Search Views


Browse Archives

Views

Teaching Social Justice in Higher Ed

March 3, 2008

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

What does a college president do after leaving the high intensity rigors of the job? One likely calling is the classroom, whence many of us came in the first place. So after a decade as president of Haverford College, I returned to the classroom at the Harvard University Graduate School of Education.

Professor Judy McLaughlin -- she one of the world’s experts on college presidents -- created the unique position at Harvard of “President-in-Residence”. Each year Judy invites one of the newly departed to join the faculty, participate in a seminar on the broad topic of higher education, and teach a course of one’s own design. The usual courses a former president might teach -- Theories of Leadership, Fundraising 101, Navigating Campus Politics -- seemed too easy and too obvious. I decided instead to angle a different approach, an idea which morphed into: A710f: Social Justice in the Undergraduate Experience. You’ll find it right there in the Harvard catalogue.

No respectable place allows a perfect stranger to just drop in and teach their students. Thus, I had to submit a proposal to a mysterious curriculum committee. I never did discover who was on it but luckily they did approve my proposal, albeit with many pertinent, and a few impertinent, suggestions for improvement.

My basic plan was to explore how colleges promote social justice issues to their students. Many American colleges and universities have explicit curricular requirements for social justice coursework while others have a campus culture that promotes such engagement outside the classroom. Perhaps unsurprisingly, there has been little coordination or consensus among colleges pursuing social justice goals. Nor is there a well-developed base of scholarship on the definitions, objectives, and outcomes of such endeavors. Most social justice efforts probably have at least the implicit notion that making the world a fairer and more just place is a worthy goal, and that education may be the most effective way to promote it. Hard to argue with that, at least if you’re an educator.

Once the course was approved I began to wonder if anyone would take it. It was not a required course and grad students at Harvard have hundreds of exceedingly interesting choices for electives. One faculty colleague recommended setting an enrollment limit because great hordes of students would find “social justice” utterly irresistible. Another, perhaps less idealistic, mentor told me I’d be lucky to get 4 or 5.

Like many places, Harvard has a “shopping period” where students can explore lots of course options before committing themselves to sign up and do real work. I had two scheduled shopping sessions, fretted over whether anyone would come, and was relieved when about 20 students arrived. We dove into issues of justice straight away when I told the potentials that if more signed up than I wanted in the course, I would run a lottery to see who was selected. One student vigorously argued such a system wasn’t just because this course was exactly why she came to graduate school, and it simply wouldn’t be fair to deny her a place based on chance. She ended up not enrolling at all. Another wanted any over-enrollment to be sorted out by the students themselves, not the authoritarian professor. This took me back to my own college days in the 1960s when we didn’t trust anyone over 30.

In the end 12 students signed up. Ten were seeking masters degrees, the other two doctorates. With the consumerist shopping period behind us, and with no need for a lottery, we set to work.

The first reading assignment was Why Social Justice Matters, by Brian Barry, a professor of political philosophy at Columbia University. This is a scholarly book that examines the theory and scope of the term “social justice”. Of course, most people have their own view of what this subject encompasses, so I asked the class to try their hand at defining the field even before reading what the good professor had to say. They quickly came up with “elimination of bias” and “meeting basic human needs for all”. Warming to the topic, the students also included in their definition “awareness of society’s needs, not just our own” as well as the more confrontational “ability to question power”. Who says the spirit of rebellion is lacking in contemporary students?

Barry’s approach is one of distributive justice where fairness and equality are achieved in all aspects of society, not just in administration of the law. He covers the expected conglomeration of social challenges -- income, healthcare, housing, discrimination, jobs, education, environment, globalization. Students react well to such material, even when presented in an academic format, but they quickly realize there is no objective standard of what is just. Those of a more conservative persuasion believe social justice can be achieved through the logic of free markets. More liberal types think in the language of economic egalitarianism or of human rights. The former are more inclined to promote equality of opportunity while the latter seek income redistribution. As one might predict, scholarly writing is tilted towards the liberal and it is difficult to find serious work from rightward perspectives. This is a challenge, at least if you are trying to teach a university course that examines all points of view. Asking students to argue points of view opposite their own is one approach to the dilemma, although not always a successful one on subjects that ignite deep loyalties.

We turned next to bell hooks and her book Teaching Community: A Pedagogy of Hope. My students are in a School of Education, after all, so it seemed right to have a book about the subject. Professor hooks is hard to categorize, being one part educator, another part social gadfly, and yet another part reformer for justice. The students adored her, and relished the unconventional way she thinks about higher education as a combination of autobiography, history, and literary analysis. Discussing the book also revealed the stress marks that accompany any analysis of race and class. This came through, for example, in a mini-debate about whether a scholar -- purportedly developing an objective social analysis -- should reveal intimate personal details about close friends and family. Luckily, the multicultural makeup of the group allowed them to work with the stresses, which of course is exactly why we want our classrooms to be diverse.

The final reading assignment was one of the world’s leading intellectuals, Martha Nussbaum, and her work Frontiers of Justice. Not an easy book, as it deals with John Rawl’s seminal A Theory of Justice, as well as a historical account of social justice theories from Rousseau to Kant to Hume. But Nussbaum was willing to tread where none of these previous thinkers were able to make progress, namely to three heretofore unsolved aspects of justice: disability; non-human animals; and global justice. Although the reading was challenging at times, the students found Nussbaum opening their minds in ways they might have been resistant to beforehand. One of Nussbaum’s ideas that nudged the students thinking was her conferral of basic human rights upon animals. While some found this difficult, or even absurd, at first, the argument from a theoretical social justice perspective can be convincing even to the formerly skeptical. I think that’s what is supposed to happen in the classroom.

