Avatar and Apartheid

During the class today with guest speaker Antjie Krog, I had blast from the past when the idea of interconnectedness was displayed as part of restorative justice. As much as I would not like to admit it, I definitely am a representative of a Christian ontology- if something goes wrong, I definitely start pointing my finger into the opposite direction to relay the attacks addressed to me (of course this hardly ever occurs). Therefore, when the idea where everything is connected and everything has a specific relationship to one another, the image of little blue people from the movie “Avatar” immediately came into my mind.

In this movie, an obvious distinction between the two different cultures of the Na’vi people (the blue people) and the humans from earth is apparent. Our culture (Earth) acts almost in an imperialistic way, harming the balance of the Na’vi peoples’ land in order to obtain natural resources. However, to obtain the resources would be to damage the land and further cause the disruption of the interconnectedness of life (this sounds like a slippery slope in a justified “manner”). At the heart of Na’vi culture is the idea that all aspects of life are in some way connected. In the beginning of this movie, the government announced the initial purpose of the Avatar program was to create a relationship between the two cultures; however, hidden agendas compromised the seemingly innocent operation into a hostile situation in which a war resulted between the two groups. Essentially, my question is how do you have restorative justice when there is an inconsistency between the two parties of a situation? How can you trust the same group of individuals that initially harmed you? The interconnectedness relies on all aspects of life, but is the attempt to restore justice only a superficial mask that covers only the feelings on the surface? Can lifetime hatred and differences in cultured be settled in a lifetime, or does it require time for the entire situation to be forgotten within the depths of time?

Similarly, the Apartheid in South Africa was between two groups of individuals with physical distinctions between the groups: black and white. The blacks have an interconnectedness view point on life; whereas, whites have a Christian ontology on life. Usually, people hold similar viewpoints that are in agreement to what your parents have taught you- do you believe that it is possible to change these viewpoints in order to achieve restorative justice?

Entitlement?

So I've been thinking a lot about Nozick, government, and the different ways the we see entitlement to property, money, and other goods. The questions raised in class on Friday about the tie between morality and entitlement made me think about things that are currently happening in the world. Specifically, the situations with the Occupy movement, Greece, Italy, etc come to mine. This makes me a little nervous because I don't want to oversimplify any of these issues, and I'm definitely not an economics major. That being said, I want to look at these situations with Nozick's ideas about entitlement and see what y'all think about it all.

For fun, here are some links to relevant articles on Greece and Italy.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2099201-1,00.html

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2011/11/italy-silvio-berlusconi-resigns.html

Nozick's claim that big government is unjust because it violates the entitlement theory he provides is interesting given the current situations in many nations across the world. Austerity bills are being passed, though hotly contested, in several places in the EU. There have been riots over the potential removal of benefits. Beyond Greece and Italy, Londoners have been protesting hikes in university fees. These protests suggest that we feel that we deserve certain things regardless of our economic status. Along those lines, the UDHR tells us that we deserve certain things regardless of our economic status and that the state has a responsibility to provide those things.

Given these realities, along with Nozick's really convincing claim about entitlement, what are we supposed to do? Where do we draw the line with public services? How do we balance human rights issues with property and entitlement issues? What do y'all think?

Lady Gaga's "Little Monsters"

Dr. Robin James' lecture, "Feminism Calling?: Beyonce's and Lady Gaga's Posthuman Politics," was an eye opening experience. In critiquing their styles, lyrics and music videos, Dr. James categorized Lady Gaga and Beyonce as two different types of posthumanism feminists: post-goth posthumanism and afrofuturists posthumanism respectively.
According to Dr. Lemon, posthumanism is "transcendence of the merely human." That could be from plastic surgery to a cyborg. It critiques the idea of liberal humanism, which promotes wholeness and authenticity. Unlike humanists, posthumanist feminism doesn't believe that there is a clear gender identity; therefore, we cannot be recognized as fully human.
Lady Gaga can be evaluated as post-goth posthumanist. In the past, goths put on heavy make-up and cross-dressed with things like corsettes to criticize the social norm. With post-goth posthumanism, Lady Gaga shows how grotesque and monstrous the norm is. For example in the shower scene of "Bad Romance," the scene would be a typical sexualization of the female naked body, but her spine is distorted like a reptile's. This shows that human behavior is monstrous.
To Lady Gaga, there is no recognizable gender, so no one is human. In turn, we are all her "little monsters." I didn't cover a lot, but what do you think? Is there a clear gender identity or are we manufactured into monsters?

