Thursday, January 05, 2006
Anne Phillips, Which Equalities Matter? CHAPTER 1 Reading notes and discussion questions
In this chapter, Anne Phillips introduces the problem she's seeking to address in the rest of the book. The first thing she notes is that there seems to be some link to Democracy and equality.
--What is that link?
--Are there other reasons we might value democracy? Does it make senses to say you value democracy if you don't care about equality at all?
Speaking from a British, late-90's perspective (remember, the Labour party--the left of center party in the UK which had been openly socialist in it's official stances until now. Tony Blair removed the most explicit socialist goals from the party platform and, as Phillips noted, pursued a series of constitutional reforms (reforming the House of Lords, more local autonomy for Wales and Scotland) that had little to do with economic equality.
--What does Phillips think of this development? What are the positives and negatives?
Phillips suggests in the last part of this chapter that perhaps we need to start thinking again about the ways in which economic inequality and political inequality might be related.
--Before reading too much further into Phillips book, think about this for a moment. What are some concrete ways they might be related? Does Krugman's essay help us think about these?
--Does Phillips suggest some other ways?
--On pg. 15-16, Phillips suggests we think about political equality in a "deeper" way than we are in the habit of doing. What is this deeper sense of political equality of which she speaks? Do you agree?
--What is the "structural privileging of corporate power" (pp.17-18) according to Phillips? What might provide balance for this?
Use this comment section to discuss this and other issues that might come up in regard to chapter 1 of Phillips' book. I'll post a similar guide for chapter 2 tomorrow sometime.
--What is that link?
--Are there other reasons we might value democracy? Does it make senses to say you value democracy if you don't care about equality at all?
Speaking from a British, late-90's perspective (remember, the Labour party--the left of center party in the UK which had been openly socialist in it's official stances until now. Tony Blair removed the most explicit socialist goals from the party platform and, as Phillips noted, pursued a series of constitutional reforms (reforming the House of Lords, more local autonomy for Wales and Scotland) that had little to do with economic equality.
--What does Phillips think of this development? What are the positives and negatives?
Phillips suggests in the last part of this chapter that perhaps we need to start thinking again about the ways in which economic inequality and political inequality might be related.
--Before reading too much further into Phillips book, think about this for a moment. What are some concrete ways they might be related? Does Krugman's essay help us think about these?
--Does Phillips suggest some other ways?
--On pg. 15-16, Phillips suggests we think about political equality in a "deeper" way than we are in the habit of doing. What is this deeper sense of political equality of which she speaks? Do you agree?
--What is the "structural privileging of corporate power" (pp.17-18) according to Phillips? What might provide balance for this?
Use this comment section to discuss this and other issues that might come up in regard to chapter 1 of Phillips' book. I'll post a similar guide for chapter 2 tomorrow sometime.
# posted by djw @ 5:01 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
At the core of this book is Phillips position regarding the connection between Democracy and inequality. She asserts that the inherent nature of democracy itself, which is based on its "preoccupation with equility in the context of difference," is what creates the differences in the first place.
She notes, "It is the relatiohsip between political and economic equality that is at the core of this book: political equiality understood not only as the equal right to particpate in politics but as that deeper notion of equial intrinsic worth; economic equality understood as equlity in income, wealth, and life-chances, and including access to socially provided resources such as education or health."
In my opinion, one of the most important key principales in this statement is life-chances. The founding principal of democracy (constitution)is based on the opportunity to have a chance.
Structural privileging of corporate power allows those that have capital accumulation to be more influencial with in the societal structure. In simple terms, they've got the juice to look out for the interests and well being of themselves and their friends in the private sector.
Phillips suggests that the solution to this is the requirement of a new relationship betwen majority and minority cultures, and a new settelment between men and women.
She notes, "It is the relatiohsip between political and economic equality that is at the core of this book: political equiality understood not only as the equal right to particpate in politics but as that deeper notion of equial intrinsic worth; economic equality understood as equlity in income, wealth, and life-chances, and including access to socially provided resources such as education or health."
In my opinion, one of the most important key principales in this statement is life-chances. The founding principal of democracy (constitution)is based on the opportunity to have a chance.
Structural privileging of corporate power allows those that have capital accumulation to be more influencial with in the societal structure. In simple terms, they've got the juice to look out for the interests and well being of themselves and their friends in the private sector.
Phillips suggests that the solution to this is the requirement of a new relationship betwen majority and minority cultures, and a new settelment between men and women.
# posted by 
: 1:06 PM
: 1:06 PM
Macolm said "In my opinion, one of the most important key principales in this statement is life-chances."
I think you might be a fan of the philosophical conception of equality developed by economist Armayta Sen and philosopher Martha Nussbaum, which they call the "capabilities" approach. This goes a bit beyond 'chances' to the idea that capabilities--skills that require development, and access to the ability to develop them--are what really ought to be the focus of equality. This approach will get some breif discussion in ch. 3 of Phillips book, and I'll probably talk about it a bit more myself at some point.
(sorry about the lack of a chapter 2 post, It'll be up shortly)
I think you might be a fan of the philosophical conception of equality developed by economist Armayta Sen and philosopher Martha Nussbaum, which they call the "capabilities" approach. This goes a bit beyond 'chances' to the idea that capabilities--skills that require development, and access to the ability to develop them--are what really ought to be the focus of equality. This approach will get some breif discussion in ch. 3 of Phillips book, and I'll probably talk about it a bit more myself at some point.
(sorry about the lack of a chapter 2 post, It'll be up shortly)
Phillips calls for a "deeper" way of considering political equality not in the traditional sense that every person is equal in politics but that every person should be viewed as such: a person, just like everyone else. I think it's a more "emotional" way of viewing human equality instead of the cold logic of "one person, one vote."
