For the same
reasons this blog used in reviewing the natural rights construct, the place to
begin describing critical theory is with its moral perspective. That is, moral positioning is what motivates someone
to devise or adopt whatever other elements this construct offers. Stated another way, initially one should see
what the theory defines as good and evil.
Any construct entails standards that reflect values arranged in a
hierarchical order. Atop that arrangement
is a trump value. Natural rights holds
liberty as the trump value. Critical
theory sees equality as the trump value.
Critical theorists might hold liberty as important, even highly important,
but in situations when one of these values needs to be chosen over the other,
critical theorists will choose equality above liberty or any other value when
it comes to societal issues.
By placing equality as the trump value, it will affect how critical
theorists will judge other social concerns.
One example is that in their use of the term liberty, critical theorists
tend to define it as a quality that, to be meaningful, depends on people being
equal, not just in terms of standing “before the law,” but in terms of income
and wealth.
Short of that level of equality, politics becomes something beyond
which lower-income citizens have influence in determining what public policy
will be. Therefore, public policy will
be skewed against these citizens and, consequently, will offend their liberty.
This example indicates
that equality means different things to different people. To those who support the natural rights view,
as well as others such as monarchists, liberty means something other than what
critical theorists believe equality to be.
As a matter of fact, in the nation’s history, there have been several
definitions of equality that different groups have favored. Five of these definitions deserve one’s
attention.
So, to provide some context for how critical theorists view
equality, a quick summary of these definitions would be helpful so that one can
better measure what they are advocating, especially in political matters. One might be prone to think that all
Americans, no matter how constrained, support equality, if only in the
abstract. Yet that is not the case.
At the beginning of the nation's history, it is safe to say that
the founding fathers’ understanding of what equality was is not what most
Americans today define equality to be. Their most “equality” prone advocates
were probably in favor of what one could call “earned elitism.”
Actually, this societal attribute has changed as the nation evolved
into what it is today. As the years
rolled by, certain views concerning equality, some supportive, some not, have
sprung up, gathered support, and then lost that support. One can detect in that history five general
orientations concerning equality and all of them are not supportive of what one
could reasonably consider equality to be.
Each view or orientation is a way of seeing what the relevant
worth of an individual is. The
orientations are genetic elitism, earned elitism, equal condition, regulated
condition, and equal result. These
orientations have been reflected in the political culture prevalent during the
different eras of our history.
Generally, the orientations are listed here in the order from the most
non-egalitarian view, genetic elitism, to the most egalitarian view, equal
results. Here is a short definition of
each:
Genetic elitism believes that nature has determined by the genetic
distribution of skills and abilities who should lead. From this state of affairs, leadership should
be reserved for certain families.
Earned elitism believes that nature does determine who is gifted,
but that leadership itself, in all realms of life, should be reserved for those
who through their efforts demonstrate their skills and exhibit superior
performances in their chosen fields.
Equal condition believes that everyone is equal before the law and
that economic and other benefits should be distributed to those who perform
marketable skills and the amounts of compensation should be determined by
competitive processes.
Regulated condition believes that market processes or other
competitive processes should determine basic distributive decisions, but that
markets and other competitive processes can and do fail. Therefore, these processes should be
regulated so that all citizens are afforded basic opportunities and minimum
living standards. Mainly, the belief
goes on to see skills as the result of arbitrary forces and that anyone can
find him/herself in a significantly deprived state.
Critical theory promotes equal results. Below, this bias is more fully explained. What are the attributes of equal
results? Here is a list of its beliefs:
1. Personal abilities are primarily developed
from genetic or social conditions not subject to a person’s control. Therefore, people who secure very high incomes
are exploiting conditions they have/had little control over creating or
developing.
2. Such exploitation reflects
a randomness in the distribution of skills, opportunities, connections, family
reputations, genetic makeup, historical context, and the like with which some
might be advantaged to have. To
unequally compensate such advantages is judged to be unjust.
3. Not only is this unequal
reward system unjust at any level, but in advanced, capitalistic economic
arrangements, one finds that some can earn in a few days what takes others a
lifetime to save.
4.
Marketable skills and other prized assets in capitalist systems
have little to do with a person’s merit as a person and, in turn, in allocating
the rewards he/she can secure. Instead, marketable
skills or other arbitrary assets have little concern for human qualities and,
therefore, the processes by which compensation is determined dehumanizes the
affected individuals.
5. All human labors are intrinsically equal and
the compensation received for labor should be within narrow limits. The only difference among the labors performed
is simply that they reflect different roles.
Hard work is expected not only from highly compensated workers or
business owners; laborers also engage in hard work.
Therefore, labor should be
seen in terms of equal value. An
example: the movie star who performs in front of a camera should not make so
much more than the cameraperson. Both
are equally responsible for the product produced.
True, such beliefs are
seen by many in this country as being highly un-American. Yet these beliefs have been attractive to
many Americans, albeit always a minority, at different times in the nation’s
history. As a matter of fact, some who
have expressed these beliefs are/were considered as prominent individuals.
One such American was Eugene
V. Debs, a prominent labor leader and presidential candidate in the late
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
Admittedly, his views were never that popular, but his positions
reflected a tradition of thought that dates to political writers from the more
obscure John Ruskin to, at least to some degree, Henry David Thoreau.
Yes, the above beliefs
are Marxian-socialist ideals, but they are not unique to Marx. They can also be found in the works of Leo
Tolstoy and Mahatma Gandhi. In America,
such beliefs or ideals have been given more positive endorsement among the
populous during times in which extreme exploitation of laborers was
prevalent.
Such times include the
industrial revolution of the late 1800s or the Great Depression. In the last election cycle, socialist Bernie
Sanders’ presidential campaign attracted a significant number of
followers. All socialists, at least to
some level, espouse Marxian principles.[1] It should be added that during those same
times, there is also an uptick in nationalist sentiments – one can see that
happening right now as displaced laborers in advanced countries feel
threatened.[2]
While this Marxian source
is common among critical pedagogues, its theoretical origins vary. They can be from such sources as Tolstoy’s
Christianity to Marx’s sense of science and scientific thinking which was
influenced by Thomas Hobbes. Marx claimed
that the eventuality of a socialist state – one in which productive property
would be owned in common – was an inevitable result of how productive forces
would develop.[3] Yet in all this scientific thinking, one can
easily detect a moral claim lying below the surface.
[1] For a dramatization of such
advocacy in an American setting, see the film, Reds (Beatty), starring Warren Beatty, who was also the film's
producer and director.
[2] One can cite the Marxian scenario in which laborers
are displaced by labor saving machines – automation. Add to that the competition from low wage
countries (emerging countries) and one has the makings of a disgruntled labor
class. Many attribute these conditions
for the election of Donald Trump.
[3] In Marx’s view, the
development of society is simply the product of deterministic laws in which
people, following their nature of being hedonistic egoists – a la Hobbes – and are simply pursuing
their selfish interests.
No comments:
Post a Comment