Dear friends,
I lost everyone's email address, and i had a hectic weekend with work and family, so i didnt get a chance to post anything until now. I am trying this again. I hope it works. Here are my pages from section IV of Sen's "Idea of Justice." Sorry for the really short notice. I will email the pages too, if i can find the email addresses..
jerry
What is Justice? A Critical look at Unit Four of Amartya Sen’s “The Idea of Justice”
Just Peace
Dr. Scott Holland
6 November 2011
Jerramy Bowen
Working from a Dayton area coffee shop, one day, I quickly learned how ethnocentric all communities can be. While I was working through a text about pluralism and justice, I overheard a conversation, at a table near me, lamenting the current climate at the Ohio State University. I looked up from my book, and the table recognized that I was listening, well eavesdropping is a better descriptor, and they asked me my thoughts on what was happening to the football program. It is impossible to live in the Dayton area and not hear about the happenings on the campus of the Ohio State; I hesitated and did my best to weigh my responses, but then I quickly added that I thought the book should be thrown at the program, out of fairness for what happened to another major university facing similar NCAA violations. The table grew indignant and rather hostile towards me, and they questioned my loyalty to Ohio State, Coach Tressel, and all things Buckeye. I quickly added that I wasn’t born in Ohio, and that my roots began in Kansas. They rolled their eyes and shook their heads, proclaiming, “That explains it.”
It seems to be an assumed that anyone born in Ohio, regardless of locale or allegiance, must be a faithful fan of the Ohio State University. The cheer, O-H-I-O, echoes through our homes, our schools, and even our places of worship. Crimson and red adorn many houses and businesses. Buckeyes line many booths set up at local farmer’s markets. For someone, like me, coming into this narrative, it seems all persons, born of natural Ohio descent, cheer for the Buckeyes. It is a birthright. What became apparent, quickly, for me at the coffee shop is this: to live in Ohio, at least for those born in Ohio, it is assumed that the only institution of merit is the Ohio State University. I rehearse this scene because in Amartya Sen’s “The Idea of Justice,” he highlights the ethnocentric view of democracy that many in the ‘civilized’ world hold.
Sen, in his chapter titled, “Democracy as Public Reason,” spends a good deal of time illustrating the arrogance of the United States and Europe when describing the birth and ascension of democracy. “The belief that democracy is basically a Western notion with European-and American-origins is a widespread one, and it does have some apparent plausibility, despite its being ultimately a wrong and superficial diagnosis.”[1] Like my experience with the table of Buckeye fans, all too often, when it comes to matters of patriotism or NCAA football, many of us suffer from short sightedness. In short we have a hard time believing or recognizing that in other places of the world democracy might not only be older and more entrenched in the story of the people but also be more effective. More than that, like the case of the Ohio State University, we also have a hard time being critical about our own context. The rest of the world might be corrupt, but democracy in the United States is right, good, and the best.
Sens, quoting John Rawls, illustrates that democracy and justice are more than balloting; they also include government by discussion. Democracy and justice find their power and effectiveness through public reason/public discourse.[2] With this understanding of democracy/justice, Sen brings to the table examples, through history, of cultures and states that have practiced and lived democracy for much older than the Declaration of Independence.[3] After alluding to the Greek influence in contemporary balloting and democracy, Sen takes the reader back to third century BCE, to demonstrate that democracy, as public discourse, has a rich tradition.[4] Sen does an amazing job of breaking the false notion that the western world owns the rights and privileges to justice and democracy, by bringing to the surface the customs of other cultures, especially the Buddhist councils in India.[5] Sen’s description of democracies, through public discourse, paints a more cosmopolitan view of the history of democracy. He helps the reader move beyond ethnocentric ideologies and invites all to embrace a more global truth: democracy is older than 1776.
