It could be argued that most theories of justice embody some notion of equality: equality of opportunity, rights, capabilities, utilities, happiness, income, basic goods, equal respect of individuals as 'deliberative and purposive' agents. The question then becomes not: why equality but, rather: equality of what? What is the correct evaluative space and how serious are the trade-offs between the different types. Is political equality compatible with the market (Tawney)? Are we equal under the eyes of the State, or of God?
Well, is this a 'political fiction' (a self-evident axiom) that gets the system to work or is it based on some conception of an irreducible human nature? Is this some Utopian project (Nagel) stretching back, ultimately, to some radical religious roots:the children of God, the community of Saints, etc. Shouldn't our real emphasis be on giving priority to the least well-off (in whichever 'space') rather than equality per se?
~~~~
Notes from Sahlins' illuminating 'Hierarchy, Equality, and the Sublimation of Anarchy' :
'I do not believe that any other cultural tradition can match the sustained Western contempt for humanity -this persistence scandal of man's viciousness and cupidity-together with the antithesis of culture and nature that informs it.'
Political Augustianism, Machiavelli, Freud, Hobbes, the selfish gene, self-interest as the only motivating factor, mob rule (demos), savage instincts under the surface of civilisation,..always the same story: we start with a fallen human nature (Evil), the crooked timber of humanity that can only be 'redeemed' or controlled by something external (grace, the state, the law, and/or awe for the King) or by a balance of, and the competition between, the self-interests of 'factions'. The latter is, in its repudiation of hierarchy, precisely, the quintessential modern 'solution' (self-interest = or leads to the public interest).
The American Founding Fathers.
The political question: what binds people in a commercial society? The Market vs the Republic. The false equality, universalism of the market.
Madison: "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition"
Man must, politically speaking, be considered a knave.
Patrick Henry: "the real rock of political salvation is self-love"
How could "the spirit of faction" be checked? Through an ever expanding Empire (the agrarian frontier could create a large cadre of middling farmers to offset the power of the commercial rich and the resentments of the urban poor. Jefferson: Hardt and Negri).
Nationalism and patriotism, war and imperialism...the nation must insinuate itself into everyday people's lives as an object of their fondest sentiments, so that having thus incorporated the nation in themselves they find themselves incorporated into the nation.
Here's the dope:
The authority of the Union and the affections of the citizens towards it will be strengthened by an extension to what are called matters of internal concern..The more it circulates through those channels and currents in which the passions of mankind naturally flow, the less it will require the aid of violent and perilous expedients of compulsion.
---Hamilton.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
The problem with 'the American dream' was, is and always will be that it was founded on meaningless rhetoric:'All men are born free' - unless they happened to be black or members of the indiginous tribes of America.
As for 'equality' - not, in my mind, a meaningful general concept. It implies some hierarchy of qualities, rights, or whatever, and who's to arbiter, who sets the standard?
Hi billoo
the rights of individuals are getting progressively less along with the technological advancements of modern times. the state is all powerful. this is not a symptom of capitalist societies alone. in other places, in so-called tribal societies, individual rights are getting eroded.
the notion of equality too is an invented one, a symptom of'modern' times too. we will only have what we are told we must have, including equality, rights etc. thus, we have progressed from nihilism to state control. even the notion of dying, compulsory treatment etc is state directed.
the anarchic principle should comew back. the state is throttling lives. i understand thje need for policing etc but what of the times past?
i think the most impeerfect societies, so-called had freedom in doing nothing, for indolence and inaction. we must have the freedom to lament. equality etc is a good academic tool.
however, my reading is really lamentable in this direction. these comments are mostly en passant. the weather is melancholic and things will always stay so. i think reading Russian literature is the only antidote. just kidding.
cheers.
k.
Very interesting article by Sahlins. I'm afraid though that I am too fixed in my time and space and cannot think anthropologically enough to completely agree.
One thing about Hobbes is that he wrote the Leviathan following the English Civil War and the spirit of the Leviathan with its pervading fear of societal breakdown could be explained by this. You could say that its reactionary in that he sided with the Royalists and the status quo but then on another level its an understandable fear of war and bloodshed on a mass scale which we can all recognise.
I'm also a bit confused about why more state and more law is the corollary of a distrust of humankind. Can it not be motivated by a genuine sympathy towards humankind - a belief that all humans deserve a certain standard of life irrespective of their imperfections?
About equality - I think it is an invented concept and defining it is pretty difficult let alone answering should we have it and which version and then how we achieve it and if it is a hopelessly utopian idea.
But then it was invented for a good reason - that all human societies have been remarkably consistent in their ability to create hierarchy and treat some members as less human - we have just expanded over time our notion of which inequalities are unjust (or maybe contracted our notion if you think that economic inequality is more acceptable than it was).
Beth
Hello, all. Lots of great points but I can't really respond to them all right now.
Beth, I think you're right..there is a tendency to think of freedom in terms of opposition to the State, the church etc ..what would it mean to derive a positive sense of identity from belonging.. 'I-we'?
On the other hand: I'm drawn to Nancy's idea of a non-representative community. Why should one accept the narratives of the State or be inscribed in its story as a 'subject' (Foucault). Also, I think there is a deep liberal tradition that holds that if the State aligns itself too closely to 'the good' then that can rapidly descend into totalitarianism.
On equality: that it is invented or a 'fiction' is not that important (to me, anyway). After all, what that's saying is just that we ascribe meaning or a set of meanings to it, that it's a culturally mediated term. I don't think we should think of fiction in the pejorative sense here.
I still think it remains a powerful ideal /aspiration, one that sticks two fingers up at domination/hierarchy/established interests. And in that sense I think it's a very old concept-not an invention of the moderns.
Celia, yes, I largely agree with you. I think Beth could say more about rights and who defines them. Isn't part of the problem here that such a view of ethics is negative (or conservative): thou shalt not.?
maybe that's all we can aim for. I don't know.
Certainly the 'right to the pursuit of happiness' is ridiculous-but I don't think it is meaningless since it encapsulates the capitalist mentality [gosh, that makes me sound like a godddam commie! :-) ]
All men are born free is still, to my mind, a powerful bit of rhetoric-even if it has been woefully abused by the americans. again, not that surprising. Muslims tend to harp on about how Islam is peace and still we see so much violence!
i think the deeper problem is that that freedom is increasingly seen in terms of the freedom to contract, the freedom of exchange, equality of opportunity-and not in terms of positive liberty.
Keep well,
b.
(p.s. will write a proper e-mail soon )
Kubla, hello!
yes, I'm all for the freedom to do nothing and for idleness? In some sense the incompetence and laziness of our society has saved us from state control. the problem here is not *enough* state and in the west: too *much* of the State (in my opinion).
Where I disagree with you is in this notion that the State is throttling lives..if it is, then we don't realise it! As Bauman says: in times of liquid modernity: what is there to rebel against? The point being: the state and the market have been such pervasive parts of our lives, our identities, that it's hard to imagine any alternatives.
Not sure what you mean from nihilism to ...
But already the focus on our "rights" seems to be buying into the dominant discourse (whether they're being eroded or not).
Seen any good films recently? I saw ivan's childhood. Very good.
Forgot to say: this is well worth listening to (on Hobbes)
Remember what Rousseau said: 'Men are born free but everywhere are in chains.'Now THAT is 'rhetoric', if you like, but how true, how true!
Post a Comment