Justice, Episode 4

6 Responses to Justice, Episode 4

1. anna123 says:

   October 24, 2009 at 7:28 am

   I agree with the view point of Rochelle in the lecture, Locke used the concept of private property without consent to rationalise and justify the colonisation of the U.S by European settlers and the dispossession of land from native americans.

   As an aside, “Fang” behaves just like the last fob in the third justice lecture, adopting the sociopolitical ideology of the established mainstream.

   I found it interesting that the lecturer was willing to admit at the closing of the lecture that Locke may also have had ulterior motives in that his theories could also be used to justify the wars against the native americans in Nth America at the time.

   Another thought that came to my mind during the lecture was that education is a form of assimilation. How much of education is propaganda? Especially when you are taught theories that have a basis in a certain ethno cultural schema, in this case by europeans,for europeans, justifying european actions, all told from a european historical perspective.

   Even at the time, Lockes theories provided a framework for the justification of social and political ideologies which acted to serve the interests of certain groups of people-(the european settlers).

   Today when Lockes theories are propagated into the minds of young people at university, whose interests are really being served?

   Pretty interesting lecture, though….
2. American Girl says:

   October 25, 2009 at 11:00 pm

   Locke is not propaganda. One must understand Locke in order to understand the philosophy and policy that influenced the Constitution. Unless one learns of Hobbes, Locke, Voltaire and other one cannot engage in articulate dialog concerning the policy.

   I also doubt that Locke’s theories were directly written to justify war with Native Americans; although Europe was in a rush to colonize the world, the colonization began before Locke was born.

   Justice is so illusive that the only way one can attempt to capture it, is through the refinement of understanding Law and Liberty, themselves difficult to grasp.

   I still do not have a handle on Locke’s Social Contract. It seems though, that as citizens, we become the property of the state and I feel there is a tie in somewhere with Locke’s Social Contract to Adam’s Smith’s ‘Wealth of Nations,’ beyond Alexander Hamilton. Further, in part, citizens are property, because part of the labor becomes a factor in a nation’s wealth.
3. anna123 says:

   October 26, 2009 at 2:53 am

   Propaganda definitions;

   The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
   (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/propaganda)

   In general, a message designed to persuade its intended audience to think and behave in a certain manner. In specific, institutionalized and systematic spreading of information, usually to promote a narrow political or religious viewpoint (http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/propaganda.html)

   Locke by himself may not be propaganda, he is just one small piece in an overall system of thought that created an socio-economic and political system based on colonialism, slavery, racism and inequality that the entire world has inherited today. It still exists, the financial, political and social systems are still in place, ableit in a more subtle manner.

   Who is teaching Locke? Harvard. What does the name “Harvard” really mean? an institution of what system and of what country, and with what history?

   I meant Propaganda in context of education as a form of assimilation, education is thought~isn’t it the reason why POC protested for ethnic studies and AA studies during the 1960s?

   The reason I’m questioning, is because this lecture series is about “Justice” , which raises questions of whose justice? and for whom exactly?
4. American Girl says:

   October 26, 2009 at 11:25 am

   As I said, Justice is elusive (spelled it incorrectly above). It is not a definite term. People have been talking and philosophizing about it for years.

   When I was in one of my cantankerous moods, my partner wanted to make those rubber bracelets, like Lance Armstrongs “Livestrong” to fundraise for the Lawyer’s Campaign for Equal Justice. He asked me, “AG, do you think we should have it say ‘Justice’ or ‘Equal Justice?’”

   My response was, “Why don’t you f-in write ‘Unicorn!’ Like Justice, people want Unicorns it but it doesn’t seem to exist.”

   This past weekend, I went to a union meeting with my husband. The problem the people there had in mobilizing their ideas is this false understanding of equality and they have no clue how to influence congress people, etc. They think that whining and moaning and starting new caucuses for this that and the other thing is going to change their problems when some of the current caucuses have yet to accomplish anything. It may sound nice to start something, but they have no idea how the end game will play.

   The system is not changed by spewing emotional attacks at it; it is changed with numbers and policy making. The union workers do not have the numbers, yet. They are far from having the numbers. Maybe they will figure out how to push something through. The emotion only advances them so far, because their stories touch many but alienate the majority and can cause destructive polarization as opposed to positive mobilization. If they took the time to understand what they are fighting, they might have a chance. But they have no idea who their enemy is and they do not know the battlefield. Fortunately the leaders have some clue. Hope is not lost.

   Likewise, we cannot step into Harvard and tell them not to do something, that teaching Locke is propaganda. Learning about Locke and Bentham will help us understand the nature of the social contract and only then can you change anything.

   All I am saying is one must get though Locke in order to understand the system we work in. One must understand it in order to shape it (or fight it.)
5. anna123 says:

   October 26, 2009 at 8:28 pm

   “”Likewise, we cannot step into Harvard and tell them not to do something, that teaching Locke is propaganda. Learning about Locke and Bentham will help us understand the nature of the social contract and only then can you change anything.

   All I am saying is one must get though Locke in order to understand the system we work in. One must understand it in order to shape it (or fight it.)”"

   Okay, I understand. *nods head*
6. jaehwan says:

   November 4, 2009 at 2:23 pm

   Interesting lecture–finally watched it. The whole idea of consent is one that comes up all the time in whatever we discuss–as Sandel mentioned, it came up right away on the first day of class. Consent usually isn’t an issue until one person’s consent differs from another’s, and so it’s important to discuss ideas around the concept so that we know how to resolve inevitable differences.