Nozick's Theory of Entitlement

In class today, I was thinking a lot about entitlement versus deserving. I agree with Nozick's idea that people are entitled to items that are justly transferred to them, but when I think about people who gets massive amount of money from their parents, I have trouble accepting those ideas. If people did not do anything to deserve that money, or even more when they did something immoral that makes them a bad person, and yet they still get to keep that money. Many times, people abuse their parents' money. They are entitled to that money but they definitely don't deserve it. Is this still a just society? According to Nozick it is, but I have trouble accepting that. I don't necessarily have a solution to this problem, but it’s hard for me to say they are entitled to that money when better people deserve it.

I also thought it was interesting when Dr. J asked us if we thought that people were entitled to inheritance from their parents and most of us agreed that that was just. However, I think that if she asked a class of students whose parents did not have money, then they would respond differently (I know that everyone that goes to Rhodes does not have money, but I think we all assume that we will have money one day to give to our children). If they do not think that they will get inheritance or have money to give to their children, then I don’t think that they would want this rule to be agreed upon by society. I also believe that behind the veil of ignorance, which I realize is a Rawls concept, people would not agree that others are entitled to their parents’ money. If you assume that you are going to be the lowest level, then you would want money from these people to be distributed fairly. This could just be my opinion, so I should not assume that all people would feel this way, but I would not agree to this arrangement.

            Do you agree with my assumptions? Do you think that students with different backgrounds would feel the same way as us? What about the people behind the veil of ignorance?

Nozick and the Internet

Since we've been talking about Nozick in class and entitlement I began to think of the idea of entitlement in regards to our technology today. As I am typing this, YouTube is minimized, playing The Band's cover of Bob Dylan's “I Shall Be Released.” I can go back to YouTube and listen to it as many times as I want for no cost (outside of Internet bills, power bills, the cost of the computer., etc.). I do not own the song, but I am able to listen to it whenever I want. Nozick uses the term “holding” By being able to access this song on YouTube, do I have holding? If I can forward the link to someone (Here you go: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ore6K3ESTLc) am I transferring the holding, even though I can still go and listen to the song? Nozick had no way of anticipating YouTube or the Internet when he wrote Anarchy, State, and Utopia, but that does not mean we cannot think about our technology in his terms. I guess the point I am trying to get to here is what we call Internet “piracy” and distribution. So the individual who uploaded the YouTube video, “mesna,” for this discussion, came into possession (holding) of a live performance of The Band playing “I Shall Be Released” through one of two means: by purchasing a DVD of the performance, or by downloading a file via P2P transfer, Torrents, IRC, etc. Now, if mesna purchased the DVD, and decided to rip “I Shall Be Released” from the concert and put it onto YouTube, is he is obviously not transferring a holding, because he still has a physical copy of the DVD. However, he is still allowing others to, say, enjoy the benefits of holding the concert DVD. The second tenant of the Entitlement Theory states that “A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice in transfer, from someone else entitled to the holding, es entitled to the holding. Is mesna owns a copy of the DVD and then uploads a portion of that concert, he is freely transferring the performance of “I Shall Be Released” to you, making you entitled to the video yourself. And since you are entitled is it now yours to download and then redistribute as you see fit? What do you guys think, I'd love to hear from someone who has a stronger grasp on this than I do.

Marx, Rawls and Nozick... Oh my!

We have been reading three ideas of what a society needs to be like:
Marx, "To each according to his needs and from each according to his abilities."
The government needs to be very big, and capitalism must have fallen.

