Is Charity a Defensible Strategy for Addressing Global Social Justice - Essay Example

?Is charity a defensible strategy in addressing global social (in)justice. Introduction The modern world is a turbulent place in which human beings struggle with environmental, sociological and financial forces to create societies in which they live out their lives as best they can. Great inequalities are observable between different people within each society, and between societies as a whole, and yet most people would agree that it is a good thing for governments, corporations, international agencies and individuals to strive towards social justice. When one comes to exactly defining what is meant by ‘social justice’ and deciding what means should be used to achieve the objective of greater social justice, however, it soon becomes apparent that there are many different perspectives on the subject and no clear consensus can be found. Even such self-evidently useful work such as emergency relief in disaster areas, and various kinds of humanitarian interventions in economically weaker areas by charity organisations, can be challenged on the grounds that these activities can have as many bad effects as good effects, and they very often it deal with short term crises and exacerbate longer term problems. This paper traces the history of social (in)justice as a concept and defines different approaches to it. There follows an exploration of the potential for applying some of these approaches and definitions in the context of contemporary globalisation. The role of charity is considered, examining the ways that charity interventions influence different societies economically, politically and socially. Finally the potential of charity as a strategy in addressing global social (in)justice is evaluated, concluding that charity can and does have a role to play in addressing social (in)justice but that there are a number of common pitfalls that must be avoided, notably imperialist tendencies inherited from the past. The history of social (in)justice as a concept. The concept of social justice goes at least as far back as ancient Greece and the writings of Aristotle, and from this early stage onwards it has been concerned with distributive justice. (Miller: 1999, p. 2) These same ideas were adopted by Christians in the early church and right through the Middle Ages, and there are similar ideas in Islam and other world religions. Following Miller’s line of argument it is important to note that the main point of this kind of justice, as opposed to criminal or retributive justice, is that it looks forward to what can and should be done in society, rather than looking back at what has been done and trying to make amends for conflicts, harms and problems that have arisen in the past. If social justice has a backward facing side to it, then it is only in so far as it looks at apparent social injustice and seeks ways of removing or lessening this in favour of social justice. When western civilisations began to adopt an industrialised and urban style of living, new kinds of problems began to beset society. Poverty, overcrowding and huge differences between the owners of lands and businesses and those who struggled to make a living in them made it very obvious that the people who were doing most of the work were not receiving most of the rewards. Because of the inherent power differential between people, there was a tendency for the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer. So it was that liberal businessmen began to set up housing, education, fair wages and other benefits for their workers. The idea was that providing basic commodities would free people up to take advantage of a wider range of opportunities in their lives. This paternalistic and utilitarian approach to social justice reigned throughout the Victorian period in Britain and great progress was made in setting down rules for the employment and remuneration of people. Thanks to this kind of intervention some of the worst and most exploitative of practices, including slavery and child labour were eventually abolished. In their place emerged compulsory schooling and legislation to guarantee workers’ rights. The philanthropists were no doubt acting out of mixed motives: they wanted to relieve suffering and improve the lives of people for humanitarian reasons, but at the same time they stood to gain from a healthier, more contented and therefore more productive workforce. Resources were thus redistributed from the wealthier echelons of society to the poorer ones, and these same wealthy leaders contributed to the improvement of all kinds of institutions and organisations who could carry on this task in an orderly and regulated fashion. New industries were set up, creating new commodities which were then sold to the population at large, often at increased prices. Jobs did not always emerge in the areas where people were concentrated, and there were always pressure points. Fluctuations in taste and new emerging demands, along with changes in prices and in the ability to supply goods meant that society was increasingly exposed to quite severe fluctuations. These on-going changes created injustices of all sorts, many of which were a direct result of new industrial systems which no-one could accurately predict or control. The major assumption was, however, that temporary injustices would be resolved in the long term operation of a flourishing market. This type of reasoning follows the ideas of Adam Smith, whose theories of a self- regulating market system depend on a pragmatic view of human motivations. As Skinner notes in his insightful introduction to Smith’s classic text Wealth of Nations: “It will be observed that departures from, and reattainment of, a position of general equilibrium depends upon the essentially self-interested actions and reactions of consumers and producers.” (Smith and Skinner: 1999, p. 53) Paradoxically, then, the free market economy appears to be based on the belief that individual selfish motivations will lead to an ultimately balanced and fair distribution of resources based on supply and demand. By the end of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century in Britain at least these paternalistic interventions were largely replaced by state organised institutions and the state took over the role of creating a safety net for the very poor and relieving suffering. This liberal approach in tandem with free trade ideology