Democratic Responsibility , livre ebook

University of Notre Dame Press - Nora Hanagan

Découvre YouScribe en t'inscrivant gratuitement

Je m'inscris

Obtenez un accès à la bibliothèque pour le consulter en ligne
En savoir plus

139 pages

English

Vous pourrez modifier la taille du texte de cet ouvrage

Obtenez un accès à la bibliothèque pour le consulter en ligne
En savoir plus

A propos
Informations
Extrait

Description

American society is often described as one that celebrates self-reliance and personal responsibility. However, abolitionists, progressive reformers, civil rights activists, and numerous others often held their fellow citizens responsible for shared problems such as economic exploitation and white supremacy. Moreover, they viewed recognizing and responding to shared problems as essential to achieving democratic ideals. In Democratic Responsibility, Nora Hanagan examines American thinkers and activists who offered an alternative to individualistic conceptions of responsibility and puts them in dialogue with contemporary philosophers who write about shared responsibility. Drawing on the political theory and practice of Henry David Thoreau, Jane Addams, Martin Luther King Jr., and Audre Lorde, Hanagan develops a distinctly democratic approach to shared responsibility. Cooperative democracy is especially relevant in an age of globalization and hyperconnectivity, where societies are continually threatened with harms—such as climate change, global sweatshop labor, and structural racism—that result from the combined interactions of multiple individuals and institutions, and which therefore cannot be resolved without collective action. Democratic Responsibility offers insight into how political actors might confront seemingly intractable problems, and challenges conventional understandings of what commitment to democratic ideals entails. This book will be of interest to scholars and students of political science, especially those who look to the history of political thought for resources that might promote social justice in the present.

