies, government-sanctioned torture on American soil and abroad, corporate malfeasance, arranged assassinations, the shredding of the Constitution, are greeted with an apathy that is utterly mind-numbing. It is as if the whole of the American populace is under the thrall of a collective bystander effect.

While we might have freedom of the (corporate-owned) press, I am continually astounded by how our media can report on the most egregious forms of political and corporate corruption but very little happens. We have a former vice president going on talk shows and bragging about how he ordered torture!

To be sure, the path of the warrior is full of conflict and contradictions. No individual with an awakened sense of moral reasoning can witness unnecessary suffering, disease, and injustice without feeling outraged and being compelled toward action. Desecration evokes a feeling from deep in the gut that forms into a judgment and grows into an impulse to act.

Godammit it, it’s wrong for governments to spend billions on weapons when tens of thousands are dying needlessly from disease and hunger!

Fuck! It’s wrong to pursue a demented progress at the cost of destroying our planet!

Godammit! It’s wrong to pass a law that criminalizes people of a certain skin color!

If our minds and hearts haven’t been anesthetized, we must be outraged by the injustices of the world and realize that if “you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything.” You have to have a mission in life, something sacred, larger than your petty needs. It is our responsibility to become protectors of this world, of the powerless, and healers of the broken.

These are challenging times for those aspiring to live with compassion and vigor. You have to gird your fucking loins and decide where to enter the struggle against unnecessary suffering, injustice, and poverty.

Suffering is a fact of the human condition. In the best of all possible worlds, there would still be disease, accident, tragedy, disappointment, loneliness, and death. And there is a certain form of wisdom required in order to accept the things we are powerless to change. But there is suffering and then there is what we add to it. There is another form of wisdom that allows us address the suffering that results from psychological, economic, and political structures that we can change. While I do not subscribe to violent “just wars,” there is a just war of the soul that is against unnecessary suffering, against the impulses of greed, the collective lack of empathy, against those systemic mechanisms that are clearly responsible for the desecration of the earth and the dehumanization of people.

But identifying the enemy is always a dangerous exercise. Self-righteousness can easily come to dominate our judgments. It’s easy to condemn pollution while we continue to use a gas-guzzler to go the corner store. In order to guard against self-righteousness, I have to remind myself constantly that I am part of the problem I am trying to solve. I embody many of the wrongs I must fight. For example, as a man, I have a tendency to view the world from a male-dominated perspective. As a straight man, I have to be vigilant of any bias I have regarding my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. The demons of greed, cruelty, and fear must be fought from within and without.

The collective bystander effect-- heart that has become hardened -- is both individual and systemic, both mine and my enemy’s. The moral outrage that sets me at odds with institutional embodiments of evil also sets me in conflict with my own greed and apathy. A person who does not know how to fight a just fight, first within and then with others, has no values worth defending, no ideals worth aspiring to, no awareness of the disease of which he might be healed.

And nobody -- at least nobody with some cojones -- worships the status quo.

We may not be heroes, but we all owe it to ourselves and to others to become warriors of the soul. And when we become warriors, we do so with the knowledge that the battle is never to be won intellectually or politically. There is no answer, no methodology, no way of understanding that eliminates the harm evil poses to the human spirit. We do not live in a world that satisfies our demand for moral explanations. But it also true that I, and few others, know what must be done, if not to reduce oppression, at least not add to it. Perhaps we cannot prevent being in a world where the rights of our fellow human beings aren’t violated. But we can reduce the number of those being violated and dehumanized.

If you’re not feeling outraged today, you have lost your very soul, or whatever it is that makes you human...

-- Eddie

Wednesday, April 7, 2010

Enemies of the Open Society

¡Hola! Everybody...
Today, some idiots from the right wing are actually saying that the racial epithets used at tea party rallies proves racism is dead . One of these goobers is Bill Bennett, the “morals” crusader-cum-obsessive gambler once submitted that you could aborted every black baby and the crime rate would go down. This makes sense to some people, BTW. I am not making this up.

* * *


-=[ The Open Society and its Enemies ]=-

A demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots.

-- H.L. Mencken


The following rambles, but it makes a point (I think)...

Not too long ago, I walked by a “community garden” in one of Brooklyn’s less affluent neighborhood. It’s a garden full of beautiful plants and even tomatoes and some corn growing by one corner. You can hear the laughter of children as they play on the swings and the little carousel, or act out on the makeshift stage. Mothers with newborn children in their carriages stroll through... and I was reminded that when I first saw that small plot of land, it’s was an empty lot full if refuse, overrun by tall weeds, and the working space of a few local prostitutes.

