Today's class was fascinatingly uncomfortable (as were the articles leading up to today). While reading, I faced an internal dilemma: the capitalistic norms and values developed throughout my lifetime clashed with the intellectual curiosity within me probing deeper into each authors ideas. As a Vera fellow, I'm sure I do not speak for myself in saying I get excited when everything I know gets shattered because of a new and innovative idea.
The video about the unsustainable neoliberalism system in which we currently live was truly the icing on the cake. When the system finally does implode, and everything we have ever known become remnants of a system that failed, what do we do? When future epochs of human civilization reflect back on capitalism, what will they say? Is there anything we can do to change the status quo before it is too late? As depressing as it may seem, thinking about these questions excite me, and I hope the responses to my post show that the feeling is mutual.
11 comments:
When the system finally does implode, and everything we have ever known become remnants of a system that failed, what do we do? Since we speak of a system imploding, it is useful that we consult Marx. Here is what will happen according to the thinker: We shall be forced to debunk the idea that capitalism is infallible and irreplaceable and society will undergo some form of transformation. Further, the “material conditions” for the new transformed society will emerge and develop from the old, depleting system. Finally, he cautions that there will be no new society until the material conditions for it already exist or are at least in the process of formation. Perhaps, the “material conditions” for this new society include the willingness to institute an economic system guarantees freedom and equity—a better form of capitalism.
When the ones that shall come after us reflect on capitalism, our hope is that they study and learn lessons from both the merits and flaws of the system. However, in reality, humans have shown the tendency to function with an anti-learning mechanism that limits their willingness and perhaps, ability to learn lessons from past errors. As a result, they repeat history. For now however, we can continue to pursue, simultaneously, charity, humanitarian and advocacy endeavors in order delay this imminent implosion. But given that our ultimate goal is not the delay, but the elimination of the implosion, we need the institutions and actors of power—political and economic—to play a central role in averting this disaster, catalyzed by inequality and injustice.
Well put Anthony and James.
As James said, "humans have shown the tendency to function with anti-learning mechanism...". I will also add that some people are just selfish and if they see an opportunity or can create one from which they could benefit especially financially, they will seize it. I'm not trying to be pessimistic but I am being realistic. Lord Acton said "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Unfortunately, this is so true. I think that no matter what system is put in place, these problems will emerge. Revising the capitalist system will still lead to problems of greed which creates other problems. There will always be those that have great wealth and resources and those that have very little or none. On the one hand, it is not fair that some people sit idly by and have feelings of entitlement while they do nothing to try to improve their situation. On the other hand, there are those who try so hard to improve their situation and for some they succeed and others don't (but it is not for the lack of trying). That's why it so so great that there are people and organizations that address or try to address social issues. Although their motives may not always what we want them to be, sometimes the outcome/benefit to the recipient is worth it.
It is a very confusing situation. The more I think about it, the more confused I get. There are days I wonder if we're fighting a losing battle,in terms of addressing social issues because as we've discussed, there are times that while addressing one problem, may create another (whether inadvertently or deliberate). However, as Sturz said, we can't just sit idly by and allow the situation to become worse, we need to do something. The readings that we are doing are creating discomfort with us which can help us to remain grounded and focused so that when we attain the wealth, resources or positions to affect change, we will remain pure enough (our motives) to do so and not become tainted. Although issues may arise, a genuine effort will be made to address that issue with serious foresight as to reduce or prevent another from forming. Analyzing the motives of others can lead to great frustration but we still have to take the help that is offered by those with the "power". One of the challenges is trying to "look beyond our noses" and try to foresee issues and put mechanisms in place or change the plan to prevent or address those issues. Another challenge is, as James said, "to institute an economic system" which "guarantees freedom and equity- a better form of capitalism". Hopefully, by the end of this academic year, we would have ideas as to how we can get closer to accomplishing this, although I believe that many before us have tried. But as Sturz said, we have to do something.
It's Sunday morning, and there's already a stimulating discussion here!! Thank you Anthony for getting us going!
Question for Simonne: How do we know how "selfish" human beings would be if they lived in a different social structure and system? If the system encourages people to think of themselves first (the cult of individualism)--and by themselves, I include their own individual families or households, how do we know how human beings would "think" and "behave" (their values, ethos, etc) in a different social structure and setting?
Considering the neoliberal political economic system within which the vast majority of human beings live in the world at this historical moment, might we be startled by the degree of good-will and generosity that we do see? Might this suggest that human beings are trying to resist "selfishness"?
We can and should critique "charity" in the ways we've been discussing (the ways in which it reproduces inequality; doesn't address root causes; is always a partial solution), I wonder if we might also see the impulse to be charitable as a reflection that the system itself distorts the goodwill and generosity for which human beings have the potential. Can we imagine a system in which those characteristics are nurtured not discouraged?