I find the reference to Robert Dahl's definition of political equality to be moot: "[political equality is] a roughly equal qualification for government." Saying this suggests that all people posess the same skill set and knowledge base required to participate in government, or at least access to lessons on how to participate in politics. It is arguable that not everyone in the US has access to the same quality of education, let alone the proper education to give them the skills to actively participate in government. Sure, anyone can run for a political position with enough endorsements, but winning an election requires a credibility that can only be established by a previous reputation or proof of the skills required to perform as expected in that position. So there is even inequality in this philosophy of political equality.
"Structural privileging of corporate power" is simply a way for the leaders of a democracy to ensure they will receive pay for their work, although it can easily be exploited. A democracy will give special priviledge to the private sector so that they can be successful in their dealings. This comes full-circle when the private sector must pay their taxes to the government, the very group that gave them special privileges to begin with. This allows for a host of economic inequalities to arise. A way of trying to balance this scale could be the participation of members from all economic levels of society to create and pass initiatives preventing these special interest policies do not come to pass. (Would this suggestion be considered utopian?)
This chapter reminded me of the age-old question: How can you have individuality without inequality? Phillips calls on a segment of Marx's essay "On the Jewish Question" suggesting that in order to have political freedom from inequality, you must have freedom from the state. This requires erasing personal qualities that lead to inequality in society (birth, rank, education, occupation, religion, etc). In doing this, one would be essentially destroying most of their unique, identifying qualities. This is quite a paradox for a society that proclaims diversity in a melting pot of cultures and ideas but calls for unity at the same time. Are we as a society willing to give up personal identity or the chance for equality? I'm hard-pressed to find a solution where we can have both.
I find the reference to Robert Dahl's definition of political equality to be moot: "[political equality is] a roughly equal qualification for government." Saying this suggests that all people posess the same skill set and knowledge base required to participate in government, or at least access to lessons on how to participate in politics. It is arguable that not everyone in the US has access to the same quality of education, let alone the proper education to give them the skills to actively participate in government. Sure, anyone can run for a political position with enough endorsements, but winning an election requires a credibility that can only be established by a previous reputation or proof of the skills required to perform as expected in that position. So there is even inequality in this philosophy of political equality.
"Structural privileging of corporate power" is simply a way for the leaders of a democracy to ensure they will receive pay for their work, although it can easily be exploited. A democracy will give special priviledge to the private sector so that they can be successful in their dealings. This comes full-circle when the private sector must pay their taxes to the government, the very group that gave them special privileges to begin with. This allows for a host of economic inequalities to arise. A way of trying to balance this scale could be the participation of members from all economic levels of society to create and pass initiatives preventing these special interest policies do not come to pass. (Would this suggestion be considered utopian?)
This chapter reminded me of the age-old question: How can you have individuality without inequality? Phillips calls on a segment of Marx's essay "On the Jewish Question" suggesting that in order to have political freedom from inequality, you must have freedom from the state. This requires erasing personal qualities that lead to inequality in society (birth, rank, education, occupation, religion, etc). In doing this, one would be essentially destroying most of their unique, identifying qualities. This is quite a paradox for a society that proclaims diversity in a melting pot of cultures and ideas but calls for unity at the same time. Are we as a society willing to give up personal identity or the chance for equality? I'm hard-pressed to find a solution where we can have both.
Phillips tells us we must address political and economic inequality together. She feels capitalism perpetuates inequality. Due to the focus on profit making, there cannot be enough redistribution, and holding capital over labour forces results in unequal power. Life-chances, wealth, and income need to be distributed more fairly.
Phillips explains about the unbalanced power of "corporate priviliges" due to the governments dependance on capital gain for income, growth, and jobs. They must make sure that their economic policies do not undermine the lucrative advancement of the private sector. So, corporate business is largely under their protection making everything politically biased.
Aside from this problem, Phillips wants to focus on making citizens political equals through changing the relationships of majority and minority cultures, women and men, and reducing some income differences with improvement of labour divisions.
Krugman makes this link explaing that the rich are gaining political influence over everyone. The Elite use their money to influence policies in their favor, such as, the Estate Tax, and other recent tax cuts which are easy on the wealthy. The worsening problem makes public services scarce and public education desparate for funds. Eventually, the average citizen may give up because his political power holds no influence. Ann Peltier.
Phillips explains about the unbalanced power of "corporate priviliges" due to the governments dependance on capital gain for income, growth, and jobs. They must make sure that their economic policies do not undermine the lucrative advancement of the private sector. So, corporate business is largely under their protection making everything politically biased.
Aside from this problem, Phillips wants to focus on making citizens political equals through changing the relationships of majority and minority cultures, women and men, and reducing some income differences with improvement of labour divisions.
Krugman makes this link explaing that the rich are gaining political influence over everyone. The Elite use their money to influence policies in their favor, such as, the Estate Tax, and other recent tax cuts which are easy on the wealthy. The worsening problem makes public services scarce and public education desparate for funds. Eventually, the average citizen may give up because his political power holds no influence. Ann Peltier.
# posted by : 7:06 AM
: 7:06 AM
Anne Phillips brings to light the link between democracy and equality by analyzing the implications and deep-seeded assertions put forth by both ideologies. In chapter one, Phillips quotes early philosophical radical Jeremy Bentham as explaining democracy as “each should count for one and none for more than one”. Democracy, in ideal, promises political equality and popular power. Phillips is quick to note that either have been the case, and that some aspects of equality have dropped out of fashion. Although democracy is supposed to “erode assumptions of natural superiority”, people to this day continue to promote institutions premised on social inequality. This chapter notes importantly that while people promote “civic republicanism”, they usually do so in ways that “pretend the inequality away”.
-Rick Ruth
Post a Comment
-Rick Ruth
<< Home
