Deconstructing justice

I was reading and thinking about Dale’s post, Dispensing with Justice, which aims to disentangle the notions of justice vs. compassion, with the proposal of abandoning justice while retaining compassion. Think of the example of Dafur: Do we respond with anger and cries for justice or with compassion, and does either really matter as we sit in our comfortable living rooms watching the suffering on our television sets? This morning I found this article on Jacques Derrida that made me question whether the uncertainties inherent in balancing those scales of justice means we should throw out the notion of justice altogether or perhaps just revise it:

Like Kant, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, Mr. Derrida does argue that transparent truth and absolute values elude our grasp. This does not mean, however, that we must forsake the cognitive categories and moral principles without which we cannot live: equality and justice, generosity and friendship. Rather, it is necessary to recognize the unavoidable limitations and inherent contradictions in the ideas and norms that guide our actions, and do so in a way that keeps them open to constant questioning and continual revision. There can be no ethical action without critical reflection.

Notice that there is also a call to action there, not merely reflection, but ethical action after critical reflection – a weighing of all the sides and possible outcomes. As the article is clear to point out, this question of certainty is extremely relevant right now when we have a president who claims absolute certainty, which resonates with an awful lot of people. This versus a candidate who sees so many sides of the issue he has a hard time delivering the clear, succinct message people apparently want to hear:

…we live in an age when major conflicts are shaped by people who claim to know, for certain, that God is on their side. Mr. Derrida reminded us that religion does not always give clear meaning, purpose and certainty by providing secure foundations. To the contrary, the great religious traditions are profoundly disturbing because they all call certainty and security into question. Belief not tempered by doubt poses a mortal danger.

 

As the process of globalization draws us ever closer in networks of communication and exchange, there is an understandable longing for simplicity, clarity and certainty. This desire is responsible, in large measure, for the rise of cultural conservatism and religious fundamentalism - in this country and around the world. True believers of every stripe - Muslim, Jewish and Christian - cling to beliefs that, Mr. Derrida warns, threaten to tear apart our world.

Derrida, according to the article, offers an alternative:

Fortunately, he also taught us that the alternative to blind belief is not simply unbelief but a different kind of belief - one that embraces uncertainty and enables us to respect others whom we do not understand. In a complex world, wisdom is knowing what we don't know so that we can keep the future open.

Ah, but does it sell as a campaign message. Are people willing to accept the complexity and go beyond the black and white, us vs. them view of the world that’s currently dominant?

By the way, I never studied Derrida or deconstruction, though I recall at some point trying unsuccessfully (read: not very hard) to figure out what it was all about. I think I was in college before it came into vogue academically. This excellent piece in the NY Times, What Derrida Really Meant, was helpful, as was the kinda fun How to Do Deconstruction (both links via Twists & Turns).

10:49:32 AM      trackback []