By the way, there's another video you may find useful for the information it provides. It is a complement to "neoliberal balloon": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM&feature=share
Finally, for Anthony: how do you change the font for these blog entries???!!!
I think the important thing to determine in discussing what our society will be like post-capitalism is human nature. If one believes that humans are naturally greedy and selfish, as is implied and reinforced by capitalist rhetoric, then post-capitalist America may just be chaos and havoc. However, if one believes that selfishness, greed, and competitiveness are simply a disposition of capitalism, then the situation can be much different.
Besides what James already explained, Marx also believed that after the "revolution", the proletariat would need to take complete control for a time and eliminate all remnants and products of capitalism, in order to establish a truly classless, communist society. He was hopeful in the ability of humans to work together for the collective good of society and envisioned the communist society as one characterized by the statement, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."
Personally, I am not sure that with the elimination of capitalism, we will have a truly classless, equal society. However, without the encouragement and rewards for greed from capitalism, it may very well be possible. Even if these traits prove to be inherent in us post-capitalism, we can learn to control them and to exhibit our kindness and cooperation instead.
I think we should consider the long term benefits to disadvantage people with barriers can benefit from through stability and constancy. Constancy for these individuals can help generate and apply social justice to society. One of the major concepts I am learning through my internship is the necessity of communication. By taking a moment to hear individuals situations, history and truly understand them; we have the ability to see their struggle and really help them. I think FedCap is becoming so success because as I mentioned, a lot of the employees have been in the shoes of their clients. I sometimes think that we are not able to change the status quo but if we work together on a local level and empower disadvantaged people and sometimes it is difficult to empower a population that has become so comfortable. But we should let them be aware of their options, choices, and these choices will ultimately create a decision making process for a better future.
When we left the class on Thursday, I was unsettled with the discussion. We attempt to give the limitations and benefits of charity, humanitarian aid, investing in social programs for profit, and social entrepreneurship but the common thread justice is over looked. The article “The Limits of Charity” by David Hilfiker gives justice merely two lines that state, “Justice has to do with fairness, with what people deserve. It results from social structures that guarantee moral rights.” Those two lines are accepted and not clarified in our discussion. The idea of fairness is far reaching through all the systems. The questions that one can pose are Does the idea of justice look the same in all systems? Who are the social structures (charity, social entrepreneurship) guaranteeing moral rights for? If the idea of justice is, accepted from Hilfiker article are the people who benefit upholding the clause of “what people deserve.” Many of the systems that we analyze have someone or institutions benefiting. For example, social impact bonds the benefactors are the government and the company, who front the money. According to Hilifiker’s definition of justice, the people are not getting what they deserve. I believe Hilfiker did this on purpose the explanation of justice is short so it one can shim over it because it seems commonsensical. If Hilfiker had chosen to define charity first would our discussion have led to different outcomes when defining other limitations of social structures. Unconsciously Hilfiker definition is a template for the definition of other systems as for our discussion. I am wondering would this would change if we started the discussion with a more neutral article or is there such a thing.
By the end of class this week many of us seemed to be uncomfortable with the realities that were brought to our attention regarding charity, humanitarian, and other “do-gooder” initiatives, and with good reason. One thing I believe we got wrong in class is that many of us were almost viewing these “do-gooder” initiatives as bad. Words like “dirty” and “sneaky” were thrown around as if charities were originally developed as a means of maintaining the societal symptoms that result from the institutionalization of injustice in this country and trick us into believing the problems many people in this country face are not as bad as they seem.
What I am taking away from this class, and I strongly encourage anyone who is unsettled with the pitfalls of charity and other “do-gooder” organizations to do the same, is that charity isn’t necessarily bad, in fact Hilfker says it is necessary and a requirement. Charities weren’t necessarily developed to serve the ruling class’s personal agendas, but instead were created to compensate for gaps in the system. The only time these “do-gooder” initiatives are actually a bad thing, is when we allow ourselves to be fooled into thinking that they are a sufficient or suitable agent to be solving the problems they are taking on. The problems these organizations work on (homelessness, poverty, sickness, starvation, etc.) are all things that should be the government’s responsibility to provide for its citizens. The fact that the success of “do-gooder” organizations tend to distract us from this very governmental responsibility should by no means attach a negative stigma to charities and “do-gooder” organizations, because they are the only ones trying to do something, while we on the other hand sit around and accept the current system as it is.
The moral of this comment is ultimately this: I strongly encourage anyone whose confidence in charity was shaken to maintain your previously held positive attitudes towards those types of initiatives, but not because you believe they are saving the world, but because they are the only ones paying attention to the gaps of injustice in our current system. Finally, if we want to make a change, we cannot continue to accept things as they are, it all begins at the individual level. Our continued acceptance of things the way they are make us just as “dirty” or “sneaky” as we were beginning to perceive “do-gooder” organizations in class, because we benefit from the current system just as they do, so stop accepting the norm and demand more.
