LeBron defines shame as the "moral response we should and tend to have when we fail to uphold principles we affirm on our own account in the face of conditions that cannot possibly be thought to justify that failure" (18). Shame, he argues, is what citizens ought to feel for permitting the continuation of implicit racial inequality in our country when we are supposed to be committed to the principles of equality.
Like Smith and Baier, LeBron appeals to human sentiment in making a philosophical argument for evaluating our actions. Baier centers around the power of trust in determining our relationships and uses this feeling as a starting place for evaluating exploitative relationships. Smith devotes much of his Theory of Moral Sentiments to discussing the importance of sympathy and similar to LeBron, suggests that individuals must assess the morality of their actions from an outsiders view (Smith's impartial spectator).
Appealing to human emotion aligns with the importance LeBron places on creating a political theory. These nonideal theories must adequately search for the solution to a problem by starting from within, as opposed to creating a theory of morality or justice without consideration of contemporary societal issues. In the same way, evoking real sentiments forces individuals to directly face the problem; we cannot escape the feelings of shame, sympathy, nor trust. Nonetheless, I understand that LeBron is taking a less conventional approach so I'd like to hear how others feel about his account.
At the individual level, shame seems to make a lot of sense. Lebron seems to run into some issues when he transitions to institutions (particularly important because he's talking about systemic racism), however. There, he transitions from shame as an emotion to shame as some sort of "moral idea" that can affect an institution's operation (26). He goes on to note both institutional ideals, then not meeting them and people's tendency to shame institutions. I'm not sure I accept his argument here though. It's clear institutions don't have emotions. Moreover, shaming an institution is not going to necessarily make it change its behavior in the future.
ReplyDeleteThen again, maybe this argument doesn't actually matter in the grand scheme of things. We can shame an institution all we want, but when we do so, we don't seem to actually be taking about the institution at all. Rather, we refer to the people who make up that institution. This is why when we are ashamed of Congress, we don't send a letter to Congress, we send it to a rep or senator. Nevertheless, perhaps there's a problem if institutions take on a life of their own, independent of people who make up that institution. When that happens, I'm not sure what to do. Anyone got an idea?
I did not find the idea of institutional shame as troubling as Tim seems to. I think shame can exist for institutions, as Lebron lays out the idea that shame is acting in a way that does not align with one's ideals. Institutions can be based on an ideal, but not actually operate according to the particular value. Lebron mentions the legal system, which is extremely relevant. There are countless stories of the legal system failing blacks in a way that does not occur for their white counterparts. This does not mean that the legal system doesn't have values of fairness and justice, but rather that it has fallen away from them and should be ashamed. As Tim says, this can definitely occur as a product of individuals in such an institution. However, I also think it can happen when certain practices become embedded in institutions. This relates to Lebron's idea of social value, as it is not specific racial acts but rather a system that operates based on social value. I disagree with Tim saying that shaming an institution will not cause any change. I think that is a pessimistic view. For example, it is clear that more and more people are demanding an examination of the many failures of the legal system for black Americans. Institutions can change, even if it will be challenging. This relates to Lebron's point about democratic perfectionism. He suggests that it is indeed possible to being "remaking the national character- urging normative reformation of our individual selves and of the polity as a collective in service to the good of racial equality." (6)
ReplyDeleteIn adding to Francesca's discussion about Lebron's use of Smith's idea of the impartial spectator, he also introduces Rawls's theory of justice in depth and bring up its crucial element of the veil of ignorance. Lebron believes that it is essential for the individual to judge his or her own actions in a way that is somewhat removed. The experience of shaming is so profound in that the individual will not have a difficult time doing this. It is not the same as a feeling of being reprimanded or even guilt. It is an experience in which "the individual concerned is playing two roles, judger and judged" (22). This is, however, only possible when the individual's actions create an awareness of the discrepancy between "the person one takes oneself to be and the person one is at a given moment" (21).
ReplyDeleteRegarding the discussion of shaming an institution versus an individual, I do think that there is a stronger, more compelling argument for an individual to feel shame and to act upon it. It is because in a collective identity, such as Congress, there are always going to be a diverse set of opinions. Some member of Congress perhaps have already experienced the shame on an individual level; however, others are far from that realization. Therefore, I think that an institution can feel shame, but it can take a much longer time for the bodies that make up the institution to feel shame on an individual level first. Perhaps then the institution will be able to collectively act to address its wrongful predisposition.