In 2008, the editorial board of The Economist described the series of events leading to government bailouts of major American financial institutions as “genuinely democratic” in nature. By using the term “democratic,” the editorial board sought to convey that the financial meltdown that almost brought the American economy to its knees was not caused entirely by the actions of a few “villainous” elites. Rather, the crisis resulted from a series of poor decisions made by numerous individuals, including “hundreds of thousands of homeowners who bit off a little more mortgage than they could chew.” In concluding that the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression was caused by the combined interactions of multiple individuals and institutions, The Economist’s editorial board was surely correct. At the same time, this conclusion does not offer a great deal of moral clarity. Efforts to hold agents accountable for events like the Great Recession are subject to what Dennis Thompson has called “the problem of many hands.” When everybody is responsible for an outcome, it often seems as though nobody is truly accountable. If all Americans are responsible for the Great Recession, then there is no reason for anybody to feel particularly ashamed of their behavior, or to put an end to practices such as predatory lending, which contributed to the financial crisis, and continue to bury people who take out loans to buy cars or attend school in mountains of debt. There is also no reason why anybody should feel especially compelled to address the long-term consequences. Some of the workers who lost their jobs during the economic crisis have been out of a job for so long that they no longer seem attractive to employers, and many people who lost their homes are now struggling to pay soaring rents. Who exactly is responsible for addressing these problems?
Holding all participants accountable for harms caused by processes in which they participate also risks obscuring different degrees of culpability. Numerous actors participated in the chain of events that triggered the financial crisis—including borrowers who defaulted on their mortgages, bankers who made risky loans that they subsequently sold to unsuspecting investors, financial agents who lied about borrowers’ qualifications on loan applications, regulators who failed to supervise dicey financial transactions, political leaders who deregulated the banking industry, and voters who put them into office or supported them. Describing the subprime mortgage crisis as a shared responsibility ignores the reality that some of these actions were more blameworthy than others, as well as the fact that some people suffered more than others. Though The Economist is correct that both homeowners and bankers share responsibility for the subprime mortgage crises, this fact frequently functions to obscure the extent to which the former have suffered far more in the long run than the latter. It likewise obscures the reality that African Americans and people with less education have suffered disproportionately from long-term unemployment in the wake of the financial crises. Moreover, not all of the behaviors that contributed to the crisis were blameworthy. People who lied on mortgage applications or who knowingly rated residential mortgage-backed securities filled with risky loans as safe investments are surely deserving of blame. At the same time, expecting homeowners to understand the risks of adjustable rate mortgages is unrealistic given that many of the people selling the mortgages failed to understand the risks. In a nation that exalts homeownership and directly incentivizes it, it is difficult to be too hard on individuals for striving to achieve one of the most important components of the “American dream” and for assuming that the banks’ approval of their mortgage applications meant that they would be able to meet their financial commitments. When discussing problems such as the financial crisis that are the result of many hands, it may be tempting to abandon the concept of responsibility altogether. This temptation should be resisted. To be sure, there is little point in trying to identify and either punish or shame all of the people whose poor decisions contributed to the financial crisis. While criminal or particularly reckless behavior is certainly deserving of punishment, assessing the extent to which millions of mortgage brokers, homeowners, developers, lenders, and investment bankers behaved in a blameworthy manner and determining an appropriate punishment would be a massive and futile undertaking. Going forward, however, a much greater sense of responsibility on the part of citizens is needed to address the lingering effects of the Great Recession, and to ensure that dodgy behaviors do not once again bring the economy to the brink of collapse. From structural racism to climate change to declining opportunities for social mobility, many of the most pressing challenges facing twenty-first century societies are caused by the combined interactions of many individuals. It’s hard to imagine how these problems will be addressed without a much greater sense of responsibility on the part of citizens. Furthermore, in the absence of a sense of shared responsibility, it is all too easy to hold victims of unjust processes accountable for their own misfortunes. Those who view food stamp recipients as idle free riders often fail to recognize that their own actions sustain an economic system that does not provide employment, let alone a living wage, to everybody who is willing to work. When it comes to outcomes that result from many hands, responsibility is a concept that is difficult to apply but impossible to live without. The existence of problems that are caused by the combined interactions of multiple individuals and institutions is not, however, exclusive to an age of globalization and hyperconnectivity. Indeed, American reformers and activists like Henry David Thoreau, Jane Addams, Martin Luther King Jr., and Audre Lorde have long held their fellow citizens accountable for harms caused by many hands, including chattel slavery, sweatshop labor, and white supremacy. Like the Wall Street Journal editorial board, these reformers regarded many hands problems as democratic in the sense that they are not perpetuated entirely by elites. They also, however, encourage us to consider other connections between democracy and many hands problems. First, they demonstrate that we cannot live up to our democratic ideals, unless we take some responsibility for harms in which we are embedded. Second, they suggest that democratic ideals require us to resolve many hands problems in a particular manner; democrats cannot sanction solutions devised entirely by elites. Finally, these reformers call attention to ways in which democracy intensifies many hands problems. Democratic institutions dramatically increase the number of people who are implicated in political decisions. Meanwhile, faith in majority opinion and affection for majoritarian institutions can make it difficult for democratic citizens to recognize the extent to which they are implicated in harm. The fact that democrats cannot sanction paternalistic endeavors in which elites solve problems on others’ behalf also complicates efforts to address many hands problems. It is unfair to expect innocent victims of unjust processes—such as the construction worker who lost her job during the financial crisis, or the residents of impoverished island nations whose survival is threatened by global warming—to take responsibility for problems that they did not cause. And yet, adult victims of injustice must take responsibility for reforming the processes that harmed them in order to avoid paternalistic outcomes that are inconsistent with democratic ideals. (excerpted from Introduction)

Introduction: The Problem of Many Hands in American Life 1. Resisting the Machine: Thoreau on Responsibility and Individual Autonomy 2. Democratizing Responsibility: Jane Addams’s Social Ethics 3. Preferring Justice to Order: Martin Luther King on Responsibility, Extremism and Democratic Politics 4. Transforming Silence: Audre Lorde on Responsibility, Self-Expression and Bearing Witness to One Another 5. Democratic Responsibility in the Twenty-First Century

Bibliography

Sujets

Philosophie

Philosophie politique

Political Ideologies

Political

POLITICAL SCIENCE

PHILOSOPHY

Philosophie et théologie

Politics

Democracy

Informations

Publié par	University of Notre Dame Press
Date de parution	31 août 2019
Nombre de lectures	1
EAN13	9780268106072
Langue	English

Informations légales : prix de location à la page 0,2500€. Cette information est donnée uniquement à titre indicatif conformément à la législation en vigueur.