Rawls' main point is that to decide what is just in a society, a thought experiment must be done imagining people behind "the veil of ignorance". A group of people must imagine themselves as the lowest possible status of people in a society and try to make everything the best possible for them.

Nozick is under the view that government must be the smallest it possibly can and that when injustice occurs it must be decided where the possession of entitlement went wrong.

Each idea these men have is aimed towards the idea of a fair and just society. There are some obvious contradictions when comparing each philosophers' view: Nozick's entire entitlement theory is based on the concept of private property, something that Marx would disagree ought to be taken into account due to private property perpetuating injustice in a society. Rawls' veil of ignorance theory is how to effectively set up a government much more involved than Nozick would agree with. We have been discussing so many different theories of justice, so what are the similarities between them? As mentioned in class today, while some differences are obvious and extreme, there can still be common ground. As Dr. Johnson mentioned, sometimes we see the 99% and the tea party critique the same things.

Marx and Rawls both have similar interest in the lowest class of people in a society. Marx is more extreme: everyone needs everything they need, but Rawls still writes that behind the veil of ignorance the lowest class needs the best situation possible for them. It is a common theme when looking at how a society will be ideal, the class gap must be as small as possible. We went through the thought experiment of Nozick's today of where inevitably all types of societies end in a gap, this is unequal but is it unjust? Does Nozick's societal mind game really conflict as much as it would seem with Marx and Rawls? There is no direct harm inflicted on the lower class, and if taking the entitlement is justified it still fits with Nozick's claims.

So the main question I am trying to figure out is: what are the similar things each man wants in a society? Would these ideals hold true for any thought experiment or ideal? Are there things that regardless of what someone things a government must do stay universal?

A meritocracy: material and societal gains due to merit.... or not.

Today we were discussing Nozick's Entitlement theory, and our example featured a meritocracy. In this theoretical meritocracy, Will Chamberlain receives a lot of money solely because of his "merit"--which include his talents and/or hard work. But his children receive that money when he dies. I think that my issue with this fact is not in the entitlement aspect. According to Nozick's transfer principle, it is absolutely just that Chamberlain's children receive his money. But our example featured a meritocracy. His children receive money not because of their talents or hard work, but because of that of their father. I think this really can't be paired with a meritocracy. By definition, this is not a meritocracy, because they haven't earned what they have by talent or hard work. I just can't get around that.

Somewhat related to that is my interest in seeing how Nozick's theory would play out in an egalitarian society. Doctor J said Nozick and Marx would just be like, "Agree to disagree then...," but I really am interested to see in particular how Marx would address natural differences causing respect and affirmation from society, as well as material gain. Does anyone have any ideas?

Inheritance and Justice in Transfer

As we've been learning about Nozick's entitlement theory and his principles of justice in holdings, it seems that most people agree with these basic ideas. If someone acquires a holding in a just manner, such as by buying it with his own money, he is entitled to that holding. If a holding is transferred to him in a just way, such as in the form of a gift or inheritance, he is entitled to it. This appears to coincide with the general idea of property acquisition.

However, when we got into a discussion about the entitlement of one's children to his wealth, some dissent arose. Going solely by Nozick's principle of justice in transfer, they are certainly justified in their holdings. In spite of this, there seemed to be a general feeling that they still should not have that property. Of course, the children did nothing to deserve their inheritance, as they were involuntarily born into their family. They had no control over what their parent did to amass or diminish his wealth. He was the one to bequeath his earnings to his children, which is a just transfer.

I can see this disagreement as stemming from two different sources. When we think of fair systems of distribution, two of the main ones that come to mind are systems of both equality and merit. Well, in this example, the children are clearly not on an equal level as everyone else in terms of wealth. It seems unfair that they have so much more than everyone else, and thus more opportunities; they should all start out at the same baseline. Another aspect that puts people off is the fact that the children do not merit the holdings that have been transferred to them. American society tends to think that everyone must put in hard work to achieve their goals, that nothing should be handed out. Thus, a lot of us were inclined to feel that the children should not maintain their holdings.