Another element of chapter 15 comes from the assumed notion that the Middle East is the one area that lacks an understanding of democracy. This belief has opened the door for the invasion of Iraq and has legitimized Israel’s actions against the Palestinians: in the interest of democracy. Sen wrote this tome before the amazing populist success of the “Arab Spring,” but he still alludes to a truth: democracy, as public discourse, as a rich history, even in the Middle East.[6] Sen changes the misperception, often propagated by mass media, that the Muslim world is based on theocracy and tyranny, but that is simply not historically accurate. Sen rescues the Arab world from media hype and western bias to illuminate democracy’s role in the development and justice of the Middle East.[7]
The final section of chapter 15, covers the role of the media. Sen, who believes in the idea, as most persons pushing for democracy and justice, that the media should be a conduit for change, a conduit for truth. Perhaps in an idealized democracy, not one controlled by multi-national corporations, the media does play a role in defending democracy and the rights of the person. Sen makes it clear that the press must be unhindered and unchallenged in the presses right to publish truth, especially in the struggle for justice.[8] Though I would agree that the press, and a free media in general, opens the door for revealing truth and fighting for justice, in our current state, the press, more times than naught, is owned by corporations with an ax to grind. Sen doesn’t offer any insight into how to cope with this reality. How does the mass populace get an honest sense of what is happening when the press has sold out and is motivated by profit and not by truth? This question looms large in Bill Moyers, “Democracy.” What do we do when the press is no longer an harbinger of truth but becomes another cog in the machine of corporate greed and corruption? Sen offers no alternative to this nagging question.
From his chapter, “Democracy as Public Reason,” Sen moves towards the pragmatic use of democracy. Chapter 16 illuminates how democracy can and does work. I have spent an inordinate amount of time on chapter 15, and in respect of time and space, I will move through the next chapters quickly. In chapter 16, Sen writes about how democracy must protect the rights of the everyday citizen, and then he addresses questions of democracy and development, democracy and minority rights, and democracy and human security/political power.
I found this chapter engaging, challenging, and provocative. Sen doesn’t shy away from contemporary issues that have found, all too often, support and defense in the United States’ politics and mass media. Beginning with development, Sen argues that democracy as public discourse, paves the way for great economic, medical, educational, and social development.[9] Sen ends this section by highlighting India’s own economic growth, and he adds, “Indeed, the evidence is overwhelming that growth is helped by the supportiveness of a friendly economic climate rather than by the fierceness of a ruthless political system.”[10] Democracy works.
From economic development, Sen turns his attention to security in general. This section is timely, and he intended it to be, in light of the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan in the name of justice and democracy and security. Sen establishes a great argument that a democracy that protects the rights of human beings is truly the best way to ensure security.[11] My sense is Sen is arguing that security from violence and “terrorism” can only truly happen when those persons, often marginalized and oppressed by western powers, are given a voice to express and share their stories. When the public sphere includes all persons, and when democracy and justice no longer ignore the plights of those less fortunate, security becomes a natural.
Sen uses the rest of this chapter to highlight policy choices and minority rights, which I have already suggested he points to as necessary elements to democracy. If groups of persons, often labeled minority or less than, are given space to speak against an systemic or political ill, then security, justice, and democracy become realities. In light of this truth, the “Arab Spring,” proves true. There are still mountains to cover, for all those countries emerging from the populism of the protest in the Arab world, but the movement has begun. Justice has spoken. And democracy, flowing as Sen suggested it should, from the people in the streets, has found a new genesis.
In the final chapters of section IV, Sen focuses on the global context and human rights. Through the last two chapters of his tome, Sen makes a case that democracy and justice must be global realities, or they are not true. Quoting Martin Luther King, Jr, Sen points to the truth that now, more than ever, we are a global community that is linked together in our common humanity. “The interdependences also include the impact of a sense of injustice in one country on lives and freedoms in others. ‘Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere,’ said Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr…”[12] Chapters 17 and 18 deserve more attention than I can give in a short critical look, and it feels like a serious injustice not to give them more space; it just can’t be done. It is in these two chapters that Sen highlights the United Nations “Universal Declaration of Human Right,” which ensures the rights of all persons including, “basic political rights, but the right to work, the right to education, protection against unemployment and poverty, the right to join trade unions and even the right to just and favourable remuneration.”[13] In an idealized world the UN’s Declaration would have merit and validity, but in today’s climate; it simply has no voice.