Once we finished the reading assignments, I did what any clever faculty member does with advanced students -- put them in charge of running the class. Well, not entirely, because it would have been a dereliction of duty to abandon my professorial role, but I did assemble them in groups of three and let each group select pertinent readings and lead a class session on a selected topic in social justice. I suggested they consider questions like: can colleges and universities make an impact in this area? If so, is it most effective with a research or a teaching focus? If the answer to the preceding question is teaching, is curricular or extra-curricular the most effective format? Who are likely partners outside the academy? Can such social justice concepts (as, for example, with ethics or writing) be taught across the curriculum, or are specific courses needed? What would a university curriculum look like on a particular aspect of social justice? How can you encourage more than one viewpoint be presented on inherently controversial issues? To what extent can or should academic critique influence the public/political agenda?

After suitable negotiation, the groups settled on four topics: healthcare and social justice; justice for non-human species; diversity and social justice; housing and social justice. They did a spectacular job of researching the topics, engaging the class in high intensity discussion, and then writing a research paper. So good, in fact, that I ended up succumbing to mass grade inflation, a malady I routinely bad-mouthed when in an administrative position.

So what did I learn? I reaffirmed my sense that students are idealistic (and keep their professors so). I appreciated that students will read hard and challenging material, especially if they can connect it to real situations. I learned that one can engage social justice concepts from nearly any disciplinary perspective, and thereby make almost any course better.

And I learned how much fun it is to teach, a lesson easy to forget when toiling as a college president.

Thomas R. Tritton became president of the Chemical Heritage Foundation in 2008. He thanks, Corinne, Danielle, Faith, Jess, Josh, Julie, Kris, Mikey, Molly, Nate, Paris, and Shelby, the 12 inspiring Harvard graduate students who bravely took his class.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Teaching Social Justice in Higher Ed

  • Posted by Linda on March 3, 2008 at 10:05am EST
  • Those who want to know more about teaching social justice to students should become familiar with the Jesuit Colleges and Universities, where this topic is a curricular foundation. The Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities (AJCU) is a good place to start.

  • Social Justice Education
  • Posted by Ira Shor on March 3, 2008 at 11:15am EST
  • Many thanks for this interesting article. I wish I had joined the 12 students at Harvard for this wonderful seminar. Can I please add that social justice in school and society has been a rich area of theory and practice in education? Interested readers may already know the outstanding 20-year career of the RETHINKING SCHOOLS group in Milwaukee, for example. In addition, critical teachers in k-12 and higher education have been developing social justice pedagogies since the 1970s, many based in feminist, multicultural, and Paulo Freire-based approaches.

    Ira Shor
    City University of NY Graduate Center

  • Posted by Mark Bauerlein on March 3, 2008 at 12:35pm EST
  • President Tritten says that it is "difficult to find serious work [on social justice] from rightward perspectives." What about Hayek's "The Mirage of Social Justice"? Or Irving Kristol's "What Is 'Social Justice'?" Or Michael Novak's "Defining Social Justice"?

  • Posted by Jack Olson on March 3, 2008 at 1:05pm EST
  • Prof. Tritton conceded that most of the reading material for his course was politically liberal and economically redistributionist, such as the works by Bell Hooks and Brian Barry. He excuses this one-sidedness in that "...it is difficult to find serious work from rightward perspectives."

    Actually, is is difficult only if you start by classifying work from rightward perspectives as less than serious, because such works are readily available. Amazon.com offers works such as "The Quest for Cosmic Justice" and "The Vision of the Annointed" by Thomas Sowell. They offer works such as "Free to Choose" and "Tyranny of the Status Quo" by Milton Friedman. You can buy "The Road to Serfdom" and "The Fatal Conceit" by Friedrich Hayek through Borders and Barnes & Noble.

    If you want to leaven your theories of social justice with the views of a psychiatrist who practiced for decades in slum hospitals and prisons, try "Life At The Bottom" by the pseudonymous Theodore Dalrymple. In it, he argues that "In fact most of the social pathology exhibited by the underclass has its origin in ideas that have filtered down from the intelligentsia."

    That is a serious accusation whose validity the reader must judge by the argument Dalrymple makes to support it. A large part of his argument is his experience in treating thousands of poor patients. But, students in Tritton's class will never need to weigh Dalrymple's claim that intellectuals like them and the authors whose works Tritton assigned to them have worsened the plight of the poor. As he notes, it is difficult to find serious works (on social justice) from rightward perspectives. Especially when you don't bother to look for any.

  • We're All World's Foremost Experts On Something
  • Posted by frizbane manley on March 3, 2008 at 1:05pm EST
  • In all seriousness, when I read that “Professor Judy McLaughlin [is] one of the world’s experts on college presidents,” I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry ... I didn’t know if it was a compliment or an academic insult. Now that I know, I am bubbling my bottle of Johnny Walker Red a little too early this morning while I try to come to terms with what “we” have become.

    Frankly, I think I would push out my chest with some pride if someone said about me, “he is one of the world’s foremost experts on factory implementations of plastic extrusion processes” .... but capping a decade as president at Haverford with a faculty position at Harvard and being known as one of the world’s foremost experts on college presidents? I think it’s scary.