I once knocked on almost all the doors of that run down city block (and several adjoining blocks), asking people about the rat-infested, dirty, dangerous empty lot. I listened to the countless stories of babies being bitten by the infestation of rats caused by the empty lot. How crack heads would gather there, and the countless times children were exposed to the open-air sex trade.

After listening, I asked each person who opened his or her door to me one question, “If you had the power, what would you do to fix that empty lot?”

I heard many solutions, very innovative -- from building affordable housing to making it into a park, etc. I would invite everyone I engaged to join a “group of concerned neighbors” who were doing something to change that lot and everything it represented.

Actually, I really didn’t have a group; it was part of my strategy.

Eventually, I would help bring together a small group of community residents organized around that empty lot. At first it was small -- maybe 7-9 people. One day, I was able to convince two mothers. You know the type if you were raised in any kind of community. These were the archetypal “universal mother” -- everyone’s mother. Leaders among their neighbors who nobody fucked with. With their help and the help of the rest of my rag-tag group of leaders, we were able to grow that community group to over 100 members. Many of those members were far from radical. Many were very conservative, in fact. Some were anti-choice devout churchgoers, others were more progressive. In short, these were working stiffs tired of that lot and everything it represented.

When I got enough people, I invited my group to attend a rally. During that rally, police needlessly manhandled a few of the church ladies. This changed everything! The church ladies didn’t understand why they were treated disrespectfully. After all, they were working people, they paid taxes, and followed rules, were law-abiding citizens!

They got the fever...

Eventually, this group (still in existence), took over that empty lot, and through a series of actions and negotiations, they made the city clean it and eventually it was given “park” status, meaning it was officially under the direction of the City’s Park Dept. They didn’t stop there. They took over several area abandoned buildings, made the city take over them and utilizing state/ city programs (sadly done away with as soon as Giuliani took over) created permanent affordable housing. That block was transformed, as well as some of the surrounding blocks, and while the neighborhood isn’t Park Avenue, it’s a far cry from what it used to be. Today, the Yuppies are taking over in droves as gentrification creeps up from the now unaffordable Williamsburg.

This post isn’t about me, so please, don’t emphasize that part. This post is about what it means to be a participant in the democratic process. I worked as a community organizer for a very short time. Too short. I left mostly because of philosophical differences with the organization. Still, that organization did a lot to help people like those hard-working church ladies of my group. They also did a lot to help millions vote.

Today, that organization doesn’t exist. It doesn’t exist because the right-wing focused their cross hairs on the group and took it down. They took tapes and edited them to make it look as if the workers of that organization were agreeing to agree to traffic in prostitution when in fact, they were doing the exact opposite (click here to view an exposé of this cowardice).

That organization was called ACORN and today it doesn’t exist because those who fear and loathe the democratic process wanted to take it down. They succeeded and today we’re less of a nation because of it.

Eddie

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

The Good, The Bad &The Ugly, pt. II

¡Hola! Everybody...
As promised, the follow-up to
yesterday’s post. Again, it’s a little long, but that can’t be avoided considering the topic. I guess this will help in contextualizing my critique on conservatives of all types.

* * *

-=[ The Bad: Social Justice ]=-

We were taught... that man’s business on this earth was to look out for himself. That was the ethic of the jungle... Take care of yourself, no matter what may become of your fellow man. Thousands of years ago, the question was asked, ‘Am I my brother’s keeper?’ That question has never yet been answered in a way that is satisfactory to civilized society.

Yes, I am my brother’s keeper. I am under a moral obligation to him that is inspired, not by any maudlin sentimentality but by the higher duty I owe myself. What would you think me if I were capable of seating myself at a table and gorging myself with food and saw about me the children of my fellow beings starving to death?”

-- Eugene V. Debs, 1908 speech


So far, I have looked at justice in general terms, not the role that governments play in promoting it. For the rest of this post, I will explore the idea of social justice -- the idea that we can create a set of social and political institutions that ensures the just distribution of benefits and costs throughout a society.

The idea first emerged in the late 19th century, and stood at the heart of political debate throughout the 20th. It requires that the state become much more involved in justice than earlier times. It was also a controversial idea: whereas only a few extremists have attacked the idea of justice, social justice has been ridiculed, mainly by critics from the libertarian right, who view it as a transgression against personal freedom, especially the economic freedom they feel a market economy requires.