resulted finally in the welfare state. In other countries, such as Russia, for example, things took a different turn and the emergence of Marxist ideas of class struggle scorned the idea that charity should have any part in society. A system of class struggle and collectivism was the chosen avenue and this was intended as a way of preventing social injustice from occurring in the first place, since the whole system was geared up to providing what everyone needed in a fair and equitable way. A Marxist perspective sees revolution of the oppressed as the best and incidentally also quickest way to achieve social justice, because it cuts through unjust and corrupt ruling elites and redistributes wealth to the people at large. In theory both approaches are logical and well thought out, but in practice they have many weaknesses, largely due to the tendency of human beings to seek their own advantage above the common good. Power differences still remain in both of these models, and social injustice is not eradicated just because there are state systems in place which are intended to remove it or address it. Modern theorists identify a number of problems with a purely political or economic approach to the issue of social justice. Sen, for example, underlines the great variation that exists in human cultures, and points out that even if people were to each receive exactly the same amount of resources, this would not translate into social justice. There are other individual and cultural forces in operation which would influence the outcome, and some people will always be more capable of making good use of these resources than others: “In the capability-based assessment of justice, individuals are not to be assessed in terms of the resources or primary goods the persons respectively hold, but by the freedoms they actually enjoy to choose the lives that they have reason to value.” (Sen: 1995, p. 81) This insight complicates the issue considerably, since it is very difficult to measure a person’s freedom or capability, and the range of different choices that a person can make in structuring his or her life is huge. Not everyone values things at the same level, and not everyone aspires to the same goals in life, and some people are severely limited by physical, mental or other disadvantages which have nothing to do with the distribution of resources. If any authority or ideology defines too closely what a person should have and how that person should live, then this limits human freedom to choose. The ideal of social justice, then, is an impossible mirage – given all those variables there can never be an absolute and pure form of social justice, even in small contexts where there is a single dominant ideology, resources are available and responsible agencies make sure that they are distributed in a fair way. Sen sums this up as follows: “Equality of freedom to pursue our ends cannot be guaranteed by equality in the distribution of primary goods.” (Sen: 1995, p.87) Sen is careful to point out that different communities also set different standards and goals for their members, and that there are significant dangers in assuming that there is any uniformity across the world in what these standards and goals actually are. Given the diversity of cultures, religions, social systems and political systems there are bound to be great differences in the way that justice is perceived, and paths toward it are carved out in each society, and in each subgroup within societies. Social (in)justice in the age of globalisation. When one translates these deliberations into the modern world, there is a further complication in the sheer scale of human operations. Across the world variations on these liberal and Marxist ideologies prevail along with other models which are marked by local religious and cultural perspectives. The colonial age resulted in fundamental changes in the world order, and new hierarchies emerged which spanned the globe. Exploitation of resources in the Third World fuelled industrialisation in Europe and this trend set up a whole new dimension of economic and cultural injustice. Nowadays there is individual, community, state and global social justice to think about, and added to the difficulties in trying to establish social justice in just one of these areas, such as for individuals or for a community, is the difficulty of balancing conflicting ideas and realities of justice that emerge between these areas. Very often what is good for the individual is bad for the state, or what is good for the world at large is bad for one state in particular. Variations on all these differences fuel economic and military conflict across the globe. The world at the end of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty first century is characterised by a phenomenon that has been given the name globalisation. The term has been defined in many ways but in general it has to do with improvements in travel and communications which encourage all parts of the world to be more closely connected with each other than ever before. One widely accepted definition of globalisation is this: Globalization, or the increased interconnectedness and interdependence of peoples and countries, is generally understood to include two interrelated elements: the opening of borders to increasingly fast flows of goods, services, finance, people and ideas across international borders; and the changes in institutional and policy regimes at the international and national levels that facilitate or promote such flows. (World Health Organisation Website, 2011, no page number) A key feature of this definition is the word “interdependence” since this recalls the debate about liberalism and freedom of choice. Clearly a state of interdependence is more worrying for a person or a community or a state which is in a weak economic position than for one that is stable and strong. If a person or group cannot provide for their own needs and aspirations, then they are forced to be dependent on others, and unlike wealthier units, they suffer more extreme consequences when supplies are withdrawn or disrupted for any reason. A stronger unit is by definition less dependent in general, with more options for diversification in times of crisis, and therefore usually less dependent in any one specific relationship of interdependence. Speaking of the last decade of the twentieth century Jordan identifies a recent refocus of ideas in the field of social justice: “After