    It’s about as scary, I think, as taking the course described in this essay. I might have started with Rawls – not ended with him – and I suppose we didn’t even read Rawls, only about him ... but I imagine that any Harvard dozen who loved “Teaching Community: A Pedagogy of Hope” would love this course.

    I do wish that as much as Professor Tritton beat the bushes in search of social justice, at least one would have flown out so we could learn something about its appearance.

    And forgive me Linda ... but I think I will skip what goes by social justice in Jesuit circles.

  • What Is Justice?
  • Posted by Absent Referent on March 3, 2008 at 1:05pm EST
  • One of the best teachers I ever had continually raised this question in a course on The Classical Tradition.

    With the passing of William Buckley I've been reading a good many conservative thinkers in various fields. Guess what? There are many conservatisms just like there are many Marxisms, many feminisms, many anarchisms and so on. So this is fascinating. It seems to me that all of us, no matter what our official persuasions, want something authentic, and all of us are implicated in politically unconscious desires for dominance (as opposed to authentic desires for power--a key distinction, according to Fredric Jameson). We are all very good at discerning the contradictions of the other camp but not those of our own perspectives.

    May I suggest a couple other readings? Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel, _The Political Economy of Participatory Economics_. Princeton UP, 1991 and the follow-up by Albert, _Parecon_: Life after Capitalism_, 2003?

    "Do I contradict myself? Very well, then, I contradict myself." --Walt Whitman

  • Whence teach social justice?
  • Posted by Perry Clark on March 3, 2008 at 4:40pm EST
  • I enjoyed reading Prof. Tritton's description of the experiences he and his class had in and about the topic and its exploration. Not because of the topic especially, but simply because in describing the enthusiasm and willingness to work of his students, he perhaps unconsciously affirmed, in a small way, one of the glaring faults of our "system of higher education". Namely, that the education necessary and appropriate to understanding the concepts underlying "social justice" and its relations was in former times included within the traditional liberal arts curriculum. One need not have waited for a visiting professor to offer a graduate seminar on the topic--it was discussed in classes on philosophy, ethics, politics, and religion, beginning very often the first week on campus and continuing through to one's march to the dais at the time of graduation.

    Over time, however, education in the liberal arts became infested with the weeds of multiculturalism, gender studies, ethnic majors, and Marxist minors. Courses in the basics of western philosophy were replaced on the student's schedule with such things as "Gay in Green Bay: Queer Studies in 1950s Wisconsin". (Okay, yes, I made up the course title, but I'll consider the point made.) As a result of the displacement of culturally and intellectually important material by the kudzu of modern academia, students often finish their undergraduate education without any philosophical underpinnings or knowledge. Thus, Prof. Tritton and his colleagues find it attractive to teach something about social justice, perhaps sensing the void that remains, and wishing to fill it with something.

    By the way, my own suggestion for a conservative text touching on the pertinent matters? Adam Smith, _The Wealth of Nations_. Proceed from there to Burke, and thence on to Hayek. There are right-thinking writers and philosophers. For a provocative look at the history of the politics surrounding the modern left's social agenda, one could consider Goldberg's _Liberal Fascism_. (Which, by the way, has the best dust jacket ever devised for a serious work.)

  • Posted by Daniel Bonevac , Professor on March 4, 2008 at 5:10am EST
  • How about Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State and Utopia?

  • Posted by betsybounds on March 4, 2008 at 7:45am EST
  • There are many good text suggestions forwarded in the comments above. I'm wondering whether Mr. Tritton is paying any attention--in case he, or someone else, teaches the class again.

  • Restorative practices
  • Posted by Laura Mirsky , Communications Coordinatorr at International Institute for Restorative Practices on March 4, 2008 at 10:20am EST
  • There's a master's degree-granting graduate school whose entire raison d'etre might be seen as furthering social justice. The mission of the International Institute for Restorative Practices is: "the advanced education of professionals at the graduate level and to the conduct of research that can develop the growing field of restorative practices, with the goal of positively influencing human behavior and strengthening civil society throughout the world." The president's inaugural address, which has information about the institution, its purpose and objectives, can be read here: http://www.iirp.org/library/tedinaug.html

  • Free Enterprise = Social Justice
  • Posted by The Objective Historian on March 4, 2008 at 1:25pm EST
  • People, Fellow Pursuers of Social Justice:

    You see 10% of the people truly poor and miserable, far more often than not because of their self-destructive and anti-social behavior, and find a want of social justice in the USA; as it turns out these "poor and miserable" live in abundance by international and historical standards. Per person, the poorest 20% of households consume on average $18,500 a year in a world where the poor in other nations live on less than a $1 a day (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/opinion/10cox.html?_r=3&em&ex=1202792400&en=b8771ade95cb7a78&ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin). But more importantly, what about 90% of people employed, housed, fed and happy in a country of abundance. The USA is now a paragon of social justice. We can always improve.

    Please stop and consider this carefully. An intelligent survey of the current international situation and world history indicates that the three main creators of social justice are freedom (civil liberties that include the freedom to negotiate prices and wages, free enterprise, freedom to make contracts, and freedom of capital formation), private property (i.e., the civil right to accumulate and invest the fruits of one's labor for oneself), and the legality of corporate structure (as an aid to capital formation). This is what essentially separates the USA and the West from Iran, China and Malawi; places where social justice is far reduced relatively due to limits on freedom of conscience, equality, and personal economic welfare. So if you want to put together a "conservative" syllabus for social justice you can have Milton Friedman, Robert Nozick; but even more fundatmentally, The Federalist Papers, Adam Smith, Locke, Burke.

