Kim Blog Post 8
In Chapter 1 of When the State Speaks, What Should It Say?, Corey Brettschneider makes an argument for value democracy. He makes the argument that a value democracy by respecting rights and only criticizing, in a noncoercive manner, viewpoints incompatible with the idea of free and equal citizenship avoids the dystopias of both the Invasive State and the Hateful Society. He illustrates the most obvious viewpoints that would violate the ideal of free and equal citizenship as ones that "make discriminatory legal distinctions between classes of persons," on the basis of race, ethnicity, or gender. (pg.24) Associations like the Ku Klux Klan would be an example of a group holding paradigmatically implausible views that the state should rightly criticize. However, other groups, like religious groups, may hold "equally discriminatory beliefs for reasons that are less obviously ill-intentioned."(pg. 49) I would like to focus my concern on cases in which views are less obviously ill-intentioned.
One could argue that it is difficult to pull out illiberal beliefs from religions like Christianity. For example, in the perspective of some people, Christianity could be characterized as misogynistic and homophobic. Such ideals are so fundamentally ingrained in some religions that it is difficult to criticize only certain parts of the religion without criticizing the religion itself. An argument could be made by the religious community that the government by criticizing beliefs could be considered to be taking as what many in the religious sphere believe to be a secular perspective. Furthermore, the government in criticizing beliefs runs the risk of ostracizing a particular group from society. As Brettschneider claims, the effect of a mere citizen criticizing a viewpoint and the effect that the state has in criticizing a viewpoint can have vastly different consequences. This could lead to the overall concern of ostracizing a certain group of people from society.
My question would be: why not criticize actions than beliefs? For example, someone being raised in a homophobic background could have a negative view or perspective on the issue of gay rights. But through persuasion by the state of the wrongness in discriminatory actions, he or she could recognize the importance of social harmony and act in accordance that does not violate the ideal of free and equal citizenship; allowing for a society that can coexist with different values(ones that may even be discriminatory). I understand his argument for democratic congruence, stability, interconnection, and public trust for the importance of citizens adopting egalitarian values. But it seems that the word belief in his arguments can be replaced by actions. Everyone, not just elites, can endorse the importance of acting in an egalitarian manner even if they have personal discriminatory beliefs. One could make the argument that a society that is able to coexist even with discriminatory beliefs in which everyone acts in accordance with principles of free and equal citizenship has reached a level of maturity that has more empirical stability than one that attempts to convince groups of citizens that their beliefs are wrong. Even if people have different personal values that are discriminatory, they could still be interconnected in their mutual respect for the other person as a member of society. Furthermore, this mutual respect for the other person as a member of society would form public trust, as different members with different discriminatory beliefs can be ensured that they are treated as free and equal citizens despite their discriminatory beliefs that do not align with the egalitarian views of the state. A society that espouses the need for egalitarian actions rather than beliefs could perhaps be " a democratic society and not merely a justifiable state."(pg. 40)
Here the question may arise as to the feasibility of someone holding discriminatory beliefs to act in an egalitarian manner, but it certainly seems possible. From a personal perspective, I have seen very deeply religious Christians have gay friends, therefore I will give the benefit of the doubt and assume that people are capable of accomplishing such a task. My proposition is that criticizing discriminatory actions instead of beliefs may run a lower risk of ostracizing a certain group or creating more polarized groups.
Comments
The example you bring up also seems to mirror a vast majority of American society today. While egalitarian actions are promoted, a sense of respect for one’s personal values is powerful. Extending this argument in relation to current US affairs, it is easy to see how this can go awry. Police brutality, social injustice, and a broken justice system are clear symptoms of the society you seem to suggest. I certainly would not trust a law enforcement officer who, while appearing to promote egalitarian actions, holds discriminatory values and ideas.
I do not think it is a bad idea to ostracize some members of society, especially those who are vehemently opposed to democratic equality and freedom. This separation from the culture would prevent inegalitarian values from spreading further while promoting a sense of self-reflection in mostly younger and developing generations. The value-neutrality you propose leads to instability in the value homogeneity of culture and the inherent values that come as a package with democracy. We cannot look into others’ minds and therefore rely on actions to guide our evaluations of others’ value systems. A system like the one you discuss promotes distrust and relies too heavily on good human nature.