Fish- Blog Post 5 (Shelby Questions)
In the introduction of Dark Ghettos, Tommie Shelby outlines his argument and explains why he is proposing a nonideal theory meant to guide responses to injustices, both as individuals and as larger communities and groups. In doing so, he asserts that if the more affluent members of society were to consider what he is arguing regarding the fairness of overall societal structures, he believes that they would understand that marginalized groups are “fellow citizens with an equal claim on a just social structure” (3). Similar to the idea Rawls presents regarding the veil of ignorance, having the ability to look at broader institutions and structures deeply entrenched in society can help to provide a perspective on privilege, justice, and fairness. Yet with Shelby, there is no veil of ignorance, and those at the top, in using his guiding principles, would still know they are at the top.
However, if we consider this logically, is it reasonable to assume that the affluent would actually reach this conclusion under Shelby’s “systemic-injustice framework” (3)? In the same way that Shelby asks “Should the black poor respect and comply with the law even when civic equality isn’t fully realized?” I can similarly ask why the affluent members of society would question the law and work to change a system that serves to benefit them and prioritize their wants and needs (9). Of course, morally the answer is that recognizing societal injustice is the right thing to do. But history has not proven that those at the top are easily willing to sacrifice their status in the social hierarchy for the betterment of others.
Even if those who are affluent understand the wrongdoings of their society, that does not mean the affluent will let go of these systems. Looking at the ideas in Marx’s “German Ideology,” it is clear exactly how, even in oppressive systems, those at the top work to sustain their interests even if they recognize the oppression at play. Both Shelby and Marx recognize the implicitly oppressive nature of ideologies in and of themselves. According to Marx, if the elite recognizes the oppressive nature of ideologies, nothing actually changes regarding the material conditions that drive ideology in the first place. Awareness is not enough to overcome the self-interest of the elites. As Marx highlights, those at the top, no matter how informed or aware they are, have shown throughout history no interest in acknowledging the problems or in making an effort to resolve them. Under Shelby’s framework, unlike with Marx’s, there is a clearer emphasis on intentionality. Shelby’s framework forces individuals, at the top and the bottom, to be intentional. In recognizing inequality, individuals choose to either fight against it, not contribute to further perpetuation, or actively neglect the problems. When the affluent are so clearly situated at the top, it is hard to imagine how exactly they choose anything but the third option given the history of what the affluent have done. What, if anything, can be done to change this?
However, if we consider this logically, is it reasonable to assume that the affluent would actually reach this conclusion under Shelby’s “systemic-injustice framework” (3)? In the same way that Shelby asks “Should the black poor respect and comply with the law even when civic equality isn’t fully realized?” I can similarly ask why the affluent members of society would question the law and work to change a system that serves to benefit them and prioritize their wants and needs (9). Of course, morally the answer is that recognizing societal injustice is the right thing to do. But history has not proven that those at the top are easily willing to sacrifice their status in the social hierarchy for the betterment of others.
Even if those who are affluent understand the wrongdoings of their society, that does not mean the affluent will let go of these systems. Looking at the ideas in Marx’s “German Ideology,” it is clear exactly how, even in oppressive systems, those at the top work to sustain their interests even if they recognize the oppression at play. Both Shelby and Marx recognize the implicitly oppressive nature of ideologies in and of themselves. According to Marx, if the elite recognizes the oppressive nature of ideologies, nothing actually changes regarding the material conditions that drive ideology in the first place. Awareness is not enough to overcome the self-interest of the elites. As Marx highlights, those at the top, no matter how informed or aware they are, have shown throughout history no interest in acknowledging the problems or in making an effort to resolve them. Under Shelby’s framework, unlike with Marx’s, there is a clearer emphasis on intentionality. Shelby’s framework forces individuals, at the top and the bottom, to be intentional. In recognizing inequality, individuals choose to either fight against it, not contribute to further perpetuation, or actively neglect the problems. When the affluent are so clearly situated at the top, it is hard to imagine how exactly they choose anything but the third option given the history of what the affluent have done. What, if anything, can be done to change this?
Comments