    95% of social justice is derived from a bias toward civil liberties within the context of an ordered liberty that provides life (security/order), liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (the free enterprise system); the 5% that marginally refines that to account for the provision of social welfare is the lesser part of any truly insightful reading list.

    The Objective Historian

  • Social Justice
  • Posted by ZZMike on March 4, 2008 at 3:50pm EST
  • I'm an outsider looking in (but with some preconceived ideas about the manipulation of the field by the Left). I'll see if I can find Barry's book.

    I think much of the difficulty most people have with the concept, is that they don't get the idea of "self-interest, well understood". I think the Founding Fathers counted on the people recognizing that concept. These days, it seems to have fallen into disuse.

  • Objective Historian
  • Posted by Absent Referent on March 4, 2008 at 4:35pm EST
  • Right you are. I'm sure the Founding Fathers had something like "free enterprise" in mind regarding the pursuit of happiness, though the phrase doesn't appear in the Constitution itself.

    Free enterprise need not mean capitalism, either. It could just as easily be construed as networked cooperatives. They might operate on a de-centrally planned basis (according to a non-market version of supply and demand. Since there would be no owning class, no professional managerial class as in capitalism, nor its equivalent, the coordinator class as in Communism (and let's be honest, workers hate managers and coordinators) nor a mix of both as in a mixed economy, EVERYONE (worker-consumers) would make decisions in proportion to the degree they are affected by the economy. I should think that would yield a great deal more universal empowerment, freedom and actual happiness, not merely the futile pursuit thereof. There could be balanced job complexes, not whole populations relegated to menial labor (as in an update of the old feudal concept of the organic society, a class structure mandated by God and King). It could be a true meritocracy rather than our present rationalization of the exclusive club mentality. That's because it would develop MORE talent than our present system does. Our present system seems designed to limit the amount of talent that can be nurtured. It may be that frustration results in the bad habits you attribute to poverty. Consider that it cuts both ways.

    A cooperative economy would be non-competitive. It would not therefore give rise to the corrosive kinds of contradictions associated with competition (i.e. the need always to try to eliminate the competition.)

    Who knows how Iran would be right now, to mention just one of your examples, if the U.S., helping Great Britain in 1953, hadn't overthrown the democratically elected president and supplanted him with the Shah, a repressive dictator--all because Great Britain was competing to control Iran's own oil?

    One of the American hostages was chewing out a hostage taker in 1979. The latter leaned over to him and said,"You've held our whole country hostage for 26 years." From this event 1n 1953 a whole cascade of tragedies ensued--everything from the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Iran/Iraq war, and the current crisis.

    As Fredric Jameson has observed, historians must struggle "to hold two seemingly contradictory notions in our minds at once: capitalism is at one and the same time the best thing ever to happen to the human race--and the worst." What were Hitler and Stalin in response to but the development of industrial capitalism in human history? The tragedy was its necessarily uneven development, its penchant for allowing only elites to practice democracy among themselves while seeing the remaining population as "the competition." The remaining population is always demanding remedies that seem like socialism to capitalists, multiculturalism to the ethnocentrists, women's liberation to the patriarchal mind.

    Yes, we have a higher standard of living than most of the rest of the world. You will understand, however, if there are those--many--who think we stole it more than earned it. The case can be made. We have only to widen our research. Staying too enclosed in one's "objectivity" can be misleading. There may be other objectivities to consider.

    David Korten points out that the modern corporation justifies its m.o. on the basis of Adam Smith. Korten argues that Adam Smith would be spinning in his grave if he could see how corporations have been contradicting him in his name. Another "objective" historiography insists that history itself warps everything.

    Where do we go from here? Is there no better alternative than capitalism, as Margaret Thatcher said?

  • Posted by A friend on the right on March 5, 2008 at 4:45am EST
  • Well I suppose if I had been president of Haverford for ten years, and was then going to teach at the Harvard School of Education, I might also have thought that serious work of a rightward tilt was difficult to find. On the other hand, one does have to why it was so hard to find someone on the right who might be more serious than bell hooks.

    Let me suggest that if you teach the course again, or if anyone here is about to do so and is looking for something that's not leftist, some authors to consider are Richard Epstein, Roger Kimball, Richard Posner, or Roger Scruton, just to name a few that come to mind. There's also the New Totalitarians by Roland Huntford, and the Wealth and Poverty of Nations by David Landes.

    If you want to go to the internet look for essays by Steven Den Beste, a name that's legendary in conservative blogging circles, although you might have to go the internet archives (search USS Clueless) to do so. There's also Megan McArdle, and the Volokh Conspiracy, again just to name a couple of bloggers that come quickly to mind.
    You might also consider adding literature, Tale of Two Cities and Under Western Eyes might be appropriate.

    (BTW I would disagree with those who recommended Hayek for an introductory course. IMO Epstein would probably be better to start off with.)

  • Bottom Line
  • Posted by The Objective Historian on March 5, 2008 at 9:45am EST
  • Absent Referent,

    I thought of a shorter way to point out your flawed view. You write "free enterprise need not mean capitalism." But FREE enterprise does mean that capitalism is permited otherwise it is not "free"; also permited is exclusion of others; and competition. Freedom means people can form capital if they want, exclude others if they want, and compete with others if they want. You want to dictate to others what they can and cannot do; you, at the point of the government gun, want to say you cannot form capital, you cannot compete, you cannot exclude others; and you cannot determine for youselves who has merit and who does not; that is not freedom and it is not civil liberty and it is not social justice. That is dictatorship and enslavement-of-the-people, i.e., the Soviet Union.

