Shelby’s Focus on Institutions and Consciousness-Raising

While I find Shelby’s framework compelling, I’m a bit confused on the practicality of its implementation. My personal take on the idea of transferring resources to disadvantaged communities through institutions is that it assumes a level of political will and societal consensus that I find to be unrealistic currently. Additionally, without the interpersonal connections and shared experiences that integration can foster, it would be difficult (if not impossible) to generate the broad-based support necessary for such resource transfers. Generally speaking, I find that his framework's lean towards Marxist materialism would be self-defeating in this way. In the same way, I feel the reforms he calls for in our prisons as similarly difficult to put in place.

Going along with this idea, Shelby’s rejection of forced integration as a duty of justice feels almost like a paradox. On one hand, he insists that Black communities shouldn’t bear the sacrificial burden of integration, and that forced integration is not a duty of justice for Blacks as "no plausible interpretation of the duty of justice requires such self-sacrifice and heroism on the part of the oppressed" (74). But then he implicitly gestures toward consciousness-raising as a catalyst for voluntary integration, where whites, once committed to justice, might inspire reciprocal openness ("...once it [is] clear that whites [seek] to live in a just society even if this would mean losing some of their existing advantages, I suspect that a great number of blacks would, in the spirit of reciprocity, seek out opportunities for greater interracial interaction"). To me, this raises a TON of questions: 

1. Consciousness-raising—how possible is it without significant (forced) integration? Can prison reform and transferring resources be achieved without it?
    a. How can we reach a stage where voluntary integration is encouraged without a stage of forced integration?
    b. If consciousness-raising isn’t considered to be a civic duty, could it be a duty of justice (DG 58)? If it is, how can conflicting duties of justice (rejection of forced integration and consciousness-raising) exist? 2. Engaging with concepts within standpoint epistemology, if we need consciousness-raising, how can we not expect the responsibility (or at least significant responsibility) to fall on Blacks to educate whites / the government? If it isn’t up to black people to teach us, how can we practically make consciousness-raising happen? 
3. Would initiatives like forced educational integration face the same challenges that forced residential integration does?

Side Question: Drawing on the exchange between me and Aria, can rehabilitation programs be effective without consciousness-raising as a foundation?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Updated Syllabus

                                                                         SYLLABUS                         Courses: PPE Philosophy Seminar and Philosophy Tutorial Seminar Time: Thursday (and sometimes on Tuesday) 1:15-4:00 Seminar Place: Kravis 168 (when not online or outside) Tutorial Time: Designated Tuesdays, by appointment Professor: Paul Hurley Contact Info: paul.hurley@cmc.edu Office Hours: W 2:00-4:00, F 12:30-2:30 (with occasional rescheduling to accommodate faculty meetings)   INTRODUCTION This is t...
Read more

securing legitimate expectations - rawls (ft chamallas)

To what extent should legal precedent, founded on increasingly unpalatable institutional values, be upheld for the sake of formal justice? Rawls posits that justice must be grounded in the protection of legitimate expectations, particularly in a system where individuals have good reason to rely on established rules. Formal justice, according to Rawls, is the “impartial and consistent administration of laws and institutions, whatever their substantive principles” (51). This is a powerful argument for stability and predictability in legal systems, where individuals can align their actions with the expectations of the law, knowing that even if they will be treated unjustly (as formal justice does not preclude unjust laws), they will be treated consistently . Individuals will at least “know what is demanded" so that they can "try to protect themselves accordingly; whereas there is even greater injustice if those already disadvantaged are also arbitrarily treated in particular cas...
Read more

Anderson, Brettschneider, and Shiffrin: What a Trio.

​​Sorry if I jump in between ideas a bit too quickly. Just trying to get it all figured out in my head! Shiffrin x Brettschneider: Shiffrin states early on that constitutional content does not track justiciability (993). But if constitutional content does not track justiciability (aka certain constitutional violations like government officials lying / violating the First Amendment are acknowledged to exist but are nevertheless nonjusticiable), I'm still left confused on what the normative OR institutional point of having a Supreme Court is? Isn’t the foundational idea of judicial review that the Court exists precisely to interpret and enforce constitutional limits, particularly against executive or legislative overreach? If constitutional provisions or principles are beyond the Court’s reach and enforcement lies elsewhere, where lies its core role? Shiffrin seems to suggest that the Supreme Court still has a role in clarifying and promoting constitutional ideals even when it can’t ...
Read more