INTERGENERATIONAL justice is a weird concept. It is one I tried to explain to Wits University philosophy students in a lecture on affirmative action last week. This generated discussion that is worth rehearsing. One of the more serious objections to affirmative action is that it is unjust to expect young white South Africans to bear the brunt of the social and economic cost of affirmative action for a history that was beyond their control. In effect, young white South Africans are being made to pay for the moral sins of their parents.
This notion of intergenerational justice seems like no justice at all. Why should the Mandela generation pay for the actions of others? The expectation that they do is surely unjust. This objection is wholly compatible with recognising that black SA has a claim of justice against the perpetrators of apartheid. The problem is that a lot of those perpetrators are dead or dying. How is it morally acceptable to hold Hendrik Verwoerd’s grandchildren responsible? And if it is not fair to do so, then surely the moral foundation for policies such as affirmative action and black economic empowerment collapses?
The government does not understand this moral problem that lies at the heart of affirmative action. This is why it has often shown little empathy for young white South Africans, who are tempted to leave their country of birth. This objection is in fact deeply challenging and must be taken seriously. Merely taking it seriously will itself persuade many young white South Africans that there is not a blind, unreflective racialism driving demands for social justice.
It seems correct to say someone should be held morally and legally accountable only for that which is within their control. But if voluntary control is a necessary condition for the attribution of blame, then presumably no one could be blamed for activities that took place before they were born. It makes no sense to indict someone’s future self.
We can apply these ethical intuitions to the affirmative action debate. A 20-year-old white South African could not have prevented apartheid from coming about. Therefore any policy that demands sacrifices from innocent young white South Africans in order for victims of racism to enjoy compensatory justice is itself unjust.
This objection should not be dismissed lightly. Doing so would be intellectually dishonest and politically dangerous. One should acknowledge the coherence, cogency and emotional substance behind the intuitive sense of injustice that someone born in 1990 might be feeling. These feelings are heightened by the knowledge that your friend, Sipho, who has been at a private school with you, might get prioritised over you for a job “simply” because he is black, even though you appear to have indistinguishable life journeys behind you.
Yet, while compelling, this objection is ultimately answerable. The key to understanding social justice demands is to grasp the conceptual distinction between moral sins and moral burdens. No one should be forced to inherit the moral sins of others. That violates natural justice considerations.
However, we can inherit moral burdens. If, for example, I have benefited unjustly from the wealth acquired by my immoral, murderous and racist father, who exerted force over others in acquiring that wealth, then I inherit moral burdens stemming from this fact. The immoral origins of the wealth I have inherited set up the moral burden. This is wholly compatible with recognising that I myself am not morally or legally responsible for the unjust wealth acquisition.
Consider the somewhat remote but illustrative example of Saartjie Baartman’s remains. Would it have been morally acceptable for contemporary France to say: “We admit our forefathers did immoral things that resulted in Saartjie eventually dying and being buried here. We are blameless, though, and so have no moral burdens to repatriate her remains.” Surely not — history hands down moral duties unconnected to our immediate lives.
This is the nature of the moral foundation of affirmative action. The average young white South African still has a better shot at living a flourishing adult life than does her black counterpart as a direct result of unjust historical facts whose structural impact lingers. Even your friend Sipho, who seems to speak your language, faces challenges he does not share with you and which stem from our racist history, all of which you have the luxury to be blissfully unaware of. This genesis of contemporary inequalities gives us an overriding moral reason to implement policies aimed at redress. It also constitutes a moral reason why young white South Africans, though blameless, are fair targets of policies aimed at redress.
Whether these policies, such as affirmative action, work adequately in practice is a discussion for another day. What is clear, however, is that these kinds of policies do have a moral justification, albeit a complex one. It would help, of course, if the government was able to appreciate these complexities and show sensitivity by engaging young white South Africans in a caring and non-alienating manner on such potentially divisive topics.
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=84803
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
For example.
ReplyDeleteIf, as a white South African, I have inherited very little (wealth) from a father who was doing his best to lead a moral life as a non-racist, non-murdering, anti-apartheid activist, am I still a fair target? His father before him tried to lead a similarly morally virtuous life overseas, but was pretty much broke most of the time, so my dad inherited very little too.
So I have very little inherited economic 'wealth'. I did get a white kid's government education (NOT at a top school, which had its merits and demerits), and some white friends I made at varsity. I still pay off my student loan with my income from a waitering job, arguably because BEE directly prevents me from being employed in my desired job which I am qualified for.
Is that enough to inherit a moral burden? I'm not sure it is.
Your argument hinges on the distinction between 'burden' and 'sin'. I am not sure that this is doing the trick here.
ReplyDeleteAlso, your example about France and Baartman fits the overall category of redress, albeit social/imaginary redress is very different from individual redress that is demanded through affirmative action.