    Of course, you are welcome to run for office in a democracy; but people are smart enough to see how horrifying your scheme is in reality.

    TOH

  • Cooperatives = Parasitism, Gangsterism
  • Posted by The Objective Historian on March 5, 2008 at 10:00am EST
  • Absent Referent:

    A look at history shows that every attempt at cooperative economics only empowers parasites and gangsters: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro. The reason is that honorable hard working people are FORCED to share with scum. You see people excluded and you assume exploitation; some people's behavior warrants exclusion in KEEPING with social justice.

    It's a fantasy you have that people are poor or excluded because their "merit" is undervalued or exploited. That happens in individual instances, but generally speaking, anyone with merit rises like a rocket in the USA today. The myth is that wages are stagnant in the USA. In fact it's wage levels that are relatively stagnant. But, real, after-tax wages, of workers have risen 9%/year for the bottom 20%. Anyone with merit is never poor for long.

    In any case, any attempt at collective economics requires a big brother to make sure no one cheats. So even theoretically, your utopia would require the relinquishing of all privacy and civil liberties; but empirically it is worse because power attracts the corrupt as much as it corrupts. The person most eager to be big brother is the vicious tyrant; the person most repulsed by that role is the noble philosopher.

    By the way, capitalism is a misnomer; it's freedom. That some people use their freedom to form capital is just one thing people do. Others collect baseball cards, but we don't havea baseball-cardist society. You query is their a better alternative to capitalism but really you ask why to we permit people to form capital; why don't we stop them, ultimately, at gun point. The question is is their a better alternative to liberty and democracy, which includes the liberty to form capital, to exclude others from your business endeavors as you see fit, to enjoy the private property your labor earned, to leave a bequest to your children - all forms of liberty.

    The answer is no; if you don't think so, form a collective with others on your own in California or Scotland and live your views; you have that right. You'll attract the scum of the earth who want to share; no one with merit will be interested.

    TOH

  • Errant Assumptions
  • Posted by Absent Referent on March 5, 2008 at 1:25pm EST
  • Objective Historian:

    All excellent points. Trouble is you are responding to your own erroneous assumptions about what Participatory Economics really is.

    True, capitalism accrues freedom to the "winners" of various competitions. And you certainly have a right to a value system that, to my mind, violates social solidarity among peoples. You don't necessarily have a right to impose it on the whole of society, for it contradicts the very democracy it created in so many ways. That's why we've compromised into a kind of mixed capitalist-socialist society with a certain amount of redistribution, although not quite as much as in Europe because the U.S. must maintain a mighty military necessary to protecting corporate interests around the world, often as not from the threat of genuine democratic uprisings, as in farmers in India struggling for the right to be free of Monsanto.

    But I would argue (had I the space and time) that Parecon allows the freedom for the whole of society, not just those who are capitalized and therefore more free than others, to engage in a "free enterprise" of another kind, one that is NOT, I repeat, NOT administered by any centralized State or Government, as you assume despite my explanations to the contrary. We must draw a key distinction in our thinking here: It's the Will to Dominance versus the The Will to Power. They are not necessarily the same. To my mind (forgive me any of my own erroneous assumptions) you reserve the right to accrue capital and dominate me and my fellow citizens. I'm almost as horrified by the implications of a private tyranny as I am by a Communist one. If you think that a capitalist imposed tyranny is not just as bad on folks the furtherest removed from power then ask people who have lived under U.S. corporate-sponsored tyrannical regimes where capitalists reserved the right to dominate markets. In short, your thinking is woefully self-centered. Social justice involves both self-interest and solidarity with others, in my view.

    A conservative of Late Feudalism would argue the existing class system is legitimate. The followers of Locke, Smith, Burke, etc. said, "No it's not. We need a meritocracy." I applaud that advance in history.

    But a cracking good course in social justice might ask students to consider whether we've really reached the end of history and whether humans can move on to such a thing as even more freedom, fulfillment, shared prosperity, and happiness precisely because they'd all know their freedom wasn't taken out of anyone else's hide. In short, see Jonathan arguing against the Whigs in _A Modest Proposal_. His metaphor is that the capitalists were cannibalizing Ireland. Of course, he was using the arguing illegitimately to favor Toryism. But his point is taken.

    Why must you assume that Parecon inevitably means that an authority structure, or even a totalitarian dictatorship, would be necessary to impose this greater, shared freedom? That's the last thing either you or I would want.

    See Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel, _The Political Economy of Participatory Economics_ Princeton UP, 1991 for a mathematical treatise on the subject. You will find that many of the rejoinders you offer here are Bolsheviks, not these guys. Heck, they're not even Mensheviks. So you miss the point entirely.

    In fact, a more fruitful discussion between us should appear elsewhere once you've read the book. We'll have a common text over which to talk. But until you've read it, we'll be talking way past each other.

  • With Apologies
  • Posted by Absent Referent on March 5, 2008 at 8:15pm EST
  • Objective Historian,

    In my last entry I did not adequately address several of the objections you raised in your later entry. I was answering hastily on my way to work and am myself guilty of some knee-jerk responses from unwarranted assumptions on my part.

