A selective reading of Fainstein’s idea of Justice + Towards a theory of Emergent Justice | ix. justice

Of all the readings this week, I found Planning and the Just City by Susan Fainstein the most interesting in terms of its content. Fainstein tries to point out the difficulties in implementing an ideal vision of a just city. Describing that vision, she says, "Its content is assumed to be self-evident, but it is the measure against which practice is found wanting. Much of the critical planning literature [...] takes for granted that we know good and bad when we see it, freeing us from making elaborate arguments to justify our criteria.  [...] The meaning of justice [...] calls for sustained discussion."

Later, after describing general ideas of 'good' and 'bad' in urbanism, she criticizes philosophers in relation to urban scholars by saying "their scrutiny is rarely directed to urban issues, and their development of value criteria does not usually spell out appropriate urban policy." She calls out the philosopher’s "lack of concern for the methods of achieving their ends, the absence of a formula for dealing with entrenched power, and their indifference to the costs and trade-offs that will be incurred by actually seeking to produce social justice."

At this point I'm excited to discover what Fainstein's practical answer to all her deliberations might be, but I would be let down. After looking at the (im)practicality of redistribution, she proceeds to base her arguments on redistribution backed by recognition. "What arguments can make people accept redistribution if they already know that they are in an advantaged position?" she asks. She brings up moral imperatives: "there needs to be an argument based on collective good - social rationality - rather than simply individual rationality"; "it must be backed by the force of a social movement, a political party, or a supportive elite"; "there is a need to persuade people to transcend their own narrow self-interest and realize that gains can be had from the collective enterprise. Such a mobilization depends on a widely felt sense of justice and sufficient threat from the bottom to induce redistribution as a rational response. Enough of the upper social strata need to accept a moral code such that they do not resist, and will even support, redistribution measures." 

To me this line of thinking is dangerous. Redistribution is not a sustainable answer to injustice. You shouldn't force all the privileged people to provide for others and thereby create a dependent class. I was disappointed that there still wasn't an exact proposal of how Fainstein's ideological fantasy could be actualized. I also wasn't satisfied with the leftist basis of her idea of justice.

_____________

YOU HAVE JUST UNLOCKED A BONUS BLOG POST BECAUSE WHY NOT?! :

II. Justice according to Vishnu

Justice never starts as the norm in society. It is always arrived at, in incremental stages, with an inherent pattern as follows:

i.           There are groups of people. People may form groups for a lot of reasons: class (economic or social), race, belief. Groups are convenient because they don't challenge you or your beliefs, however flawed they may be. There is an appearance of collective peace.

ii.          Groups are not stable. There is competition, within and amongst groups. When groups first interact, some groups end up being discriminated against passively, or exploited actively. (e.g. colonialism, politics of exclusion, slavery) This is usually accompanied by a relative lack of awareness in those who discriminate, coupled with flawed post-rationalization. This initial discrimination and conflict is not completely a bad thing, and is perhaps even necessary, as seen in the next step, if it helps to eventually iron out the moral inconsistencies.

iii.          The conflict of discrimination leads to a secondary conflict, a reactionary uprising by the discriminated and the excluded. There is revolution and there is war. This is natural, and even necessary in the grand scheme of things, for through conflict there is an exchange of energy and ideas. 

iv.          After the war, there is more order – less disagreement, or a lower entropy. Eventually this leads to a more enlightened consensus, and ideally even some reparations for past misdeeds by the oppressors. Thus, the resolution of conflict has benefited both the oppressed and the oppressors, the excluded and the included. The best ideas from both sides survive. The bad ones die.

v.           There are groups of people…

This to me is Justice: survival of the best ideas and rewarding of the best talent. While I do advocate for some initial form of reparations for the oppressed, symbolic or material, by the oppressors or their descendants, I also believe any subsidy for the excluded should not be permanent, for that would create a social hierarchy of providers and dependents. Part of a just resolution after the conflict would be ensuring that everyone has access to the same opportunities for growth, and access to the same tools to pursue and create value. This should be about curing the cause rather than the syndrome. Or to put it in other words, ensuring equality of access instead of equality of outcome. I believe that when conflict is finally resolved, justice would be in the form of a competitive meritocracy, where people get rewarded for the value they create for the economy: justice based on ability rather than need. 

So, what does all this mean spatially? That depends on what stage of justice is being executed in that part of the world. Above I’ve highlighted a stage I think we are going through in many parts of the world (stage IV in the list above). Spatial justice at this stage would align with catering to all kinds of users while including strategies of reducing artificial segregation and inconvenience.

But space is not independent of society. It is the physical materialization of the aspirations of society - the clients and enablers of the architects and the space-makers. I believe that society affects space more than space can affect society. Spatial considerations of justice shouldn't distract us from the roots of injustice: mediocre complacency in accepting society's inherent contradictions (because challenging them would require too much effort). If society is just, then space must be. The problem might be that not everyone understands (or misunderstands) the idea of justice in the same manner.

Justice can appear strange at first. A lot of people seem to mistake personal convenience (or class benefits) for justice. Space will never be just enough for all people, because of a lack of knowledge or consensus amongst them that informs a common idea of justice. Such a consensus, of what just should be, can only be arrived at through the exchange of ideas and the quelling of false narratives. The weaker ideas will eventually die down in the face of what makes more sense.

An interesting idea is the concept of equity. Equity to me is always about equal opportunities and not about artificial equalization. Talent and ability should always get rewarded. Healthy competition has a positive influence on the society: it's not just about survival of the fittest, but enabling everyone to be the fittest version of themselves. Just as we shouldn't continue passively oppressing peoples that have been discriminated against in the past, it doesn't make sense for us to artificially make it easier for them to be at the same place as others (through continued reservations or affirmative action). Instead, provide them the tools required to fight oppression, enable them to have access to the same resources as others, and fight against cultural beliefs of the oppressors, implicit or explicit, that help to justify any discrimination. Key to this is great education for all.

Space is shaped by, and often reflects back to us, our own qualities. Space will be just, when society is.

__________

good memes have citations
(shared on NUMTOT facebook group)

communism is good only when it's satire 

More posts by author