Filetype PDF | Posted on 16 Jan 2023 | 3 years ago
Authentication
digital resources
232x Filetype PDF File size 0.06 MB Source: esreview.soc.cas.cz
Sociologický časopis/Czech Sociological Review, 2012, Vol. 48, No. 6
labour market policies and of the ideation- To meet the goal of connecting every-
al basis of policy reform. It should be close- day intuition with the general theory of so-
ly read, not only by scholars in European cial justice, Sandel uses a specifi c method-
labour market policies, but also by those ology and structure. Methodologically, he
who downplay the force of ideas in public uses casuistry, that is to say, he describes
policies. various situations or cases with as many
Gert Verschraegen relevant details as possible. These exam-
University of Antwerp ples are real-life, hypothetical, or mixed sit-
gert.verschraegen@ua.acbe. uations. The specifi c questions which
should be deliberated and taken into con-
sideration in theory should come out from
these cases. Sandel then uses casuistry as a
Michael J. Sandel: Whats the Right Thing part of applied ethics to describe everyday
to Do? situations and to (re)construct todays the-
New York 2010: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, ories of social justice from these situations.
308 pp. However, there is a minor diffi culty in this
approach. If we think about his cases and
Social justice is the topic of this book by model situations in general, we realise that
Michael Sandel, a prominent American po- all of them are situated in the United States
litical philosopher well known for his cri- and in US social reality. Although some
tique of liberal theories of society and his cases are easily comprehensible for readers
arguments in favour of communitarianism. outside the United States, others seem un-
The importance of social justice lies in be- natural. For example, when Sandel dis-
ing a part of everyday lives of all members cusses the possibility of homosexual mar-
of all (Western) societies. For instance, there riage, he defi nes three basic situations: in-
are continuous disputes concerning the stitutions recognise only heterosexual mar-
distribution of welfare. Not surprisingly, riage, heterosexual and homosexual mar-
social justice is one of the main topics in po- riage, or the non-existence of any form of
litical philosophy, as thinkers continually offi cial or formal relationship. If we ignore
deliberate about the shape of a just society. the fact that Sandel does not differentiate
Nevertheless, these deliberations are worth- between homosexual marriage and regis-
less without application in social practice. tered partnership, we can see that it is very
The above-mentioned complexity thus fol- diffi cult to fi nd any example for the second
lows from the intuitive and not systematic situation in the United States. It would be
interpretation of social justice—our judge- better if he had used an example from Eu-
ment of what is just or unjust is based on rope where the concept of homosexual
the present situation or attitude (or on the marriage or registered partnership has a
actual social situation) and our argumenta- deeper tradition. Sandels effort to fi nd ex-
tion includes many diverse ideas from dif- amples in the United States is underlined
ferent theories of social justice. It is this by the third possibility: the non-existence
very intuition Sandel attempts to capture in of any form of offi cial or formal relation-
his book. As he puts it, his intention is not ship. Here, Sandel simply states it is a
to recapitulate historically the development purely hypothetical option and that there
of social justice or to formulate a new theo- is no example in the United States. Thus,
ry but only to critically refl ect different we can see that it would be better if Sandel
views on what is just. Readers then should had differentiated the cases as the reader
recognise what their position is and where could more easily identify his/her intui-
their arguments come from. tion with described situations.
1202
Book Reviews
The structure of the text refl ects a cas- much more towards the libertarian stance
uistic method, the cases and situations are (that he in fact inspired the doctrine), not
mixed with theories. Sandel systematically towards any kind of a single category. The
repeats the link so that readers do not get same applies to John Rawls, whose theory
confused or lose track of the explanation. is not about justice as freedom but about
Yet, one more factor plays an important justice as fairness. Fairness is based not
role in the structure of the text—Sandels only on freedom but also on the impor-
defi nition of justice, which he defi nes as tance of welfare redistribution. Besides this
the redistribution of goods valued in a so- theoretical confusion, there are theories
ciety. According to this assumption a just which Sandel does not mention at all. For
society is one in which every individual example, the egalitarian (left) libertarian-
gets what he or she deserves. The real ism as a specifi c theory that offers a com-
problem is to defi ne the basic mechanism pletely new way of thinking about justice
of redistribution, in other words, to defi ne and freedom.