    Many of my problems with your concept of freedom as allowing for capitalism or private enterprise are also cultural, and that begs a lengthy analysis I just can't go into.

    I do wish you would consider that societies based on exploitation bring out the "scum" in people. I could be mistaken, but I suspect that all humans are born motivated, curious, wanting knowledge and mastery. Maybe a few individuals have the misfortune to be born with a brain not quite wired right such that they lack "mirror neurons" or the ability to feel empathy for others. Nevertheless, where individuals experience their world as essentially predatory, many will themselves adopt predatory ways of coping.

    Another element of your previous discussion is the problem of what has happened to cooperative experiments within the larger context of an exploitive culture, be it feudal or "capitalist": they fail, I believe, because the experimenters have internalized too many coping strategies learned in an explitive environment and the Will to Dominance manifests.

    But an equal argument can be made that the owners of capital manifest all the characteristics of parasites and gangsterism that you say happens when a Big Brother takes charge. (By the way George Orwell's 1984, from which we get the term Big Brother, is at once an indictment of Stalin AND the west. It's an allegory of the forms of power he saw happening everywhere in the name of "freedom."

    You will, however, be relieved to know that I have raised the same objection to Parecon about the tendency for the experiment to become something monstrous in spite of itself.

    Michael Albert has fielded my objections and those of many others. I'm not sure I'm 100% convinced. But I have had to think.

    The 1991 book argues that its economic practice would DRIVE the values of solidarity , self-management (something attractive to me after teaching a for-profit university), equity (not necessarily perfect class equality--those who choose to work harder and longer hours make more $)diversity (multiple talents and inputs) and efficiency (as defined by social consensus).

    It's not that you wouldn't be allowed to accrue capital, you would have no incentive to do so because once you participated in this scheme you would find it much more empowering and fulfilling. You would give up the addiction to capital, I guess.

    In short, there'd be no scum, no need for an underground economy, no incentive to corruption. Sounds pretty hoaky, I know. Either it needs lots of explaining (which I can't do here) or it can and should be safely ignored.

  • Right's suspicion of social justice
  • Posted by James Franklin , Professor at University of New South Wales on March 6, 2008 at 4:30am EST
  • A reason there is so little from the Right on social justice is the impact of Hayek's The Mirage of Social Justice. As the title suggests, it says there is not such thing and the phrase is a false moral branding of a socialist agenda. Non-socialist thought on the topic tends to be Catholic, because of that church's commitment to objective natural moral principles that have social consequences - e.g. Life to the Full: Rights and Social Justice in Australia, ed. J. Franklin (Connor Court, 2007).

  • Posted by nikto on March 6, 2008 at 3:45pm EST
  • Thinking deeply about social justice issues is just not natural for most rightwingers.

    That is just the way it is.

    There is some writing from the rightwing that addresses these issues, but they are usually just on the attack against what they perceive as "librul values".

    If rightwingers could just stop fighting/attacking for a short time,
    they might gain some insight to go with
    their dogma.

    Rightwingers have to let go of their mindless, knee-jerk fears for awhile.

    But righties spend so much time fear-mongering to each other (and everybody else) that they scarcely have time for real, honest, positive reflection and LEARNING about (gasp...hiss!!!) OTHER ideas.

    Doesn't happen often for righties, though.

  • Klaatu, barada, nikto
  • Posted by Absent Referent on March 6, 2008 at 10:15pm EST
  • Nikto,

    The Right maintains there's no such thing as equality, and it's a good thing too (or just the way it is as long as humans share a planet).

    The Left insists there's no such thing as utter freedom, and it's a good thing too (or just the way it is . . . .

    If you and I are sharing an office and I'm at my desk, I have the freedom to have a picture of my spouse on my desk (or a poster of Malcolm X on my wall.) You have no right to ask me to remove it. It's in this spirit, I think, that Objective Historian is protesting my ideas. But if I'm listening to a radio that's blaring too loud, you can ask me to shut it off or lower the volume. It's in this spirit that I personally find the accumulation of capital unwholesome and oppressive. As long as we're arguing from different paradigms our dialog, sadly, will probably fail.

    I have no problem with small business. I hope the employer and employees have good working relations. (The best way, I submit, would be to do away with the employer/employee hierarchy and make the business a cooperative. In ANY case, if it's a restaurant, and I'm a customer, I hope one of the kitchen helpers is not in the back alley crushing garlic with his street boots (imagining the garlic is his boss). Milton Friedman himself acknowledged that there are "real problems" with externalities--negative social and environmental effects the costs of which businesses pass on to the surrounding world.

    This has a cumulative effect. It is the Left that uncovers tremendous amounts of data showing this, while the business-dominated Establishment sweeps it under the rug. Businesses must reward their stock holders through competition, which is corrosive and corrupting, and much more counterproductive than the business establishment, in denial, is willing to admit. Businesses compete to see who can exploit and squeeze their workers--and yes, consumers, the most in order to maximize Return on Investment. All this has many negative hidden consequences in society, including pushing people to the underground economy: "thugs" who seek only to emulate unofficially what they see going on in the so-called legitimate realm. In short, the freedom of some means the suffering of others. When suffering others protest, their "ouch," can be dismissed as "class envy." It's the victims' fault. They have the wrong attitude. No need to trot such "mental cases" off the Gulag; they can suffer where they are.

