Equal Citizenship, Necessary Goods, and Public Education - Fina

By

    Satz argues that society must provide certain goods as they are fundamental rights in an egalitarian society. Satz operates on Marshall’s definition of equal citizenship, which posits that all citizens must have equal basic political rights, civil rights, and the equal right to a threshold of economic welfare. His account of which goods are necessary to achieve full inclusion in society includes education, healthcare, and a certain basic financial safety net. (101) The focus of my blog will be exploring her account of the importance of a public right to education and why it is essential to a functioning democracy and working toward egalitarian values. 

    Our seminar debated whether public education was truly as effective a tool as Anderson argued it was in breaking patterns of domination and working toward a more equitable society. Satz offers a compelling account of why education is such an effective tool. Satz argues that even if a worker achieves economic liberation but lacks proficient education, they are still precluded from participating fully in society. They will always be a member of a lower class of people. Thus, the hierarchy is upheld. Education enables informed debate and participation in the democratic process. A citizen who cannot advocate for himself can never overcome hierarchies or ensure that their rights, or those of their peers, are sufficiently protected. The result is dominance in numerous aspects of society. Furthermore, the justice system cannot reliably function if jurors cannot articulate themselves. (100, 104, 107) If education is commodified and sold, we cannot guarantee effective civic or general education. The reality emerges that politicians and the elite may opt in to these exclusive institutions. This, inevitably, forms an “intergenerational caste.” (111) 

    Satz does not necessarily suggest a comprehensive public education system that will entirely prevent these divisions since she allows for private education to continue. The question I want to pose to the class is how we can effectively structure a system of public education that does not ensure the emergence of harmful hierarchies and allow for equal citizenship. There is an argument I can see that a baseline level of education is all that needs to be ensured for citizens to participate in democracy and competently advocate for themselves actively. This may allow for private education to remain, but the structure of society currently shows that the current system, in my mind, creates these hierarchies. One example is the overwhelming presence of specific college and high school alumni in positions of power in notable democracies like America and the United Kingdom. We should also consider what type of curriculum and authority structure must be present in schools to ensure the education of productive and empowered citizens. 

Comments

  1. Umer LakhaniApril 27, 2023 at 8:59 AM

    Hi Henry, I think this is an extremely interesting question. I did want to point out, though, that a guarantee of education and access to it does not necessarily preclude the formation of an "intergenerational caste" as the result of differing levels of education. As you and Satz acknowledge, when it comes to education and similar goods that guarantee basic equal citizenship, "markets can supplement the supply of these goods in many cases." (102) Therefore, private education remains, and in doing so, continues to allow hierarchies of esteem to influence social outcomes, like the example you bring up of specific schools' alumni.

    Take the United Kingdom as an example. The higher up you look in most fields (i.e. politics, business, even some sports), the greater the disconnect is, in terms of a disproportionate fraction of the top roles being occupied by graduates of Oxford or Cambridge, or of Eton or Harrow. Would making education "a mandatory requirement" (101) (along with the necessary steps to make it accessible to all) as Satz argues for necessarily address this disparity? Probably not. Thinking of the hierarchies that tend to form as a result of educational differences, improving the base level of education everyone receives would only really strengthen the bottom tiers in those hierarchies. Sure, there are many positive effects, vis a vis social mobility and greater participation in democracy, but the top will likely be unaffected.

    Personally, I don't think that these hierarchies are a pressing issue, but if they are a concern to you, then maybe there needs to be a discussion about the role of private education and how its influences need to be limited.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why Cowen and Anderson are both wrong-George

By
In their dialogue, both Cowen and Anderson fail to address important elements of each other's arguments. Cowen's failure is primarily empirical. He dismisses the significance of labor market monopsony out of hand (109). Although economists disagree about the relevance of employer labor market power, Cowen does not sufficiently address the credible evidence of its role in suppressing compensation. This evidence has only grown in the years since Private Government  was published. One consideration as to the relevance of monopsony is the pay-productivity gap. Although libertarian economists chafe immensely at any implication that workers do not benefit from higher productivity, and the popular understanding of the pay-productivity gap is indeed exaggerated, even the most pro-market economists are forced to admit to a degree of "delinkage" between the growth of labor productivity and the compensation of nonsupervisory employees. Interestingly, there is less evidence of de...
Read more

Responding to Jemma and Aara: Another consideration that Rawls does not discuss--- Luis

By
  Hey Jemma and Aara,   Thank you for the thought-provoking blogs! I definitely felt that Okin made her argument less favorable by structuring her last part of Chapter 6 with a sense of constructing a ladder of what social standing has a greater impact on "one's thinking of justice." I agree with you and Aara in that Okin's critique of the unequal gender-based structure is strong and needed to achieve Rawls's basic structure of a well-ordered society. I also believe that stating that gender is the most prevalent identity that will form an individual's concept of "justice" undermines intersectionality. I wanted to add another layer that is not accounted for by Rawls, which Okin hints on.  After reading both blogs, I initially thought about our seminar where Kat and I argued for what Aara was discussing, a knowledge of the global racial empire, or in other terms, the history of racism and colonialism in the original position. I was sold on that argumen...
Read more

Evaluating Harris Whiteness as Property--- Luis Mendoza

By
      In "Whiteness as Property," Cheryl I. Harris builds her work on the image of her grandmother and her ability to use "passing" in her labor and daily life (1710). The main advantage of passing, as stated by Harris, is that it "[increases] the [possibilities] of controlling critical aspects of one's life rather than being the object of other's domination" (1713). At this moment, I want to focus on her functions of whiteness which comes after her discussion that whiteness is property through its theoretical descriptions. More specifically, I will digest one attribute of whiteness as property: "the rights to transfer or alienability" (1731).              One of Harris's points is that because theories surrounding property state that it must have the aspect of alienability, it makes whiteness as property more difficult to process. The issue is that "whiteness," as Harris states, "is incapable of being trans...
Read more