John Rawls. The name sounds familiar. He wrote something about justice, right? Trying to decide which Spindel lecture to attend, I finally settled on “Rawls on Race,” figuring I’d surely leave the conference with a better understanding of this John Rawls guy. Ironically, Rawls’ identity still remains much of a mystery to me, and I learned more about what Rawls didn’t write than what he actually did.
Charles Mills of Northwestern University presents a research paper in which he critiques John Rawls’ “systematic evasion” of racial justice. Apparently if you were to add up all the passages relating to race in over 2000 pages of Rawls’ writing, you might get 5-6 pages. Oh, “Rawls on Race.” How ironic.
Rawls wrote A Theory of Justice in 1971, so Mills finds it bizarre that someone who lived in the U.S. during the Civil Rights Movement could discuss justice without delving into racial injustices. Mills argues that the significance and horror of racial inequality is “beyond the horizon of Rawls’ comprehension,” and attributes this blatant omission of race to Rawls’ “whitewashed” and “Eurocentric” mentality.
Mills questions the soundness of Rawls’ argument for not dealing with race. Rawls claims that he strives to emulate the classical Western philosophers by returning to ideal theory. In Rawls’ ideal society, racism is not an issue. Mills counters that since we live in a non-ideal society plagued by racism, Rawls’ theory is inapplicable to our current state. However, Rawls claims that his principles can be adapted to address racial issues.
“Instead of imagining ourselves behind Rawls’ veil in a timeless original position,” Mills believes we should study non-ideal theory that “starts from the foundational reality not of consent and inclusion but rather domination and exclusion.” Do we need a perfect model of justice to correct or recognize injustice? For Mills, the answer is no, and that trying to create such a model is a waste of energy.
In response, an audience member questions the role of historical evidence within a theoretical framework. Not only does he wonder if the inclusion of such evidence is unnecessary, but if it could potentially weaken the author’s message. If Rawls cites specific incidences of “injustice,” does it require a presupposition that those events are, in fact, unjust?
It appears that the answer Mills wants from Rawls is not the question Rawls tries to answer. Mills looks for ideas on how to both rectify injustices of the past and prevent those of the future. Rawls, on the other hand, only tries to provide a definition of pure, universal justice. Another way to think about this is to consider the difference between a diagnosis and a treatment. Like a diagnostic tool, Rawls’ theory can be applied to determine whether or not something is just. The antidote, Mills’ quest in this case, is solely dependent on the proper diagnosis. While Mills criticizes Rawls for spending so much time composing his theory, I ask, how helpful is an unreliable diagnosis?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Although I did not attend the Spindel Conference, last semester I took social and political philosophy, and therefore spent much of my time cross examining different philosopher’s theories of justice. Like Mill, when studying Rawls’ theory of justice, I thought it was too ideal to apply to modern society. The core of his theory is based on the Original Position, a hypothetical situation in which those legislating the laws of the state must work behind a veil of ignorance to encourage the enactment of just laws. Obviously, Rawls’ thought experiment cannot be carried out in today’s society, so what’s the point of studying Rawls? In the theory’s basic form, Rawls argues for fairness and cooperation between members of the state. When stated simply, like this, Rawls’ model seems completely relevant and attainable. Furthermore, Rawls outlines two principles necessary to maintaining a just society. First, he proposes basic rights that should be attainable for every member of the state. These include freedom to vote and run for political office, freedom of speech and assembly, freedom of thought, freedom to uphold personal property, and freedom of arbitrary arrest. These examples closely parallel the Bill of Rights, which is based in our society, and thus attainable. His second principle says, “All social values—liberty and opportunity, income and wealth, and the bases of self-respect—are to be distributed equally unless an unequal distribution of any, or all, of these values is to everyone’s advantage”. Although this statement of Rawls seems too ideal, he really just describes a form egalitarian liberalism, which again could be applied to modern societies.
Post a Comment