Extrait

Democratic Responsibility
NORA HANAGAN
Democratic Responsibility
THE POLITICS OF MANY HANDS IN AMERICA
University of Notre Dame Press Notre Dame, Indiana
Copyright © 2019 by the University of Notre Dame
Notre Dame, Indiana 46556
undpress.nd.edu
All Rights Reserved
Published in the United States of America
Library of Congress Control Number: 2019021663
ISBN: 978-0-268-10605-8 (hardback)
ISBN: 978-0-268-10608-9 (WebPDF)
ISBN: 978-0-268-10607-2 (Epub)
∞ This book is printed on acid-free paper .
This e-Book was converted from the original source file by a third-party vendor. Readers who notice any formatting, textual, or readability issues are encouraged to contact the publisher at ebooks@nd.edu
To my family
CONTENTS
Preface
Introduction
ONE Resisting the Machine: Henry David Thoreau on Responsibility and Individual Autonomy
TWO Sharing Responsibility: Jane Addams’s Social Ethics
THREE Choosing Justice over Order: Martin Luther King Jr. on Responsibility, Extremism, and Democratic Politics
FOUR Transforming Silence: Audre Lorde on Responsibility, Self-Expression, and Bearing Witness to One Another
FIVE Democratic Responsibility in the Twenty-First Century
Notes
Bibliography
Index
PREFACE
I first became interested in responsibility for many hands problems as an undergraduate at Wesleyan University, as I struggled to understand my own complicity in a misguided war started by a leader for whom I (and a majority of my fellow citizens) did not vote. During my years at Wesleyan, Arash Abizadeh, Donald Moon, and Nancy Schwartz not only inspired my growing interest in political theory but also taught me that political theory can be an important resource for thinking about contemporary political ills. David Morgan taught me to sympathetically interpret the behavior of historical actors and also encouraged me to see economic and political outcomes as the result of both individual behaviors and larger structural processes.
As a graduate student, I found Duke University’s Department of Political Science to be a stimulating and supportive intellectual community. I am grateful to my teachers—Rom Coles, Peter Euben, Michael Gillespie, Ruth Grant, Malachi Hacohen, and Tom Spragens—for exposing me to such a wide range of methodologies and perspectives on democracy. During my time at Duke, I was inspired and challenged by my fellow graduate students: Ali Aslam, Nazli Avdan, Winter Brown, Harriet Baker, James Bourke, Keegan Callahan, Dominique D é ry, Amber D í az Pearson, Stefan Dolgert, Bill English, Laura Grattan, Ben Hertzberg, Alisa Kessel, David McIvor, David Gonzalez Rice, Joel Schlosser, and Nick Troester. Special thanks go to Laura for her professional advice, and to James, David Rice, Joel, and Nick for commenting on very rough drafts. A fellowship from the American Association for University Women funded me during my final year of dissertation writing.
I have benefited immensely from the support of my dissertation committee, which oversaw the project that eventually became this book. From the beginning, Ruth Grant, Michael Gillespie, Mike Lienesch, and Tom Spragens encouraged my unconventional idea of using American thinkers—many of whom are not part of the traditional canon—to explore contemporary philosophical debates about responsibility. Each member of my committee went well above the call of duty. The chapter on Jane Addams was inspired by a conversation I had with Ruth during the very early stages of the project. I have learned a great deal from Michael Gillespie’s Academic Writing Working Group. Michael’s advice about writing—in particular his advice about how to craft a clear and engaging introduction—is always at the back of my mind when I write. His feedback also helped me weave together various threads in early versions of these chapters. Mike Lienesch was crucial in helping me transform this project from a dissertation into a book; he not only gave me the confidence to envision its eventual publication but also read and commented on multiple versions of every chapter. I am also grateful to Mike for pointing me toward Martin Luther King Jr.’s early sermons on responsibility, and for more generally sharing his exhaustive knowledge of American political theory and history with me.
Tom was an exemplary dissertation advisor. In his relationship with me, he embodied his own commitment to autonomy, insisting that my dissertation and subsequent writing reflect my own beliefs. Moreover, while Tom’s commitment to autonomy meant that he never sought to impose his own ideas on my writings, the entire argument of this book rests on his claim that democracy is rooted in multiple, sometimes competing, ideals.
I began revising my dissertation for publication while serving as a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Wisconsin–Madison’s American Democracy Forum. I am grateful to Rick Avramenko, Dan Kapust, and Jimmy Casas Klausen for advice on everything from finding an apartment to communicating with journal editors. John Zumbrunnen was an excellent mentor, who commented on several drafts of the chapter on Jane Addams. I am also grateful to the Jack Miller Center for funding my fellowship.