Let’s look at these attacks more closely. Critics such as the Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek argued that there was a fundamental error involved in talking (!) about social justice in the first place. According to Hayek (and many self-loathing neocons that call themselves “libertarians” LOL!), justice is a consequence of individual actions. An action is unjust when it violates a general societal rule that allows members of a society to interact with one another. For example, theft is unjust because it violates a rule protecting property. If we look at how resources -- money, property, employment opportunities, and so forth -- are distributed across a society, we cannot describe this as either just or unjust, since it is a consequence not from the actions of a single mediator, but from the actions and decisions of millions of separate individuals, none of whom intended to create this or any other outcome in particular.

To be fair, Hayek is right to point out that “social distribution” cannot be attributed to any single distributing agency or entity, given the complexity of any contemporary society in the postmodern world. But Hayek’s fundamental error -- what he overlooks -- is that the distributive pattern we observe around us does, generally speaking, depends on the institutions we have created , consciously or not. For example, the rules governing property and contracts, the system of taxation, the level of public expenditure on health care, education, housing, and employment policies, etc. -- these are all institutions that have been shaped and can be changed by political decision, and so if we leave things as they are, that is the same as accepting the existing distribution of resources. In addition (let’s not get all new), we can certainly understand what the effect of proposed institutional change would be.

To that extent, the distribution of resources across society -- who gets what benefits, how wide the spread of incomes will be, etc. -- is something that, at least in a democracy, is under our collective control. It is perfectly reasonable, then, to ask what social justice would ask us to do.

But Hayek isn’t done yet. His criticism begs the question of whether social justice is something we should pursue. Hayek’s second claim is that, in attempting to make the distribution of resources match up to justice, we would destroy economic freedom and in that way kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. For the sake of argument, let’s assume Hayek is right when he claims that a market economy is the most effective way of organizing production and trade (this is not an a priori), and that any alternative would involve a reduction of the living standards in economically advanced societies. The question then is whether striving for social justice means turning our back on the market economy, or whether it’s possible to pursue social justice through a market economy, one shaped in the right way and that has other social institutions working alongside it.

These questions, my friends, and how they have been answered, are at the core of today’s “financial meltdown.”

In this respect, we need to look at different ways of interpreting the idea of social justice. The most radical version, touted by Marxists and some communitarian anarchists, reduces social justice to the principles of equality and need. A just society, in this view, is one in which each member contributes to the best of his or her ability, but resources are distributed according to need, with any resulting surplus distributed evenly. There is no consideration here for the idea that people need incentives, or deserve material rewards for making their contribution.

The question here becomes, could such a society exist?

On a small scale, it undoubtedly has. In addition, China has definitely put a crimp on the notion that communism has died. Still, the question remains whether a large society could successfully practice social justice in this form.

There is, however, a less radical view of social justice which has been embraced by many democratic socialists and contemporary liberals. From this point of view, social justice requires the equal distribution of some social benefits -- especially equal rights of citizenship such as voting and freedom of speech. It requires that some benefits be distributed on the basis of need, so that everyone is guaranteed an adequate income, access to health care and housing, etc. However, it also allows for other resources to be distributed unequally, so long as there is equal opportunity for people trying to acquire a larger share. These inequalities may be justified on the grounds of merit (“desert”), or on the grounds that by giving people material incentives to work hard and produce goods that other people want, all of society benefits.

Arguably, the most influential interpretation of this form of social justice was developed by John Rawls (Lou Rawls’ lighter-skinned step-brother *grin*) who argued in his Theory of Justice that a just society must fulfill three conditions. First, it must give each member the most extensive of basic liberties that is consistent with the same liberty for everyone else. Second, social positions possessing greater advantages, higher paying jobs, for example, must be open to everyone on the basis of equality of opportunity. Third, inequalities of income and wealth are justified when they can be shown to benefit the least advantaged members of society -- in other words when they provide incentives that raise society’s productivity and in that way allow more resources to be channeled to those at the bottom of the heap.

Rawls’s theory of justice obviously makes room for a market economy. Rawls’s third principle allows for the possibility for people to keep at least part of the gain they make through producing goods and services for the market if they are going to be sufficiently motivated to work hard and use their talents in the most productive way. This demolishes Hayek’s claim that social justice and market freedom are mutually exclusive. On the other hand, a market economy governed by Rawlsian principles would look completely different from from the economic systems of modern liberal democracies.