who has the right to what and why. Ac- The second problem lies in Sandels
cording to Sandel, there are three positions defi nition of justice as redistribution, which
to this problem: redistribution based on means that Sandel does not refl ect any kind
welfare, freedom, or virtue. In the light of of non-material dimension of justice. For
these three positions, Sandel defi nes three instance, according to Nancy Fraser, a just
broad categories of social justice theories. society redistributes goods so that every
The fi rst category includes the utilitarian person has the possibility to live the life
theory of social justice, which represents that he or she wants to live. Fraser calls this
justice defi ned in terms of the redistribu- aspect of social justice the objective pre-
tion and maximisation of welfare. Theories condition and she claims that it should
which merge justice with freedom are clas- eliminate material dependence, which
sifi ed in the second category. These include could pose a problem in decision-making
the libertarian, liberally egalitarian, and on basic life questions. But, besides redis-
even the Kantian deontological view on tribution, she highlights the term recogni-
justice and freedom. And fi nally, the third tion as being equally important. By recog-
category includes the Aristotelian theory, nition, or the intersubjective precondition,
typical for its stress on virtue. This theory Fraser means that a just society also pro-
suggests we fi rst identify important social vides respect and equal chances to diverse
values and then judge what is just and groups of people, including structurally
what is not according to these values. rooted gender, economic, or social inequal-
There are two central problems in this ities. No one should then be discredited in
categorisation. First, the division is too re- any way according to his or her differences
strictive and reductionist. It forces Sandel [Fraser 2004: 62–64]. Fraser wants to say
to merge libertarian and liberally egalitari- that it is important to provide equal chanc-
an theories into one category. This is ques- es through material redistribution, but it is
tionable if we look at the way freedom is no less important to provide recognition as
defi ned in these theories. Although they some form of psychological help, ensuring
do support the primacy of freedom, they that every person feels like a valuable
defi ne it in a different way, which is refl ect- member of society.
ed in a different view on justice. The fi rst Turning to the cases and situations,
category of utilitarian theory is also prob- Sandel does a good job in explaining, de-
lematic. If we take into consideration the scribing, and selecting among them (apart
writings of Jeremy Bentham and interpre- from the above-mentioned problems). As
tations thereof, we can see that he leaned for interpretations of theories, despite some
1203
Sociologický časopis/Czech Sociological Review, 2012, Vol. 48, No. 6
simplifi cations it is worth mentioning the knowledge of society and its members
very good interpretations of Robert Noz- leads to tolerance because in this way the
1
icks and John Rawlss ideas. On the other members could better understand each
hand, the interpretation of Kants thoughts other. With this reinterpretation Sandel
lacks two classical objections. The fi rst in- strays from the original communitarian
volves Kants view on humanity and per- stance and makes a compromise with lib-
sons. According to Kant, the main feature eralism (although in liberalism tolerance is
of a human is his or her rationality, which achieved by accepting the difference, not
means that only rational beings are human, understanding it). Sandel then proposes
others are non-human. Taken seriously, four practical solutions for achieving com-
the mentally ill are, by this defi nition, not mon understanding and tolerance: sup-
human because they lack rationality [see, porting citizenship, removing certain so-
e g., Rothhaar 2010]. The second objection cial spheres from the impact of the market,
concentrates on Kants deontological stance, rebuilding a robust public space, and ena-
which is not as strong as Kant puts it. bling citizens participation in public life.
When Kant claims we should always act in Sandels intention in this book is to in-
accordance with maxims, he also describes troduce the notion of justice to the broader
the mechanism for making these maxims, readership in a systematic, conceptualised,
but this mechanism includes the somewhat but not too theoretical form. Taking the
strong notion of consequentialism [see, limited length of the book into account, he
e g., Tugendhat 2004: 110]. is quite successful in meeting this objec-
However, the most interesting part is tive, with the exception of the above-men-
the end. Up to this point, we have not men- tioned problems. The book does not pro-
tioned Sandels own communitarian con- vide a completely new view of justice or a
viction, which would possibly occur to an- new theory of justice. However, it is inter-
yone interested in political philosophy. esting for its linking of casuistry and theo-
Sandel stays as neutral as possible until the ry and for Sandels own deliberations and
end, where he does write about his inclina- interpretations. The book can be recom-
tion to a theory of social justice stressing mended to readers who are starting out
virtue and ethics. He justifi es his choice by with political philosophy and with the top-
claiming that some social issues cannot be ic of social justice, and to more experienced
resolved or even rightfully deliberated readers and scholars who can effectively
without raising morally relevant questions. use it to confront their knowledge and
These questions should ensure a refl ection opinions with those offered by Michael
of the world around us, which therefore Sandel.
