Tutu - Wendt and Táíwò

By

Wendt and Táíwò

The concluding sentence of chapter two of Reconsidering Reparations reminded me of a previous Gov70 reading. Táíwò, on page 67, writes, “If slavery and colonialism built the world and its current basic scheme of social injustice, the proper task of social justice is no smaller: it is, quite literally, to remake the world.” I agree with Táíwò that we would need to undertake a “remaking,” but I think there is perhaps one critical aspect of his theory that should be addressed. If these systems of exploitation are recognizable, why haven’t they been tackled before due to moral reasons, not economic ones? One explanation can be found in the theory of Anarchy. In international relations, Anarchy is the theory that the world lacks any form of a supreme “leader” or authority. Therefore, a lack of ultimate authority has allowed many to justify “self-help” ideologies or the idea that states are out for self-survival and power. 

Pushing back against the view most prominently is the constructivist view, and I believe Táíwò’s argument of remaking the world would be stronger if he incorporated another constructivist. In addressing the current state of Anarchy that has been upheld by past exploitative systems, Táíwò’s argument for remaking the world would better include institutions of accountability. This reminded me of the paper by Alexander Wendt titled “Anarchy is What States Make of it.” 

In it, Wendt argues that although the world does exist in a state of Anarchy, this is due to past interactions and state decisions, not by natural order. As he writes in his paper, “I argue that self-help and power politics do not follow either logically or causally from Anarchy and that if today we find ourselves in a self-help world, this is due to process, not structure… Self-help and power politics are institutions, not essential features, of Anarchy. Anarchy is what states make of it.” Including this explicit line of thinking, I argue, could help Táíwò further prove that not only the world’s current order is one based on unequal distribution tied to systems of exploitation, but additionally, he could argue that it has not been dealt with because the states that created the unequal system also created one of unaccountability. Perhaps Táíwò could tie Anarchy to his view of inertia; this global system continues because of Anarchy’s persistent inertia, allowing the states most heavily exploiting others to remain unscathed.

I bring up Wendt’s claim that States maintain anarchy as it is, and not that anarchy keeps the states as they are, because I argue it could strengthen Táíwò’s argument. I agree with Táíwò’s conclusion that a new “remade world” is necessary, but I believe he must establish how they will be accountable for making this new world. In the current system, it is not only that the states have created a system of global economic and political relations that keep the Global South in a constant cycle of exploitation, but perhaps more concerningly that no “ultimate” authority exists to keep those accountable. In Táíwò’s argument for a new global system, I believe he needs to more explicitly outline how institutions of proper accountability can be created and maintained by the states, especially those that have not in the past.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Livia: Táíwò and Economic Success in the Global South

By
  Reconsidering Reparations by Professor Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò illuminates the large extent to which racism and colonialism played in creating the current global economic structure, in which the global north dominates the global south. Additionally, this book highlights how current policies implemented by global institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank have further strengthened and reaffirmed this positioning. Taking into account this global historical perspective, we can better understand how “consequences flow from some other parts of the world to other parts, often across national borders, and in ways that complicate geographically and politically narrow ways of thinking about reparations” (24). Thus, some sort of international obligation of social justice must be exist. Táíwò’s emphasis on the role that slavery and colonialism played in establishing the current economic order makes me think about the signal which this sends to the Global South in the development of their p...
Read more

Carlos: Response to Henry's Conclusion

By
I've spent way too long trying to argue against Henry's point because it just seems wrong to conclude with "there is no current social framework by which we might call their lasting effects socially unjust–at least under the political conception of justice". Yet, the more I thought about it, the more I felt I had to agree with Henry's argument regardless of how strange it felt to do so. Still, I did have a few ideas as I was thinking of how to refute Henry's conclusion: -------------------------------------------- 1) With the hypothetical situation Henry provides, if we were to fully extend its logic to our current world, I think Prof. Hurley would have also created a division between the A and B group that would have maintained even into Tuesday. I think were that division were to have taken place, even after Prof. Hurley disbanded the government, the division would have remained and the hierarchy of power would continue into the rest of the week. It seems fa...
Read more

Smith, Locke, Harris, and Justice

By
 On page 79, Smith writes, "the violation of justice is injury: it does real and positive hurt to some particular persons," and thus it is a virtue that, unlike beneficence, warrants resentment if we fail to fulfill it. Upon reading this, I immediately thought, well how are you defining justice?  It became very clear in the following pages that Smith's conception of justice is nearly identical to Locke's Law of Nature. On page 80, he writes, "Among equals each individual is naturally, and antecedent to the institution of civil government , regarded as having a right both to defend himself from injuries, and to exact a certain degree of punishment for those which have been done to them." He continues to say that justice is only those transgressions which spectators would have the right to, and would be compelled to, punish whoever commits them. After this, he explains that no one has a right to advance their own happiness at the expense of someone else's...
Read more