While I definitely think that these are understandable points of contention, and can personally sympathize with them, they cannot overturn the principle of justice in transfer. There is nothing about the way in which the children acquired their holdings that is unjust; they didn't steal anything, but were willingly bequeathed it be their parent. Even though we may be inclined to disallow them of their advantage, based upon the way we were raised, our views on equality, society's views on merit, etc., there is no logical argument in support of this. In fact, it would itself be an unjust transfer of holdings if we were to somehow strip the children of these holdings.

Rawls' original position states that a just social contract is the one we would agree to if we did not know where we would be in the society we are agreeing to. I think this is true because when put behind a "veil of ignorance" we become sympathetic to all views and circumstances. Every position becomes our position and so it becomes important that the rules, laws, expectation, etc. be truly just for everyone. When we do not know who we will be in a society we see ourselves as everyone in the society and make decisions with every possibility in mind. If we do not know if we will be rich or poor, we want society to be just for both the rich and the poor. If we do not know if we will be male or female, we want it to be just for both men and women. Not knowing makes us apply the human instinct of looking out for ones self to everyone. It uses an aspect of human nature that normally results in selfish and unjust behavior into one that ensures fairness for all. The veil of ignorance takes away peoples bias and forces them to view everyone as having equal rights to equal opportunities. The fact that this social contract and veil of ignorance are hypothetical makes it harder to accept this theory as being helpful and relevant. People are not behind a veil of ignorance. They do know where they stand in society and make their decisions based off of this. They have bias' and self interests and act on them even when it is unjust to others. When people know where they are in society they are not as sympathetic and aware of the positions of others.

This theory actually takes into account aspects of human nature?!?

This theory, though clearly stated to be hypothetical, does take realistic stances and seems to consider human nature. The first rule of sorts states that "every person has an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty that is compatible with similar liberty for others." Similar liberty. Rawls was speaking based on the knowledge that: YES people have differing levels of ability in differing areas. And YES some of those areas are seen as or literally are more valuable to society than others. A person who has more wealth or status than others, in addition to their met needs, will have it because they have more to offer to society. It is part of human nature to want a hierarchy of skill and ability clear in any area. As soon as a person thinks about baseball, he or she might think about who runs fastest, throws the best, or is best at bat. Even when I think about a friend as a person, I think of their strengths and weaknesses as a person. It's just human nature. And I think this is the first theory that takes this particular aspect of human nature into account, which is interesting, seeing as how big a part of our lives this is. Humans categorize and order in order to better understand their surroundings. This is absolutely just me being a Psych major nerd, BUT I still think it's important to note.

Does the US measure up?

In today's class we discussed John Rawls and his amendments to the social contract theory as well as his concept of original position and its principles. Unlike the social contract of the seventeenth century, Rawls replaces natural law with Kantian ethics and clearly states that the social contract is hypothetical. With this being said, Professor Johnson stated in class that Rawls' social contract and concept of original position can be used as a measure of real societies. From this perspective I want to critique society in the United States.

Using the principles of original positions, I do not believe that each person in our society has an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty that is compatible with a similar liberty for others nor are the social/economic inequalities arranged so that they are to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged and attached to positions under conditions of fair equality of opportunity. The inequalities in the US are not set in such a way, discussed in class, that allows people to grow while being challenged to excel or accomplish more. If anything the inequalities keep the least advantaged people disadvantaged with no intention or hopes of ever being in a position to do better. The welfare system, is one with good intentions, but often is used as a crutch that leads to people being dependent upon a small means of assistance rather than an incentive to continue to work one's way out of a tough situation.

Also the offices/positions attached to social/economic inequalities are not open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity. In our society, everyone does not run the risk of living in poverty or the advantage of being extremely wealthy. There are those that have money that's heavily secured and so profound that the greatest blows of an economic crisis like we're going through now would not affect their well-being , and then there are those that can never combat those same blows despite effort to overcome their present situations. For these people, being wealthy or in the opposite condition of their present one is not a realistic possibility. I would think that under conditions of fair equality of opportunity, either one of these positions would be possible for anyone no matter what, but in the US, I don't believe this is so.