I definitely agree with Michael. I think most of the charity initiatives emerged with good intentions, but have been tainted along the way. We should always remain wary of the charity's goals and remain aware that the charity/organization can not solve the problem without advocacy. The problem exists because the government is not doing its job in protecting its people and providing these services from the beginning.
As Michael said, the important thing to do, whether you are taking part in one of these organizations or not, is to stay focused on the goal. Stay persistent. But remember that these charities are equally as important because without them, countless numbers of people would be dead, homeless, and/or in a far off worse condition they are currently in. We should praise these "do-good" organizations, but never lost sight of the ultimate purpose of social justice.
As I was reading through all of the comments, one thing that struck me about how we all approached charities and humanitarian aid is that we all began shaming the charities that essentially "fill in the gaps" that our social justice system is ignoring. Charities and other organizations of the sort have to work within the system that perpetuates the issues they are trying to aid, so it is only natural for them to try to work the system to benefit in their favor. Now this doesn't mean that their credibility should be tainted, because, after all, they are working towards improving aspects of society that our government is overlooking. I felt as if we were putting the blame of the system on the shoulders of the organizations providing aid.
This is an interesting thing to me, because it makes me think of how our minds process instances where we are forced to face the uncomfortable realities of our society. How do we rationalize scrutinizing the faults of the charities providing aid but skimming through the faults of the entire system as a whole? Is it because we feel that change can only happen through these smaller organizations, and the faults of the larger system are intact and unable to change through critique? Sometimes I feel as if bullet pointing the faults of the larger system doesn't do much, and therefore is a waste of time to do. For example, our rape culture is ingrained in our society and in the way that people think about rape and justice. Instead of attacking the society as a whole for not providing adequate support and prevention for rape survivors and rape, respectively, we target the news agencies when they frame rapes under the lens of the distorted societal norm (e.g. CNN and the Steubenville case).
We have to start objectively analyzing the way we process thoughts concerning uncomfortable issues and really delve into why we think this way as well as what external forces shape our thoughts. Once we are conscious of this, we will be one step closer to understanding social justice and our responses to the aspects of justice.
Great discussion everyone, you all are really making me analyze how I approach these issues and I thank you for that!
Thank you Anthony for getting us started. As I read through everyone's comments, I realized the role humanitarian aid, charity, capitalism, etc. play in our society. But as Professor Waterston pointed out, is this system unique to Western societies who emphasize individualism? What are the differences in the interrelationship of the aforementioned terms in Eastern nations and societies? In addition, as Leena beautifully pointed out, what is the role of human nature? Are the qualities of greed, selfishness, willingness to help others innate? Lastly, I have to agree with Michael's post in relation to the fact that we must not look down upon these charities, organizations, and willingness of people to lend a helping hand because at the end of the day, they are the ones desperately trying to serve the underserved.
Once again, Professor Reitz is late to the game. Here is my excuse and I will use it as my entree into this terrific conversation. On Saturday, my son convinced us to adopt a rescue dog from the animal shelter where he volunteers. Here is his story: he was born in a Puerto Rican school yard, rescued by a family, returned to school yard when he got ill and was then found by the PR sister organization of our shelter here in NY. He found his way to NY because it is a no-kill shelter and they can place more dogs here than in Puerto Rico. He has had great medical care from the shelter -- not to mention a plane ticket -- and then we spent $320 on him to defray his costs and make a contribution to the shelter, which runs on charitable donations. While we are OVER THE MOON about this puppy (my older dog is reserving judgment), it started some conversations: why do we provide the resources (approx $1,000 and untold human labor hours) to rescue one stray dog? Think what this $ and labor could do for a refugee child on the Syrian border, a hungry kid in Yonkers, a John Jay student on aid? Perhaps it is easier to help a dog because they are so darned cute and grateful (and relatively silent) -- sometimes the folks we try to "save" aren't as responsive. As Professor Stein will remind us again (and again), we like our victims a certain way. I know in my household we like them yellow and furry.
Looked at from another perspective, however, the lessons of social responsibility and care that come from taking in a homeless dog can help provide just the kind of hope for social repair that we are saying is necessary to keep our eye on the bigger prize of creating a more just society.
One of our goals in this seminar is to liberate ourselves from the traps of current pro-con, "Crossfire"-type discourse. Michael called us out here on this, pointing out our lurch towards villainization of charity instead of a more moderate critique. This is an issue that requires we look at it from multiple perspectives. We are "In a Grove" people!
Post a Comment