    A great many of our cultural woes, mental health issues and so on may well be relational with the culture of Late Capitalism. It behooves society, through education and, yes, such things as labor organizing to transcend denial and honestly confront that institution that now dominates our lives: the corporation. (Once it was the feudal estate that was the dominant institution and our present perspective shows why and how it finally entered a crisis of legitimacy.)

    There are many ideas about how to address problems like our addiction to over production and overconsumption. It's ruining our habitat. I suppose we humans could agree that it's our perogative; we have the freedom to foul our nest. But some of us want the freedom not to, or have it done to us. We want to bequeath true wealth to our children, not just money and assets taken from a plundered earth. Can humans achieve, at least move toward, not just a different definition of liberty, but a better one? One that acknowledges the reality of the need for sustainable economies? Precisely because that liberty is shared by all, thereby achieving at the same time the only thing that can sustain US: equality-in-solidarity? Tall order. A real knot. Intriguing. Fun, I think, to discuss.

    Trouble is, history teaches us to fear the Boogey Man so much we almost feel a need to become the Boogey Man ourselves to stave him off: i.e. torture, extraordinary renditions. Similar thinking as our enemies whom we've done our part to make into enemies. In other parts of the world, U.S. military power, and coercive foreign policy, projected for the benefit of competing corporations (under the bogus guise of "National Security) has given us the name of Great Satan by those who think just like our right-most wing. The Right, feeling it has a lock on objectivity, refuses to see the larger objectivity, in my view. (Nor is the Left immune, I hasten to add.)

    This isn't about Good versus Evil. Reality is always a tangle of good and evil struggling with good and evil. We want the Ponderosa and the Cartrights to be pure and virtuous, but I was always suspicious how Ben, Adam, Hoss, and Little Joe came by their empire.

    A better way to express it: history is rife with Fear versus Fear. History also provides stories of love and courage wrestling with love and courage: constructive, "cooperative conflict" rather than zero-sum competitions.

  • Posted by Denise on March 7, 2008 at 10:50am EST
  • The fact that my husband and I grew up in "poverty" (according to government calculations)and that hard work and persistance opened up so many opportunities for us would be simply anecdotal if it weren't that there are so many stories like ours in this great country.

    I grew up in a family of nine. My parents adapted two of my brothers as well as my sweet elderly "Uncle Charlie" who my parents rescued from a government run institution. Even so they frequently opened our home to people who could use a hand UP to the extent of having to give up our own beds. Going to McDonald's was a real treat; we "suffered" the indignity of wearing hand-me-downs, and we survived mostly on peanutbutter and jelly sandwiches. One thing,though, that my parents could not tolerate was whining. We were always reminded how blessed we were. One big lesson which left an impression on me was that as families would come and go from our home, there were some who appreciated the helping hand and showed it and there were those who when given the moon asked for the sun also. There was one single mom, who my parents gave our second car to (lemon as it was) so that she'd have the means to get to and from a job, who shortly after sold it for a fur coat and went back to living the simple life of welfare. And she went right on complaining about how she was handed a bum deal in life.

    My husband grew up with even less, growing up in a trailer park and a rental most of his life, and never being able to afford a regular family vacation save for visiting relatives.

    What we had in common was parents who taught us the merit of hard work in itself, the virtue of self reliance and parents who gave generously, not out of coersion, but out of their own free will. When my husband went to visit his weathy relatives, he was inspired by the possibilities not offended by the "injustice".

    My mother taught me that there will always be people prettier, smarter and wealthier than me. But it was MY responsibility to become the best person I could be and to be content with what we had. There was no room for whining and it is not right to expect from others what God has given me the ability to do for myself. Sadly the death of this sappy all-American "cliche" will be the death of the American spirit and the birth of the "social justice" which is taught in the university. So sad for the children who will never know their own potential that lies within.

  • Response to Denise
  • Posted by Absent Referent on March 7, 2008 at 1:15pm EST
  • Yours is one of those stories of love and courage I referred to in my last post.

  • Dear Absent Referent
  • Posted by Denise on March 7, 2008 at 7:55pm EST
  • You flatter me. But you miss my point altogether. What would you say if I told you we are now RICH and many of our friends who shared the same fortitude are too? Are we now the enemy,agents of social INjustice? I suppose your students would be led to believe that we aquired our wealth off the backs of those less fortunate and it's about time we pay our due.

  • To Nikto
  • Posted by AYY on March 8, 2008 at 6:30am EST
  • Nikto, I'm glad you wrote in. It seems to me that you're saying what the author of the article has said, more or less.

    Now a lot of leftists think like that, but that's because they haven't been exposed to conservative ideas. If you want to really be sure of your position, maybe you can read something by some of the authors that have been mentioned in the comments and think of how you would refute them. Shouldn't be too hard, should it?

  • Don't Give It Back
  • Posted by Absent Referent on March 8, 2008 at 9:40pm EST
  • Denise, Sorry. I can't ask you to give up your hard-earned riches nor do I "teach" my students you should. Not under this system. It wouldn't make sense. Actually, you and I are implicated in a system within which we must survive. A Human condition. There could, however, be other human conditions.

    You miss my point too. If I were among 100 or a thousand people stranded on an island I'd be insisting that all pull their weight, and no whining. Teach kids the same.

    If that 100 folks formed a genuine democracy, testable by its OUTCOME of an ongoing, effective balance of political power, it would do so by devising an entirely cooperative system, I believe. I doubt a genuine democracy could be easily formed, given most peoples' backgrounds, including my own. Intellectually, I may profess certain values; at my core being I'm probably a product of competition. Thus, I would spook easily and resort to conditioned reflexes, and behave in ways that's dysfunctional to cooperation. So I'm not advocating a system that's easy or attainable over night. Rather, I hope to plant seeds of thought among students, that's all. It's a thinking exercise: a vision. Visionaries have something to contribute to our discussions of social justice.