The example you make with Sipho is rather an argument why class considerations should trump race: materially, a poor white youngster did not benefit from apartheid. Today, he or she is in a worse position than any wealthy kid, whatever "race". As a poor citizen, he faces arguably bigger hurdles to make it in life than Sipho who went to a private elite school and can count on his father's business and party connections to enter the world of work and business. Also, a focus on poverty would automatically include a majority of black people. While the need for redress is quite evident, the actual policies of affirmative action remain morally a hazard.
I have to concur with Mr. Blaser's argument above. Further to this, there are even more factors that cloud and complicate this debate.
ReplyDeleteGiliomee argues 'that "[n]othing could ever compensate for the psychological damage it caused." Still, "in terms of impersonal developmental data the performance of the NP government that ruled between 1948 and 1994 was comparatively impressive" (p. 666). The economy had grown by an annual average of 4.5% between 1948-81 and, while whites had done better than the other population groups, those, too, saw their economic situation improve. Black disposable personal income increased 84.2% between 1960-80 (although from an admittedly low base), while white disposable income increased by only 47.6%. By 1980 black income was 10.6% of whites; it had been only 8.5% in 1960. Interestingly, the groups which did best in economic terms during the apartheid era were the country's Asian and Coloured populations: disposable income among Asians increased 160% between 1960-1980 and nearly 97% for Coloureds in the same period. Reflecting the trusteeship element of apartheid, the number of African children in schools increased 250% in the 25 years following the initiation of apartheid. Finally, contrary to the notion that South Africa was a police state, it actually had fewer police per thousand in the population (1.4) in the early 1980s than the U.K. (2.4), Northern Ireland (5.7), or the Soviet Union (16.0). Similarly, the country's military spending, at 13% of the national budget in the 1980s, was not as high as that of countries such as Zimbabwe (17%) or Israel (25%). '
Giliomee makes the point that there was a massive progressive taxation regime especially from the 70's and a resultant wealth transfer from white to black - and this gave rise to the CP and HNP.
Compare - The Kikuyu are much better connected politically than the Luo's in Kenia, but there has been no attempt by the Kikuyu at progressive taxation to help the less fortunate and unconnected Luo. And its unlikely there will ever be.
So how does one account for this psychological damage and how does the development that came with apartheid mitigate it? Or does it count for nothing?
Working class Afrikaners were most likely to support the HNP and AWB but were also those more threatened by the end of apartheid, vis-a-vis English speaking European with British passports in Houghton (more likely to vote for Helen Suzman.)
Shall we treat them and their children the same?
Having said that, this debate is moot. Had whites been denied positions on account of them being filled by competent black South Africans there would not have been much of a fuss.
It is where people are appointed that clearly can not do the job, even at the expense of the poor and black South Africans themselves that the real problem arises. The moral hazard mentioned above.
Eusebius, I'm intrigued to read your responses to each of these posts.
ReplyDeleteHi UB
ReplyDeleteI am with Thomas on this. I buy the argument of moral burdens, but the problem with moral burdens is that they are raceless. If we are to say that having an inherited advantage (money, connections, class status, for example) puts you in the crosshairs of affirmative action (and I could see it reasonably doing so), then AA sacrifices should surely be demanded as much of the Wabenzi generation as of the children of rich white folk?
This surely suggests that AA should be based on your inherited position/advantage more than your race. Unless there are some situations in which it is morally acceptable to start off rich and advantaged without any moral burden (e.g. the white child of a post 1994 immigrant). That example would cause problems in a situation where a burden-free advantage might be possible in that such a child would enjoy no moral burden totheir initial position, but still be nailed by AA. The corollary would simply be to argue that all inherited gross advantage in South Africa (given our massive inequality) attaches a moral burden. Which I don't think you are arguing for explicitly - though if you are, then the argument about a race based AA policy being the wrong tool for what is essentially a class created problem comes into play.
Ruling elites invent moralities that suit them.
ReplyDelete@Anonymous: Yes, white people owe it to Black people – those who had suffered under Apartheid – to help in creating a better world for us all. Privilege isn't just about money; privilege comprises many advantages: here's a great pdf article on it – http://www.case.edu/president/aaction/UnpackingTheKnapsack.pdf
ReplyDelete@Blaser: How do you know Sipho's parents are rich?
@Khameraad: Supposed economic growth can't ever be a substitute for agency. The reporting on the data could be misleading – it doesn't juxtapose coloured and Asian disposable income to that of whites, as it does with Black disposable income.
Your end statement is speculative and a matter of opinion. Human beings are irrational. So people who oppose AA might still oppose it even if all the AA appointees are experts in their respective fields.