What do you all think? How does the US measure up to Rawls' Principles of original position?

Questions about Marx

As many people probably were, I was first skeptical of reading Marx and his ideas which are not widely accepted in America. However, after discussing it in class and reading some of his views myself I am more convinced that Marx knew what he was talking about even if there are some parts I do not agree with. The idea of alienated labor feels completely true in my point of view because I hardly feel that work is every satisfying like it should be. As a capitalist society, we are constantly striving to out-do one another and push our way to the top, but it also seems that this hope for advancement is not usually fulfilled. This is probably one of the reasons many believe that the “American Dream” is not a realistic venture that one can achieve. As the upper class- or the proletariat- becomes smaller and richer, the lower class- the bourgeoisie- becomes bigger and poorer. Marx lays out that capitalism, like the situation we are in, will eventually lead to a revolution in which the bourgeoisie gains “class consciousness”. Then and only then can socialism and a classless society be possible. This concept seems a little hard to grasp though which is the main issue I think most people have with Marxist views. How can we possibly transition from a society of class struggle and consumerism to a classless society of proportion in distribution of wealth? The concept is very hopeful and ideal but one wonders if it could actually work.

My main issue is the idea that we must abolish the concept of “private property”. If a socialist society would give each according to his needs then would these needs not include some form of property? We think of our basic needs as food, water, and shelter but is there anything else that could be included in our needs? If we were to become a socialist society does that mean that all of our needs would be met in a community with other people- meaning would we have to share everything like houses and food? Then, I wonder if this society would take into account the idea of happiness and the opportunity to enjoy oneself or would this come from simply taking joy in work without any extra-curricular activities? I guess it is just the capitalist views which are so deeply engrained in my mind and thoughts that make it so difficult to fully comprehend these concepts, but I think it is definitely something worth exploring further.

Does socialism cause an explosion of capitalism?

The idea behind capitalism is “the hardest workers get the most;” however, although we term the United States as a capitalist country, is our country migrating towards a more socialistic society? Marx believes that the distribution model of capitalism is unjust, but could our problem today not be that we are too capitalistic, but rather too materialistic with the implantation in our minds that everything must be equal to be fair? People believe that they are entitled and deserve the same “stuff,” whether it is education, owning a home, an iPhone, a steady meal, and a steady job- regardless of their contribution to society and the financial mechanisms behind the entire system.

On Wednesday, the Health Professions Society displayed a video describing the situation many Americans face- the inability to purchase health care insurance. In addition, this video left many viewers with the feeling of guilt, and the idea that “all” individuals deserve health care, regardless of the costs. The idea of equality in this case is unachievable, as it is financially impossible to provide acceptable health care to such a mass of people. Already, individuals in the top 10% tax bracket pay more than 50% of the total taxes collected according to “The Tax Foundation.” In order to give something to an individual, it first must be taken away from another; therefore, one must take more money away from the same individuals that already contribute the most to taxes. From this past night’s reading, is this a violation of transfer of holding in Nozick’s “justice in holding?” Most individuals acquire their income “with the principle of justice in acquisition” and “are entitled to that holding.” People choose to buy computers knowing that they are funding the “Bill Gates fund,” and people choose to sponsor the people that create the greater division between the gap of social classes. This fundamental principle in which people strive to be the best and to create the best is what makes capitalism so successful. It may create a gap in society, but at the same time, it offers other individuals the same opportunity to strive and create some new beneficial product to society.

So how is it that the U.S. has gotten to where we stand today? I would like to propose a question: is it capitalism or the debt that is created through the government programs aimed to redistribute wealth the mechanism behind which our capitalistic society will explode? In the attempt to create equality through government intervention, are we instead creating systems that will back-fire?