I finished this book while working at Duke as a visiting assistant professor and program administrator for the American Values and Institutions Program, with financial support from the Thomas W. Smith Foundation. Michael Gillespie—the director of the American Values and Institutions program—continues to be an excellent mentor. My colleagues, Nolan Bennett and Matt Whitt, offered perceptive comments on multiple versions of this manuscript and probed me to think more clearly about both responsibility and democracy. I have had the privilege to get to know a new generation of Duke graduate students, each of whom has offered useful feedback: Samuel Bagg, Eric Cheng, Chris Kennedy, Antong Liu, Alexandra Oprea, Aaron Roberts, Brian Spisiak, and Isak Tranvik. My undergraduate research assistants, Kari Barclay and Bre Bradham, were also invaluable.
Molly Lyndon Shanley deserves particular thanks for her encouragement and feedback over the years; I particularly appreciate her detailed comments on the penultimate version of the manuscript. Hollie Mann, James Patterson, Justin Rose, Peter Stillman, Jack Turner, and Joel Winkelman also offered valuable feedback at various stages of the writing process.
I have benefited from comments and questions from audiences at the following places: the American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, the Association for Political Theory Annual Meeting, the Kenan Institute for Ethics Monday Seminar Series, the Midwest Political Science Associate Annual Meeting, the University of Wisconsin American Democracy Forum Conference on Popular Sovereignty, and the Western Political Science Association Annual Meeting.
My editor, Steve Wrinn, was a pleasure to work with. Robyn Kar kiewicz and Matthew Dowd did an excellent job overseeing the revision and production process. Additionally, I am delighted that my reviewers—Bob Pepperman Taylor and Lida Maxwell—made themselves known to me so that I can give them the credit they deserve for their thoughtful and helpful comments.
I am grateful to Alden Ferro, Katie Lehman, and Kat Selzter for copyediting assistance and to Ryan Denniston for tracking down primary sources.
Parts of this book draw on a previously published article, “Democratizing Responsibility: Jane Addams’s Pragmatist Ethics,” Polity 45 , no. 3 (2013): 347–71. My thanks go to the publisher for permission to reuse this material.
Thanks also to Courtney Brown, Russ Damian, Josh Kaye, Heather Mayer, and Stephanie Schaffer for providing both emotional support and welcome distractions. Over the course of the past few years, my colleagues in the Duke Faculty Union have helped me put some of the ideals articulated into practice, and I am profoundly grateful to them.
My parents, Miriam Cohen and Michael Hanagan, have been a constant source of encouragement and inspiration. They not only fostered my own sense of responsibility for processes that are a source of suffering but also provided examples of teacher-scholars who are passionate about social justice. I am grateful to my mom for sharing her knowledge of the Progressive Era, and to my dad for encouraging me to read the American pragmatists. My dad passed away while I was finishing the project, but his commitment to democracy lives on in these pages. I am also thankful for the support of my sister Julia Hanagan, who responds to many hands problems every day in her work as an attorney. My brother-in-law, Nate Verbiscar Brown, is a welcome addition to the family, as is my nephew, Emmet Michael Hanagan- Brown.
This book would not have been possible without the love and support of my wife, Melanie Priestman, who taught me the benefits of hiking as a cure for writer’s block and never seemed to doubt that this project—which I have been working on the entire time we have been together—would eventually be finished. Our daughters—Eve and Leah—did not necessarily make it easier to finish the book, but they have made the process even more joyful.
INTRODUCTION
The Problem of Many Hands in American Life
In 2008 the editorial board of the Economist described the series of events leading to government bailouts of major American financial institutions as “genuinely democratic” in nature. 1 By using the term democratic, the editorial board sought to convey that the financial meltdown that almost brought the American economy to its knees was not caused entirely by the actions of a few “villainous” elites. Rather, the crisis resulted from a series of poor decisions made by numerous individuals, including “hundreds of thousands of homeowners who bit off a little more mortgage than they could chew.” 2
In concluding that the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression was caused by the combined interactions of multiple individuals