@Richard: Systemic racism affects even Black people who had been born into wealth. It follows them everywhere, even to interviews, boardrooms, internet chat rooms and blog forums. White children of (white) post-1994 immigrants still benefit from white privilege, even though South Africa had shuffled the Apartheid coil in 1994 already.
Joy
ReplyDelete'Supposed economic growth' - it is not supposed it is a fact, but it was not the nub of the argument, which was that the Nationalistis particularly from the 70's but also earlier taxed whites more and spent as a percentage more on black, coloured and Asian South Africans . Not only was this transfer significant, but Giliomee made comparative studies and presents the argument that it was one of the most progressive taxation regimes we can find examples of.
What complicates this matter more is that some poor South Africans are now worse off than under apartheid.
What's more there are examples of ethic groups that have captured the state all over Africa, but you'd be hard pressed to find this kind of wealth transfer from the ruling group to others. But there is no outcry for this kind of restorative economic justice elsewhere, which points to the fact in my mind that the issue is caught up as much in the general western left discourse (ideology) of white and black relations as it is in reality of Africa.
If there is a moral case for affirmative action - which I think there is - its based on the humiliation and psychological scars that apartheid caused. Which are huge. We can see the impact of it everyday, in the behavior of people like Judge Hlophe and by many black people's silence in respect of his outrageous behavior.
In this very good article The African Elite & the Western media Chielo Zona Eze makes the point that although it's understandable that African elites try and defend Africa against simplistic and racist depictions in the Western media, their energy would be better spent fixing Africa's many problems.
http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/features/59816
Biko made the same point in a way when he said their comes a time when black intellectuals should stop talking about white in respect to black, because it becomes a negative exercise.
True freedom of the mind can only come from yourself. It can't be given.
As an Afrikaner I am often amused at how misguided black South Africans are in their ham-fisted, unambitious and easy attempts at redress. The Nats did not force English white South Africa to except Afrikaners into their boardrooms. They instinctively felt that it would be a Pyrrhic victory for equality. They would be perpetual journeymen in an English world. The Afrikaner Nationalists created Saamwerk and Saambou organisations (now thats Ubuntu for you) and the net result is institutions like Absa, Naspers and Sanlam, who today create value for all South Africans, but also helped lift Afrikaners from their inferiority complex when this was sorely needed.
As Moeletsi Mbeki points out the current arrangement does none of that - and it certainly does not make black South Africans feel proud of their own achievements or create value for the whole country.
We are just breeding a mediocre black South Africa with little ambition. Wallowing in their victim status in perpetuity and living off the value created by others is a real danger. Malasia went down the route and is now finally realizing that unless it changes it approach to Affirmative action the Malays will remain less dynamic always dependent group vis-a-vis the Chinese and Indians.
Of course my end statement is a matter of opinion but its not speculative and I can cite an example of rugby. There have been instances where black players have been included in the national squad who are not the best players in their position in the country. However they were more than just competent, they were of a high standard. And while there will always be some that complain, the vast majority of white fans did not, as they can see the logic and moral underpinning of it all. Growing multi-racial rugby. If however a player was included that made the Springboks loose it would be another matter entirely.
Similarly it boggles the mind when someone is appointed because they are black that then through sheer incompetence makes poor (mostly black) South Africans suffer.
@Khameraad: The racist depictures of Africans contribute to our poverty. Institutionalised racism isn't going to stop because Africans fight other problems in their countries. Much of what is wrong with Africa today can be attributed to the 'western world'. Their governments and their big corporations loot Africa and pay the community and the workers a pittance.
ReplyDeleteI doubt that the Apartheid government had spent more -- even as a percentage point -- on Black people. Our neighbourhoods, schools and health attest to that.
Yes, we absolutely should become creators and not just passive consumers. But, Khameraad, the old mentality of African = evil still persists.
While there might be people who'd be happy to buy from Black people, there are many more -- people from across the colour spectrum -- who'd think twice. So you have a youngster from Langa who wants to make it big. They want to create the next Saambou or ABSA or whatever. But there are many, many, many obstacles to that journey. And the exception proves the rule, ie, there are as yet very few 'self-made' Black entrepreneurs. I put self-made in quotes because no-one is an island; we need people around us to succeed.
Afrikaners back in the previous centuries still benefited from white privilege. They were't seen as savages.
Employing a mediocre Black person isn't going to solve things, true. So AA's implementation lacks in that department. Or perhaps the fault lies partly with the companies who are unwilling -- some say unable -- to train all their workers.
And what's the point of employing Black employees if you're not going to promote them? Especially to client-facing jobs?
About the Springbok players. White people aren't seen as spokespeople for their race. When a white person makes their team lose, it's seen as a white person who made their team lose. But when a Black person makes their team lose, it's all Black people as a collective who teemed up to make that team lose.