Extra questions on liability from yesterday's talk----Luis
I thoroughly enjoyed our discussion with Taiwo and wanted to touch on some points. I wanted to challenge the constructive global project because of Aara's question on the emotional and physical labor of minorities, which the construction project requires. I will discuss my thought on Taiwo's points of liability and internal policing.
Taiwo challenged the view of distributive justice reparations by providing us with the lens of liability over collective responsibility. After giving us history that shows that many ancestral roots from all sides of the global racial empire contributed to slavery, I agree with him that "To build a view of reparations on these notions of binary groups identity and collective responsibility is to build a house on a sandy foundation" (118). If we want to focus on historical responsibilities, it would involve analyzing dark history that makes the question of "who is to blame" more challenging. Given these barriers, Taiwo wants us to acknowledge the historical formation of slavery and colonialism but prioritize the current benefits within this global system. However, while I agree with the liability lens, I feel that the pressure is more on the working class and minorities than on elites and the government. Given my thought, I wonder if this is why we ignore the emotional tool of minorities.
My question leads me to the examples of Taiwo, such as the unions, community collective in Brazil, and the Zapatista that I mention from Mexico. Taiwo emphasized that unions can demand those with the wealth to make changes, but why is this the incentive? The amount of labor that goes into making an effective union movement is substantial, and if we look at the breakdown, it's usually the working class and minorities. While the liability approach makes it the responsibility of many because many of us benefit from the global racial empire, it still puts most of the work onto those who live in the class and race oppression. This makes me think if the global revolution in Tawio's eyes will be the same as the Marx communist revolution, which requires the proletariat working class uprising.
Lastly, Taiwo's point is that internal policing is weak on corporations, which allows for some level of freedom, but this makes a norm of taking away from accountability. But what are the effects of external policing of corporations? We can look at Claremont McKenna College and the racial/ethnic GE. Externally to the public CMC comes off as a college that is on an anti-racism initiative that was proposed by the president, but where is the accountability? The irony is that there is internal policing from students of color and staff, which begs the question, where is the liability base of thinking? If the constant push for change is from the ones who don't bare the amount of responsibility as other counterparts (the elite), then we will ever achieve a "just" society on a global scale through liability, and at what cost?
Hi Luis!
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you brought up the unseen emotional labor that many minorities have to put into advocating for change and new policies. I thought Taiwo's response was sympathetic and also conducive to his overall view about what will be the most practical steps forward. Having a globalized restructuring of the world we live in now requires a forward thinking mindset that asks for collaboration and specific structural changes. Emotional responses to grievances in this case do not exactly fit the necessary steps needed for this transformation, but still can exist. While Taiwo wants to emphasize his constructionist approach, that does not necessarily erase emotional movements, it just may not highlight them as the utmost important factor. These movements can still exist, but Taiwo does not see them as what we should focus on.
However, There is a very complicated balance between the need for marginalized communities's (and the Global South in Taiwo's case) voices to be listened to and highly taken into consideration and recognizing the expected emotional and physical labor marginalized groups put into these types of advocacy that may be a burden on top of other life responsibilities they have. You raise a good point in the reality of the balance of burden. If the liability of this feat is placed on the Global North, or more elite institutions, what happens when in reality, while they might be advocating for these positive changes, they use their power as an excuse to slow progress down or shape progress entirely on their on accord. This may be done under the guise of taking liability and listening to the "Global South's" needs, but the Global North can claim certain things while veiling their true intentions or masking their actions.
Hey Luis and Aara!
ReplyDeleteLuis, your comment about how the internal policing in institutions like CMC ironically comes from the very communities being affected really resonated with me. And I think Aara's comments on emotional and physical labor tie in really nicely. If marginalized communities are the very people that have to hold others liable for the harm being caused, that involves substantial emotional and physical labor. There is a lot of exhaustion involved in having to prove that one deserves reparations or justice when it is already extremely clear. As Luis points out, why should the burden fall on those affected?
These points relate to my problems / questions with purely economic incentives. It seems to me that economic incentives aren't enough to change a culture. Sure, if we subsidize solar panels, that creates a step in the right direction. However, it is an issue in my mind that we understand that to be the only reason why people would want to work towards climate justice. Maybe a reframe on how economic incentives would allow people to pursue climate justice would be more morally acceptable in my mind because I do agree that it is economically disadvantageous to pursue a lot of the policies we need for global justice right now. I just have issue with economic motivation being the only thing to promote it.
Similarly, if insitutions put in place policies that are in the right direction, but they rely upon the policing of the very people the policies are supposed to help, it seems like we aren't changing the root of the issue there eighter. I was hoping that Professor Táíwò would answer some more of those questions with solutions involving norms and culture shifts in addition(!!) to economic incentives. (However, I also think that it's plausible I might just share some of his issues with capitalism and that might be a whole different issue outside the realm of this discussion...). I don't think this becomes a non-issue in terms of same results, as I believe that motivations do carry moral significance. So, maybe with a combination of economic incentives to open possibilities for global justice and some kind of cultural reshaping we can make sure to address both the issues themselves and the motivations that can cause them. That solution is very broad and definitely needs reworking, but I can't help but think that economic incentives are missing something especially in terms of placing the burden of the work (as Aara and Luis have pointed out).