Social Justice as the Capacity to Think from an Alternative Perspective
I want to continue the post two weeks before to justify the other part of my conclusion: urban revolt can be constructive if they aim to shake institutions for exposing their vulnerable parts. I have argued for the first part that revolts do not seek to flatten institutions and return to a nostalgic status of equality. I think this week's topic on social justice allows returning to this topic.
Some of Susan Fainstein's words caught my attention. She repeatedly mentioned "collective good" and "social rationality." She talked about "reframing issues in broad terms" and "persuade people to transcend their own narrow self-interest and realize that gains can be had from the collective enterprise." In my interpretation, collective good is to recognize the previously unnoticed good for me in the taken for granted good for you. This recognition requires the capacity to think about issues in broad terms and take up an alternative perspective outside self-interest.
In speaking about urban revolts, then both the revolters and those who are being resisted should recognize the opposite's value in sustaining the meaning of their own deeds. Governance is to solicit consensus from the governed, and revolts shake the institution for exposing its weak points.
Urban institutions need threats to be mindful of their imperfection in
countering disorder. Cities are meant to consolidate human order against the
world's unpredictable metamorphosis. Nonetheless, the city becomes such an
extended second-order that authorities are oblivious of the threats from disorders.
Urban revolts expose the urban institution's fragility and call for awareness
to dangers. Urban revolts reserve a hope to enhance institutions' durability
and sustained functioning while preventing the city from becoming a machine for
some people to exploit others.
In the spirit of Derrida’s “Force of Law,” I would say urban revolts aim to “bring justice” to the given configurations of institutions, which doesn’t mean seeking revenge on such institutions or “hunting them down,” but rather calling them into something better, to a more just configuration. The ghost revolts haunting current practices of institutions come to us with invitations: they invite us to see things otherwise, and to then participate in effecting a transformation, to be an other.
Vincent, glad we are keeping up this conversation about urban revolt. It is pretty engaging, and I like when you said, "collective good is to recognize the previously unnoticed good for me in the taken for granted good for you. This recognition requires the capacity to think about issues in broad terms and take up an alternative perspective outside self-interest." I think the problem with urban cities always take us back to the citizen's need, but again the people in charge are citizen themeselves. However, there is often an intangible relationship between the ones in charge and the ones who want to see real change. It is a strained but valuable relationship that help us understand how we can build better public spaces for the people and better public buildings that empower and celebrate a country in everything that it is. Hope you also read my answe from last week, it touches base on this same context in broader terms and fun thing, it is in French but with a few typos. :)
ReplyDeleteI just noticed your newly added note. I think you are right in that "there is often an intangible relationship between the ones in charge and the ones who want to see real change." An ethical vision is to treat different opinion with hospitality, which is often times hard. I think Derrida's elaboration on law and justice was saying this, from which I borrowed some words to change my posted blog.
ReplyDelete