For one, Rawls’ idea of equality of opportunity is radical. It is not enough that positions of advantage should be given to those who can be shown to be better qualified to hold them. It must also be true that applicants have had an equal opportunity to become qualified. What this means is that from the moment of birth, people of equal talent and motivation should be afforded the same opportunities in education and elsewhere.

Obviously, this is not the case in any existing society. Furthermore, Rawls’ third principle, often called the difference principle, allows inequalities only when they can be shown to benefit the worst off of society. In actual practice this would mean that governments would set tax rates so that benefits were continually redistributed to benefit all of society. Although most democratic societies have so-called progressive tax structures, they fall far short of Rawls’ requirement.

My own view is that a theory of social justice should retain Rawls’ first two principles -- equal liberty and equality of opportunity -- but replace the difference principle with two others. The first is that of a guaranteed social minimum, understood as a set of needs that must be met in order to assure every citizen a decent life. This minimum is not fixed, but changes over time and within different societies. In a debate during the last presidential election, it was asked if each candidate considered health care a right or a privilege. Their respective answers were telling... The second is one of merit (desert). Inequalities of income and wealth should be proportional, measured by their success in producing goods and services other people need and want.

Like Rawls’ theory, these principles don’t conflict with a market economy -- at least not in the sense that it entails getting rid of it. However, they do require the construction and maintenance of an extensive web of interlocking social safety nets, as well as a flexible legal system within which the market economy works so that there is a real link between what people contribute and what they receive as compensation for that contribution.

Much of the economic turmoil we face today is a directr result of decades of lax governmental oversight combined with an almost slavish devtion toward free market principles. Therefore, it is important for people to think about these matters, to question the validity of ther apostles of the market.

Of course this would require a real change to the way capitalist countries operate, since the existing rules of property and inheritance allow people to reap huge rewards by virtue of luck, inherited wealth, corporate position, etc. -- factors all unrelated to their contribution to society. What most conservatives and libertarians alike all fear is that the pursuit of social justice will take us towards a form of market socialism in which the means are owned by those work in them rather than by outside shareholders, so that the profits can be shared among the actual producers. I don't think this is something to be feared but rather something to be pursued. This is not the communist utopia espoused by Marxists and other radical socialists, since it also allows for harder working and more talented individuals to reap the fruits of their labor. Still, it takes us far away from the failed political agenda of the present, at least as far as liberal democracies are concerned.

Social justice, like democracy, will always be unfinished project. It is up to us to envision what a just society should look like, without losing our pragmatism nor delude ourselves in fantasies. I believe, like many, that the struggle for social justice has been sabotaged by global developments that place the market before the concerns of people -- before the concerns of justice. It strikes me as the ultimate irony to hear others go into the “people are so stupid rants” without paying attention to the larger, more powerful forces at play. What good is intelligence or critical thinking in the face of a global movement in which social justice is scrapped in favor of the bottom line?

Paz y Amor,

Eddie

Monday, April 13, 2009

The Good, The Bad & The Ugly, pt. I

¡Hola! Everybody...
I may not be able to finish the following post today, but I think it addresses some key questions. Questions that many bloggers and would-be pundits treat as an a priori in their rants. As you will see, very little is clearly self-evident... I started this as one post, but it quickly grew too large...

* * *


-=[ The Good: Justice ]=-

“Take, then, your paltry Christ, your gentleman God. We want the carpenter’s son, with his saw and hod.”

-- Upton Sinclair, quoted in The Cry for Justice


The idea that justice is more than a virtue that a good government should possess is something most people take for granted. Justice is fundamental to the institutions that transform a mass of individuals into a political community in the first place. Justice binds citizens to one another, and then all of them together to government. Justice, as long-standing tradition has it, is central to the justification of political authority. To paraphrase, what are kingdoms without justice but great gangs of thugs?

Saying that justice is central to good government is one thing; attempting to define justice is quite another, and that is what this post will attempt to address. Also, I am jumping to social justice rather quickly, and my starting off point will suffer somewhat; but how can I address the whole issue of justice in a one or two-page Word document?

My father used to like to say that Justice was blind, that if you took her blindfold off, you would see she had dollar signs for eyes... LOL

Let’s start with the basics. My father’s characterization notwithstanding, justice, we might all agree, has something to do with punishment and reward, and something to do with equality, but how to define it? Let’s start with an old definition, by the roman Emperor Justinian, who stated that justice “is the constant and perpetual will to render each his due.”