a decade in which mass unemployment reappeared in First World countries, it is understandable that the labour market should come to be viewed as the key to social justice” (Jordan: 1998, p. 32) Those who take a primarily economic view of the world would argue therefore that unemployment is the biggest cause of social injustice because it traps people into the poverty and prevents them from achieving a stable existence. From this perspective, reform of the labour market, including mechanisms that provide and incentivise full employment are the best way to address social injustice. The role of globalisation in the promotion of social justice is much discussed, and there are predictably different views on the matter. Adherents of free market economy theories believe that the increase in the size of markets as a whole, and the creation of one big global market, creates an opportunity for the increase of wealth overall, and in the opportunities for individuals and states one by one as well. This is undoubtedly true, and the whole of capitalist ideology depends on notions of growth and expansion, which in turn allows investment and more growth and expansion. There is, however, a downside to these forces, however, and once again there are winners and losers in the equation. The market is an entity in which many participate but none can actually control. When markets go into freefall, as they do with depressing regularity, then there are always casualties who lose all that they have invested. This is true of coffee planters in Brazil who provide basic commodities for export, just as much as for big businesses who invest in the dot.com industry in the hope of quick profits. Some theorists argue that there are sufficient in-built controls in the free market system, whereby participants astutely judge their own risks and cycles of boom and bust create stability over the longer term, despite turbulence in the short term. In practice, however, individuals behave illogically and at times negligently or with criminal intent, all of which increases the risk to the overall systems. A partial solution to these problems is national and international regulatory frameworks which police human activities, but there are difficulties in guaranteeing their effectiveness, especially when there is no single authority with the power to enforce the rules. The occurrence of natural disasters and military conflicts adds additional stress factors and it is clear that global dependence on a free market system cannot guarantee any specific outcomes in terms of social justice. Critics of globalisation worry about forces which take control away from smaller units and place it in amorphous bodies which operate in complex and unfair ways. Friedrichs and Friedrichs identify four problematic dimensions of globalisation: 1. The growing global dominance and reach of neoliberalism and a free-markeet capitalist system that disproportionately benefits wealthy and powerful organizations and individuals 2. The increasing vulnerability of indigenous people with a traditional way of life to the forces of globalized capitalism 3. The growing influence and impact of international financial institutions (such as the World Bank) and the related relative decline of power of local or state-based institutions; and 4. The nondemocratic operation of international financial institutions taking the form of globalization from above instead of globalization from below. (Friedrichs and Friedrichs: 2002, pp. 15-16) Some would argue that the benefits of globalisation in terms of increased provision of jobs and services to the farthest corners of the globe outweigh these disadvantages. Stiglitz (2002: pp. 18-25) cites the growth of China and many former Soviet states as an example of the potential for improvements in social justice that globalisation brings. Globalisation, therefore, brings a mixture of both good and bad outcomes. It appears to be a phenomenon that is here to stay. It is hard to see any way to reverse this trend and go back to a world which is divided into separate nation states acting in relative isolation. Clearly other forces must be brought to bear within and alongside the forces of globalisation if social justice is to be achieved in the world as a whole and in separate communities and states. The role of charity and its economic, political and social effects on societies. Although it is clear that factors like power, work and capital, shifting and migrating in a huge international market are major features of a largely capitalist global economy there are many aspects of human society which do not fit neatly into this schema. One of the most obvious world-wide examples of social injustice is the way that so many men take up the paid working opportunities and so many women are left to cover the unpaid and lower status roles of caregivers to children, the sick and the elderly. Society would collapse into chaos immediately if only paid activity were carried out, and there is a sense in which activities which arise out of moral values such as kinship and altruism have a currency of their own, albeit a less formal one. The work of charities within countries and across national boundaries also falls into this category. Goods and services are transported from rich parts of society to poorer ones, or from rich and developed countries to less well developed ones and this occurs outside the normal rules of trade and market forces. On a global scale this shift of resources is a clear step towards addressing huge resource imbalances between the First World and the Third World, for example, and many would argue that for this reason alone organised international charity operations should be encouraged. Where the global markets fail to provide essential goods then charities are able to step in and fill the gap. In this sense they provide a useful role in creating a safety net to make up for the worst effects of fluctuations in the market. There some others who argue in contrast that the injection of resources, along with the many cultural and other strings that are often attached to this transfer, are harmful influences which enhance the freedom of those who provide the charity and at the same time remove the freedom of choice from those who receive the charity. A good example of this is the colonialist approaches used by many religious missionary work throughout Africa in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Staple commodities were