Human rights violations occur all over the globe, often times in full view of the UN and other human rights organizations, but little to nothing is done. Why? In the name of ‘security’ governments seem to have earned a pass on honoring the rights of all persons. It seems the world has taken a more utilitarian approach, or in a sense, ends justify the means, for the greater good. But who defines what is for the greater good? Sen’s disdain for Jeremy Bentham’s ideology is clear, though he does show respect and admiration for Bentham, but to sacrifice any rights for the greater good is injustice.
To bring the conversation on the “Idea of Justice,” to a close, I want to return to the opening discussion I had with the die hard Buckeye fans. Sen alludes to a reality of weighted justice, and my sense is that he means that each situation requires a careful and delicate debate. Sen names two forms of justice: perfect and imperfect. Perfect justice are the obvious violations, but there is another level of justice which is not so clear, not so easy to define, these issues are named: imperfect justice. Sen uses an example of a woman in Brooklyn, who was beaten to death, as an example of what is justice. The abuser was arrested and sentenced, but was justice served? Many people stood by and witnessed the attack, while doing nothing. Was their apathetic response to her murder a violation of justice? For Sen this is the debate between perfect and imperfect justice. It is not easy, nor do all agree. There simply must be space for the debate to occur.
In light of imperfect and perfect justice, the case for Ohio State football comes to light. They violated NCAA rules, so they must be punished, right? To what extent? Some would argue they have self-imposed enough penalties already, and that they should be exempt from further sanctions. Was justice served? Maybe. But what about the other major NCAA institutions who have faced similar investigations, with similar findings, and they got severe sanctions? Should there be a balanced, flat punishment? Sen argues that each context is different, and each community is different, so a flat statement or finding on justice would be an injustice. However, Sen argues for ‘fairness’ to a certain degree, and if there isn’t a standard for which people have a voice, even in NCAA sanctions, then justice has not been experienced either. I don’t have a clear answer for the dilemma of Ohio State football. And it pales in comparison to what truly matters, globally, but it illuminates the difficult nature of what is justice and what is not. Perhaps we may never have a pure definition, and that’s ok as long as everyone, as Sen alludes to, has a voice and an opportunity to share their disappointment then justice has been realized.
[1] Amartya Sen, The Idea of Justice, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 2009), 328.
[2] Ibid, 324-326. Sen quotes John Rawls and others as examples of how democracy, and by proxy justice, must stretch beyond the ballot box and include spaces for public discourse and debate.
[3] Ibid, 329-332. Sens, correctly, points to the Greeks as a foundational voice in the development of democracy, but he also brings to light others who have used the idea of public discourse to work through political/social questions.
[4] Ibid, 331.
[5] Ibid, 332.
[6] Ibid, 333.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid, 335.
[9] Ibid, 345-348. Sen points to Chairman Mao’s quote about the power of the voice of the people to ensure the overall well being of the state. I found this to be an ironic quote, considering Mao’s history of abhorrent human right’s violations. That even someone viewed, as Mao often is, as a tyrant understands that a developing society needs to give voice to the people in order to survive and be successful.
[10] Ibid, 348.
[11] Ibid, 348-350. Sen goes deeper to explain that justice and democracy can only protect people when all citizens, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, or economic status have the rights promised to them as human beings. Sen pushes more to suggest that security can only come when democracy goes to the extreme and gives the vulnerable the same access that the privilege often have.
[12] Ibid, 403. Sen quotes King’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail” to illustrate our true connectedness as a global community. What excites me the most about Sen’s final chapters is his devotion to global justice, yes. But he also recognizes and names the need to honor each context. Sen affirms what so many have already named: justice and peace require that we recognize our interconnectedness but also that we embrace the otherness of the other. In other words: we embrace our common humanity without negating each other’s particularity.
[13] Ibid, 380. The UN, with the guidance and support of Eleanor Roosevelt, passed this declaration in 1948, but it seems to have lost any authority, as too many people in the world simply do not enjoy the rights guaranteed by the UN. It seems that under the false notion of ‘security’ violating human rights, even on a global level, becomes acceptable and even endorsed. Home demolitions in Palestine. Lack of unions in China or India. And the wall being erected along the United States/Mexico border. In light of the UN Declaration, all seem to violate basic human rights, but when security is ‘threatened’ anything is possible.