gives us better knowledge and understand- Jiří Mertl
ing of the society required for good citi- University of West Bohemia
zenship. Simultaneously, moral questions jmertl@kap.zcu.cz
should also enrich political practice so that
political decisions include moral aspects. Note
This belongs to the classical communitari- 1 One exception is Sandels remark on the dys-
an doctrine, with one main objection men- topian work Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut
tioned in the text by Sandel: the possibility in connection with Rawlss theory. The story of
of intolerance towards people who do not dystopia is situated in a society of the future,
endorse the values of the majority. Never- which is based on a strong notion of egalitaria-
theless, Sandel continues and stresses that nism. No one in society can be special in any
a critical view on society should strength- way and more gifted people are obliged to wear
some kind of device that equalises their abilities
en community but also tolerance. A better with those of others. But that this is the goal of
1204
Book Reviews
egalitarian liberalism is questionable. Rawls on- the Bologna Process, especially on the con-
ly suggests equalising the chances of citizens to vergence towards the ideal model of high-
live the life they want, not to in any way reduce er education governance brought about by
someones abilities. increased international communication
References and exchange platforms. Institutional iso-
Fraser, Nancy. 2004. Sociální spravedlnost ve morphism is also mentioned as part of the
věku politiky identity: přerozdělování, uznání process in the post-Bologna stage, re-shap-
a participace. (Social Justice in the Age of the ing university and state responsibilities
Politics of Identity: Redistribution, Recognition and resources. At a more general level, Do-
and Participation) Pp. 21–141 in Přerozdělování bbins aims to identify whether Europeani-
nebo uznání?, edited by Nancy Fraser and Axel sation is penetrating more deeply into na-
Honneth. Prague: Filosofi a. tional systems, reshaping long-standing
Rothhaar, Markus. 2010. Human Dignity and patterns of governance and state involve-
Human Rights in Bioethics: The Kantian Ap- ment in higher education. The author ques-
proach. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy tions the direction and intensity of change
13 (3): 251–257. based in four time periods—pre-commu-
Tugendhat, Ernst. 2004. Přednášky o etice. (Lec- nist, communist, pre-Bologna post-1989,
tures on Ethics) Prague: Oikoymenh. and post-Bologna.
The book is conceptually framed using
Michael Dobbins: Higher Education transnational policy convergence and con-
Policies in Central and Eastern Europe. vergence-promoting mechanisms [Holz-
Convergence towards a Common Model? inger and Knill 2007]. Dobbins develops
Basingstoke 2011: Palgrave Macmillan, the analytical framework for assessing con-
249 pp. vergence in higher education governance
by identifying the main state and non-state
Governance change in higher education is actors and developing ideal models of high-
one of the key topics in todays higher edu- er education governance. Clarks [1983] fa-
cation policy literature and increasingly an mous triangle of coordination is the basis
important area of research for social scien- for the models that Dobbins uses to assess
tists. This book is timely as governance the direction and extent of the governance
change in higher education, and especially change. Building extensively on higher ed-
the autonomy of universities, is increasing- ucation studies and the political science lit-
ly on the policy agendas of governments erature, he builds a typology consisting of
and has fascinated researchers for decades. three general higher education arrange-
The author of this book successfully syn- ments: the allocation of procedural autono-
thesises the fi ndings of earlier studies and my; relations between the state and society;
provides an insightful and timely compara- and controlling functions. In line with oth-
tive account of governance change in high- er, similar studies, the shifts in governance
are studied by investigating state-universi-
er education in four Central and Eastern ty relations and internal governance pat-
European (CEE) countries in the context of terns. Further, Dobbins draws on neo-insti-
Europeanisation and other international tutional theory [DiMaggio and Powell
infl uences. 1991] and more specifi cally normative and
Dobbins systematically describes, mimetic isomorphism to understand high-
analyses, and compares pathways of devel- er education convergence, while employ-
opment of higher education governance in ing historical institutionalism [Hall and
Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, and the Czech Taylor 1996] to understand the historically
Republic. He focuses on the infl uence of embedded national opportunity structures.
1205
no reviews yet
Please Login to review.