used primarily to relieve poverty and suffering, but as a byproduct, they also acted a lever to encourage cultural and political change. Some would argue that the result was that the so-called “charity” was little more than a bribe to persuade people to accept the beliefs and values of what was ultimately a colonialist power. Although missionaries acted often without the overt support of their governments, in practice the interests of state and religion were very closely aligned. Cultural imperialism is the result, whether or not it is part of a wider political imperialism, and whether or not this was the primary aim of the intervention in the first place. Some see the current forces of globalisation as colonialism under a different name. Humanitarion, political or religion-based charities continue to undertake huge amounts of intervention in the world and the difficulties outlined above remain, despite efforts to channel resources into programmes that encourage sustainable development rather than abject dependence on charity. The response of charity workers in these fields is often to focus on the micro level, such as the individual or the small rural community, or a particularly disadvantaged segment of society such as street children, AIDS sufferers or oppressed women and to argue that at least they are making a huge contribution to the achievement of social justice at least for these affected individuals and communities. The larger effect on society as a whole is, in comparison to acute suffering of individuals, a lesser goal. In purely human terms these arguments are strong, and few theoreticians would be so dogmatic as to suggest that charity should stop because it provides only a piecemeal and partial answer. The point is that international charity makes a contribution, at a certain ideological cost, and that this contribution makes a difference on the ground. In the current globally interconnected system, multi-national organisations and authorities have been set up with the express aim of creating global strategies to address the most serious problems. Two of them, the World Health Organisation and the World Bank now play a significant role in guiding and monitoring the way that charity is applied. The idea of these organisations is to eliminate the bad consequences of intervention, and enhance the good. By acting as an intermediary, they also help to dilute the power that one state exerts over another through the means of charity work. The objectives of charity work are often subverted by factors like corrupt regimes and local cultural beliefs which divert resources to elite or even military uses instead of the intended humanitarian applications. Possible responses to this kind of problem is to make charity conditional upon some surveillance and control system from outside the local area. There are also inherent contradictions in the provision of resources from a rich area to a poorer area, and these are much harder to resolve. It can be argued that the injection of food aid, for example, can stave off an epidemic of hunger in one summer, but at the same time send all of the local food production systems into meltdown, this creating a vicious cycle of dependence on outside aid for many generations. Once again it appears that tackling just one dimension of social justice (the elimination of hunger) can create major strategic difficulties in another (the provision of stable long term food and jobs). Conclusion: potential and limitations of charity as a strategy for addressing global (injustice) We have seen how the interplay of global markets and non-governmental agencies in the world creates a mix of good and bad outcomes in terms of social justice. Because of imperfect human behaviour, there will always be a shortfall in attempts to create a base level of social justice in the first place, and prevent the emergence of injustice through ill-advised interventions. The reality appears to be that mixed motives on the part of charities and a focus on providing commodities are tendencies which fail to address issues of choice, capability and self-determination. These failures are, however, inevitable and they must be balanced against the undeniably positive effects that arise from charity work. If charity is to focus on strategic input rather than just temporary relief of suffering, then it must work together with local states and with global markets to make holistic interventions. One major error in the past is the assumption that western concepts such as democratic government, liberal economics and rampant materialism are universally applicable. Clearly they are not, and the contrasting wishes of non-western capitalist societies need to be respected, even if they are small and regarded as economically or politically insignificant by the developed world. The global economy has no conscience, and faith in its ability to create balance and fairness appears to be misplaced. The role of charities is then that of mitigating the worst excesses of global capitalism and working alongside market forces to contribute to both short and longer term social justice in terms that are defined locally and not globally. Care must be taken to listen to local views and avoid the promotion of western capitalist ideology where it is neither wanted nor needed. References Dehasa, G. de la (2006) Winners and Losers in Globalization. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Friedrichs, D. O. and Friedrichs, J. (2000) “The World Bank and Crimes of Globalization: A Case Study.” Social Justice (29) pp. 13-36. Goldman, M. 2006. Imperial nature: The World Bank and Struggles for Social Justice in the Age of Globalization. New York: Yale University Press. Jordan, B. 1998. The New Politics of Welfare: Social Justice in a Global Context. London and New York: Sage. Miller, D. 1999. Principles of Social Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Salamon, L. M., and Anheiher, H.K. (eds) 1997. Defining the Nonprofit Sector: A cross-national Analysis. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Smith, A. and Skinner A. 1999 [First published in 1776] Wealth of Nations.: Books I-III. London: Penguin. Sen, A. 1995. Inequality Reexamined. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Stiglitz, J. E. (2002) Globalization and Its Discontents. New York: Norton. World Health Organisation Glossary “Globalization”. Available online at: http://www.who.int/trade/glossary/story043/en/index.html Read More