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html#table1

Capitalism, Patriarchy, and All Those Other Pesky Systems of Oppression

The phrase "human nature" often comes up in class, and recently some students have mentioned the concept of human nature in regards to humans' "natural" desire to own private property or humans' "natural" selfishness. Dr. J has explained how embedded capitalist concepts are in all of us from birth, emphasizing how we have been socialized in an overtly capitalist system. Therefore, we cannot even imagine how life without capitalist ideas would be, because even our imaginations of such a non-capitalist system are framed within capitalist ideas. Because we are so socialized to accept capitalist ideas as "natural," we cannot truly know or really begin to speculate on what is "human nature," because even speculation takes place within the framework of capitalism.

I would like to compare the socialization and deeply embedded-ness of capitalism to the deeply ingrained system of patriarchy that shapes so much of our lives. Until we become aware of the dominance of patriarchy in every realm of society, we believe that the system is natural, because that's "how it is." We do not recognize any oddity in male-dominated workforces, homes, families, religious groups, etc., because from birth we have been trained to accept these things as normal. Men have certain roles; women have different roles. When something happens to trigger our consciousness about the existence and oppressive nature of patriarchy (taking a Gender/Sexuality Studies course, for example), we begin to realize that we have lived within this system our whole lives and that it is not natural; it is socially constructed. Even when we gain this awareness, though, we cannot escape the system, because it is far bigger than any of us. We can make personal choices to refuse to participate in certain elements of the system, but we cannot escape the macro-level, global dominance of the structure of patriarchy.

In the same way, we can become aware of the way in which capitalism oppresses us, but we cannot escape the system. It is both too ingrained in our own psyches and also too macro of a system to escape on our own. This is where I think Marx's class revolution theory enters the picture. Social and political revolutions are key to overturning macro systems of oppression. We can make personal choices to rebel against capitalist or patriarchal ideas, but we must remember that we are still operating under the macro system that exists regardless of our individual decisions. Widespread, united rebellions versus global systems of oppression seem to be our best hope for human equality. Do you agree?

"Capitalism + Marx = Happiness" ?

As we all learned in class, Capitalism - according to Marx - always leads to unequal distribution of goods and therefore to a clash between the two classes in a society. Before that happens, Capitalism will probably try to survive by all means, for example such as creating social welfare systems, health care and progressive taxes. In Marx‘ logic, these kind of small improvements won‘t avoid the big revolution that is gonna come at the end of Capitalism, but just delaying it.

What I was thinking about was, if it is really necessary for the capitalistic system to end up in a revolution - even if this is still far away - or if there is any way to use the advantages of this well-going system and to combine it with another theory, maybe with Communism. Even though, I know that Dr. J really does not like this kind of combination of theories, because they are mostly contradictory, I would like to think about that in the following passage.

I guess, we can all agree that Capitalism has big merits, such as the omnipresent competition in nearly every field, which leads to better, faster products and a higher efficiency. It also leads to the fact that people work better, but why does it so? Well, the basic reason for that is fear: Fear of not being able to afford the necessary things to survive. Of course, that is Capitalism on the lowest level. On a higher (financial) level, the reason for that is the belief that we need certain goods (advertisement plays a big role here). One could argue that we actually don‘t need the majority of these goods, but in my opinion, humankind never lived on such a high standard of living quality then nowadays. Therefore, progress and development could be considered as intrinsic goods.

The bad sides caused by the omnipresent competition are also well-known, such as poverty, unequal distribution of goods and social injustice. If we take a look at the different kinds of Capitalism in the world, we see that Capitalism has very diverse faces. In Political Sciences, one distinguishes between the so-called LME (Liberal Market Economies) and the CME (Coordinated Marked Economies). The most important LMEs are the USA and the UK, which are famous for their very liberal and market-driven economy, which also means that social welfare-systems don't play a big role. CMEs, such as Germany but even more the Scandinavian countries, have very different preconditions and have built systems, which have a very high rate of happiness in their society, due to very just welfare systems. These examples show us that it is indeed possible to change the hardest liberal Capitalism into some system that generates “the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people”.

Do you think, Capitalism has a chance to survive, if it changes and faces its problems or will it go down, like Marx foresaw?