Goods beget goods and Social Value

While Grace commented on the culture of poverty thesis, I want to also address the "goods beget goods conception" and commend its ability to support Lebron's social value thesis. Last year, in political philosophy we had debates about affirmative action, and one widely acknowledged criticism is that affirmative action should target socioeconomic classes, not race. However, Lebron effectively describes why lack of certain resources is not sufficient to address racial inequality. Viewing race in terms of social value highlights why black individuals of a higher economic status face discriminatory practices as well. The issue of race relations delves far deeper than just the continued cycle of poverty that perpetuates racial inequalities. If institutions continue to enable racism, implicit or explicit, we cannot make progress towards an equal society. 

I would be interested to hear Lebron's views on affirmative action and whether it serves as a tool to remedy the shame we should feel, whether it enhances the agency of black individuals, and whether it is an appropriate practice for institutions to implement. 

Survival and success

"Middle-class whites with easy access to high-quality educational institutions and a social network comprised of similarly advantaged persons tend to think that Americans can be self-made achievers if they try hard enough. In contrast, many inner-city black youths find school one of the least worthwhile places to be. Real effort pays off in earning street respect rather than getting a good grade on a book report. Thus, it is entirely possible to place two representative persons who are nonetheless American and get starkly different outlooks on what is worth doing and how best to do it" (62).

This particular passage stuck out to me for effectively explaining the problem of how black culture is often critiqued; as individuals who not only have our basic needs met but are also predisposed to succeed- with access to top equation and access to numerous professional opportunities, it can be hard to even come to close to understanding the motivations of those who have far less. For many black youths, "succeeding" is not a goal because surviving must be. Many have a number of other stress factors that deter their focus: food, shelter, safety, and any combination of the three. Arguing that living this lifestyle should only be more of a motivation to somehow "try harder" and find a way out of the culture ignorantly neglects the way that struggle engrosses one's whole life. Being able to succeed (especially in upper-class terms) is a luxury- not a predetermined right- and ought to be understood as such.

I know that the idea of success plays a large role in American society and of course, individuals have many deferring opinions on the issue. I would like to explore even further the nature of the term, and how we can best conceive of it. Lebron's account helps to demonstrate how differing cultures (often defined by or at least influenced largely by race) may produce different definitions of the word, and how certain societal circumstances (like his version of implicit institutional injustice) lead individuals to look for success in non-traditional ways, such as criminal activities like drug-dealing or stealing. Although he does not condone nor justify such actions, Lebron successfully emphasizes the importance of understanding the nature of the problem as "historically and socially embedded power" (44).

Rationality of Unfortunate Decisions

Lebron presents Patrick Moynihan’s culture of poverty thesis. The thesis argues that “blacks are the cause of their disproportionate inequality because they have developed a culture that not merely embraces disadvantage but uses it as a wedge to blame society for their ills when in fact, their embrace of disadvantage has perpetrated a culture or shared way of life among blacks that justifies poor social, economic, and political choices” (49). Lebron responds by saying that this argument is ignorant of how disadvantage can deeply affect an individual’s agency and beliefs of his or her life prospects. He goes on to say that unfortunate decisions made by blacks are rational “in the face of radical institutional unfairness” (50). They are also not unethical as the structure of society is fundamentally unjust with regards to race.

I think it is important that conservative thinkers of racial equality and poverty understand Lebron’s arguments. However, I also believe that a middle ground approach is best when addressing this issue in a way that would result in tangible change in the lives of black people. I understand that Lebron defends the rationality of choices of blacks for the sake of trying to help outsiders have a better grasp on how social position influences one’s decisions. However, if all blacks understood their situation as Lebron understands it, would it not perpetuate the cycle of disproportionate inequality without blacks feeling empowered to act upon their circumstances to escape this cycle? Instead perhaps there can be a middle ground approach, one that takes into account obstacles that a group faces due to the problem of social value but also empowers them with the agency to make different choices, that would result in more tangible changes in their lives and more success stories like Lebron’s.

Any other thoughts in this claim that Lebron makes? It seems like it is quite a bold statement that is worth unpacking and for further discussion. 

Aspiration in Lebron and Beitz

This topic is more specific to chapter 1, but I don't think we touched on it too much (though a little in Tyler's/Tim's blog posts), and I think it's also still relevant to chapter 2/the book in general. I wanted to compare the "aspirational" aspect of shame for Lebron and the "aspirational" nature of human rights for Beitz. Lebron describes shame as serving an aspirational purpose: "Because we think justice is something we can do rather than receive as a result of fortune, it also indicates our common aspiration to be better, more good, and more upstanding. To the extent that we can fall short of these ambitions on account of error or confusion, and to the extent that shame can be instrumental in setting us straight, we should conceive of shame as something more than a means of criticism or prompting feelings of failure or guilt. Shame on this view can support our best aspirations in a manner beyond helping make our vision for a better way clearer; indeed, it can help bring our deliberations and actions into coherence with our prior affirmed ideals" (25). Beitz includes the idea of aspiration when saying that human rights are a practice and not a regime. Beitz says that "the idea of a regime focuses attention on explicit rules and formal procedures for their application. To some extent these elements are present for human rights, but an exclusive focus on them would fail to embrace the ways in which human rights function as standards of aspiration--for example, as bases of political criticism, elements of a shared moral language, and ideals that guide efforts at political change by individuals and nongovernmental organizations. . . . [Human rights] operate as goals of political change for nongovernmental actors and as a global analog of the public conception of justice found in well-ordered domestic societies (44).

I think it's interesting to see Lebron's aspirational account of shame in comparison with Beitz's aspirational account of human rights. Lebron, I think, does a better job of explaining why "aspiration" really is the right word to attach to how shame affects us; because shame comes as a result of a gap between our ideals and our actions, in particular, the social value we place on black lives, there is a clear distinction between where we are and where we aspire to be. Since Beitz's account is so empirical, though, I don't think it makes as much sense to attach "aspirational" to his account of human rights. True, we all aspire to respect and protect human rights, but Beitz's account does not do a particularly in-depth job of exactly what we should be aspiring to. Keeping in mind the supposedly "aspirational" nature of Beitz's human rights while reading Lebron (both chapters 1 and 2) has helped me see why Lebron's account of shame actually is aspirational. It also, as has been mentioned by a lot of other people in blog posts/class, is nice to have an account that, in being aspirational, actually shows us one way that we might be able to achieve what we aspire to.