    I do think that were a genuine democracy developed by these castaways, you would not see, over time, anybody dropping out, giving up, expecting handouts, turning to crime,becoming honestly disgusted with "the system," their "BS" detectors ringing alarms, etc. I think under a competitive system many people, at deepest levels, get alienated. It's okay, I tell my students, to cultivate other ways of seeing.

    Pychology lists a number of defense mechanisms: denial, rationalization, reaction formation whereby some of the most disgusted folks cope by actually buying in and striving to play the existing game and thus "succeeding." C.Wright Mills pointed out that just because the system "works" does not necessarily make it just. Many people become "winners" at lower-to-higher levels due to their capacity to conform to the power stucture and play the power stucture's game. That is the case under Communism as well. Buy in, work hard, profess the right values, don't whine, and you increase your chance of being rewarded by the system or the by the Power Elite.You've won the competition for who can be among the best, most productive comformers. Ultimately, the Power Elite benefit the most because you let them buy you off. Not to denigrate your accomplishments, Denise. Just another way of seeing. I'm one to talk. I've done my share of playing the game and being thus rewarded. "Thou hypocrite," you may say unto me.

    But neither Communism nor a competitive political economy is particularly democratic. Competition divides folks along a hierarchy, such a strong habit in human affairs that it's come to seem like Nature itself. Maybe it isn't nature. Maybe it's just institutions. But institutions are humanly made and can therefore be humanly changed. Patiently, persistently, over time and non-violently. (Violence does not change institutions. Violence is itself an institution.)

    You'll be glad to learn that the economists who invented Parecon recognize that you cannot have a perfectly classless society. Some diversity of what they call "consumption privilege" based on effort and sacrifice, (though not talent; that's counterintuitive, I know, but read their explanation) allows for a healthy flexibility. Some people are more materialistic, and that's good. Materialistic, pragmatic folks have much to offer civilization. Others are more spiritual and contribute in equally--I said equally--valuable ways,precisely because we need our visionaries. Yet because they might want more leisure time to devote to their philosophical, artistic, pursuits, they mignt not contribute quite as much time and effort to practical matters. Therefore, they would not have as much disposable income.
    What these economists advocate, therefore, is a "less class" society.

    I can see a true democracy reaching such a consensus as long as wealth doesn't itself become political power and class dominance (lobblyists pushing hidden legislation that further accrues to the increasingly unfair advantage of wealth.) There are any number of studies that show this happens periodically in U.S. history. Ours is a new Gilded Age. And it turns lots of decent people off. I hate to tell you this. Call it whining if you must.

    I think a cooperative economy would conduce to the greatest happiness of the greatest number; it would not be a turn-off to anyone who participated in it, and the society would be materially prosperous and infinitely richer in so many other ways than if it indulged a super-wealthy class and its minions that started (dare I say "whining") every time someone questioned society's indulgence of a super-wealthy, unduly powerful and privileged elite. It's called oligarchy and is closer to a Communist party in power than many of us care to admit.

  • Posted by Walker on May 29, 2008 at 7:50pm EDT
  • I find that attempts to teach social justice fail, when professors themselves don't adhere to the beliefs of social justice that they inculcate

  • alternative view
  • Posted by willliam daviss on September 11, 2008 at 9:40am EDT
  • I second the suggestions from the scholarship in Economics and the work of R Nozick. That Rawls would be listed as "seminal" and Nozick not mention is clear statement about where certain corners of academia reside on this topic. I would also add the work of Ayn Rand in the mix. Why would someone who professes (pretends?) to wish to "educate" students in "Social Justice" chose such a one sided array of sources.

  • Posted by phil on November 25, 2009 at 5:00am EST
  • Communism is effective ... in a true family context. Capitalism proves more effective in a government context. Life is not fair and fair is not equal. There has/is/will ALWAYS be rich and poor and the same for peace and war. The clearly unmentioned aspect of the nature of this class has to do with ... go figure ... Nature. Encouraging students to consider (euphamism for embrace) the notion that non-human species are in need of social justice support. Why? Depends on who you ask, but, I can only imagine that there may be an underlying push from the vegan/anti-gun(thus hunting) camp.
    I teach in the Government School System, and yes I am a Union member. This can be overwhelming at times because as a free thinker, I am constantly at odds with the nature of the system in that it is monopolistic of the poor. Mandatory for them and therefore in the best interest of Educators to stress the importance of things like social justice among others in an underlying attempt to maintain and build said system. You see... my comment about always being rich and poor is easy to prove if one simply consider the longitudinal progression of individual families over many generations in our country. In a vast number of cases, even sociologists may agree that grandparents who were poor may have grandkids who are rich. The reverse situation has always been less highlighted but omnipresent.
    Please do not brand me as a righty as I do not allow political philosophy or party to suck me up into a particular camp. I believe that any person who gets too caught up in either camp will begin to accept falsehoods as truth as evidenced by the underpinnings of social justice educators who are clearly the messengers of left leaning theorists. Sorry that my writing does not match the literary skills of so many of the posters here. I did not get to go to Harvards of this world and as I grow older and wiser, I am thankful. Being learned is certainly different than being educated.

    Philosopher Phil