Whoop-dee-doo! LOL

Taken by itself, this definition doesn’t take us very far, but perhaps it points us the right direction. First, it stresses that justice is a matter of each individual person being treated in the right way; it’s not a matter of whether society in general is rich or poor, culturally rich or culturally barren, and so forth. This doesn’t mean that the idea of justice for groups can be dismissed -- I will look more in depth at that aspect later -- but the primary concern of justice is with how individuals are treated (and yes, this is a cultural bias). Secondly, the “constant and perpetual will” part of the definition reminds us that a central idea of justice is that people must be treated in an evenhanded way (“justice is blind”). There must be consistency in how an individual is treated over time, and there must also be consistency between people, so that if my friend and I have the same qualities, we should receive the same benefits, or the same punishment, depending on the situation.

Consistency explains why acting justly is often a matter of following rules or applying laws, since these guarantee consistency. However, consistency alone is not enough for justice: imagine a law that required that all white people be considered three-fifths of a human being, or that all people of color should be put to death. These examples show that justice also requires relevance; if people are going to be treated differently from one another, it must be predicated on grounds that are relevant to the question of justice. This also shows that where there are no relevant grounds on which to discriminate, justice requires equality: everyone should be treated the same way. This gives us a second requirement beyond mere consistency: justice demands that people should be treated equally unless there are relevant reasons for treating them differently.

One final caveat to my definition: the idea of proportion. This tells us that when people are treated differently for relevant reasons, the treatment they receive should be proportionate to whatever they have done that justifies the inequality. Many would agree, for example, that if people work hard at their jobs that is a relevant reason for paying them more. But, for the sake of justice, there must be proportionality: if Yippie works twice as hard as Yappie, he should be paid twice as much, but not ten times as much.

As you see, I have squeezed a fair amount of mileage from Justinian’s take, but I have not been able to say what it is that people are owed as a matter of justice, nor on what grounds we are justified in treating them differently. In fact, there are no easy answers to these questions. This is in part because people will disagree about what justice requires and because the answer given will depend largely on who is doing the treating, what treatment is given, and under what circumstances. To a great extent, our ideas of justice are contextual, meaning that before we can decide what is fair we have to know about the situation in which it is being applied. Allow me some room here...

Let’s suppose that I have been given $500 to distribute between five people. What does justice tell me to do? So far, very little. It tells me that I should treat them consistently, that if I treat them differently, that this should be for relevant reasons and that my allocations should be proportionate. Now, let’s fill in some details. in different ways and see what distributions suggest themselves. The five people might be my employees, and the $500 might be the bonus they have earned this week, in which case I should consider each individual’s contribution and reward them proportionately. Or, I might be I might be an aid worker charged with distributing the cash to allow people to buy food, in which case I should try to surmise the relative needs of the five and give more to those in greater need. Or perhaps the $500 is a small lottery windfall, and the five people and I are a syndicate, in which case the money should be distributed evenly.

Most here would find my decisions on how to allocate the money under the varying circumstances self-evident, and it shows that, though justice is a complicated affair, we already have a grasp of what it involves in practice. Justice is not so much a way to measure than a box of tools. Faced with a decision, we know in most cases which tool to use. What is harder to express is a theory of justice. But we need to create a theory because there are going to be cases in which our intuitions will conflict, in which the decisions will not be so clear-cut. This is more so the case when it involves social justice -- justice not only between individuals, but also across a whole society. I shall explore this idea in a later post, but I first need to explore the general principles of justice.

Justice often has more to do with process than actual treatment. Let’s look at criminal justice before I end this post. It matters, of course, that guilty people are punished in proportion to their crime, and that innocent people go free but it is also important that proper procedures (process) are followed in arriving at a verdict. For instance, it matters that both sides are allowed to state their case, that the judge has no stake that would impede his impartiality. This process is important not only because it tends to ensure the right verdicts, but because it affords individuals the respect and right to be heard properly. The main dynamic in the OJ Simpson trial fallout wasn’t just that he was black, but that he could afford to rely on resources not often available to the less privileged. For blacks and other people of color, this wasn’t something new: criminal justice has often been an injustice. My father’s admonition is relevant here. For whites, who often experience social institutions from a more advantaged or benevolent position, the OJ case was a travesty of justice.

The above is a poor substitute for beginning a substantive discussion on social justice, but I’m already at one page, so I must move on and hope this suffices for the rest of the discussion.

Love,

Eddie