Self determination and OWS

This weekend, Counterpunch (http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/12/30/what-equality/) published an essay by Andrew Levine (2011), which discussed at length the concept of equality, especially  whether the Occupy movement is asking for some form of income equality to address the problems confronting Americans today.  Levine (2011)  asserted that the outrageous salaries and bonuses allotted certain CEOs is not the issue at hand, as irritating as they might be. Rather, he thought  OWS is trying to highlight  the fact that it is so difficult for the other end of the spectrum—the very poor, the disenfranchised-- which now make up almost half of the population—to rise enough so as to participate in the system. In other words, those at the bottom of the “ladder of opportunity” are locked into that position because of the growing wealth inequality .  Levine (2011) felt that  that we need to take a close hard look at the inequalities created by capitalism, concluding that “…the time is already past due for putting socialism back on the agenda.”

Levine made some solid points; numerous studies have confirmed that poverty limits access to every aspect of 21^st century life, including the basics of decent food, health care, shelter and education. The government’s new austerity imbecility will only make these problems worse, to the point where the people will stop being nice and demand their due. OWS is still polite; in Greece, tempers have become short.

To piggy back onto Levine’s thesis, the growing inequality is not simply a capitalism issue—although it is a major contributor. Americans have lost ( or casually thrown away) true “self determination,”  or autonomy, which is of critical importance  among  the  foundational principles of democracy. By this, I am not referring to “individualism,” although that is an aspect of autonomy. In the United States, “individualism” has been degraded as a concept to indicate a form of self absorption based upon  the idea that one is only responsible for one’s own well being, regardless of the manner in which this attitude affects others.

 To illustrate this point, I will digress a bit.  I had the opportunity to test this premise in a recent class of high school seniors I taught. They were presented with the following scenario:

Dennis is a software engineer who makes $90,000/year. He is going home one day, walking through the park, and sees a homeless man lying on the bench.  The man asks him for money, and Dennis turns his head and walks on, telling himself, “I am not responsible for that man’s problem. If I give him money, he will just spend it on drugs or alcohol.”

The question asked then was :” Is Dennis responsible for that man’s problem?” All of the students replied to the effect that, “No, the homeless man had the choice to go to a shelter, if he’s not working, that’s because he’s lazy, and one should not have to share with someone who is too lazy to help himself.”

Next question: “ The homeless man is only seventeen, and  the son of a minority woman, who has worked hard all her life. She became very ill, and could not keep the apartment.  Soon after they became homeless, she died, leaving her son alone in the world, with nothing. Is Dennis responsible now?”

The answers given amounted to :” He’s not responsible, but he should give the kid money, because he couldn’t help what happened to him”

Finally, the last question was :” The company Dennis works for was the boy’s mother’s employer. They paid her minimum wage, which was barely enough to support her and her son , and only offered expensive healthcare insurance that she could not afford.  The board of directors felt that in order to pay large salaries to their profitable employees (like Dennis, who was clever with computers), they would have to cut back on salaries and benefits for the “grunts,” that is, the lowest paid workers, the ones doing the hard work of cleaning up after everyone else.  So—is Dennis responsible now?”

Silence. It was obvious that the concept of individualism as they defined it—as most Americans seem to—conflicted with compassion, justice and equality. When pressed, the students became extremely uncomfortable and many refused to answer. I would argue that that is exactly the dilemma most Americans face when confronted with the concept of distributive justice, and asked what autonomy in a democracy really means. They conflate individualism, autonomy and self direction, with selfish self interest, social Darwinism and indifference. Not a pretty mix.

Robert Post (2006) in his article Democracy and Equality, defined self-determination—the foundation of a democracy-- and distributive justice, a critical element if a society wishes to remain a democracy. Self determination, Post (2006) posited, is the process within which individuals participate in authoring—that is, creating—the policies of the government, thus ensuring that it reflects their voice and their will.  Simply putting the stamp of approval on a pre-determined issue is not self-determination, but it might be considered democratic, if one were to assume majority rule is inherently democratic (Madison would  have argued with that). Thus, the people of Wisconsin voted in Scott Walker as governor, but the manner in which the legislature rammed through laws robbing unions of a voice was not democratic in the least, if one uses Posts’ definition.  The people of Wisconsin were not allowed to thoughtfully discuss the issue, weigh the pros and cons, or deliberate on the manner in which unions should function. In  Post’s (2006) words, “ equality of agency in the context of public discourse is measured by guaranteeing each citizen the right to express himself in public discourse in a manner that will allow him to believe that public opinion will be responsive to his agency…” (p.29). This is what we have lost in our democracy.

 It seems logical that if true self determination exists within a nation, and every individual is allowed to weigh in on major decisions (such as those dealing with entitlement programs, Social Security, and  Medicare, to give a few), then distributive justice must follow.  Levine (2011) and Post (2006) were correct in noting that democracy is not about income, it is a set of concepts about equality and governance. But if one were to take the premise of self determination to its logical conclusion, one cannot but see that it would result in a much more equitable division of wealth, as no one would willfully deprive themselves or their families of needed resources.

To conclude, OWS demands appear to be somewhat inchoate—they know what they don’t like, but they often cannot clearly articulate a solution. We are left to wonder, which is probably healthy, as it forces us to examine our assumptions and definitions. I would argue that OWS is asking for us to assert our rights to real self determination, that is, a voice that is heard, is considered legitimate, is acknowledged and which obtains a response. We should be allowed to deliberate the major decisions that affect us all-whether it be going to war with Iran, cutting our education funds to accommodate corporate tax breaks, or being foreclosed upon because of Wall Street greed.

Along with this voice, though, we as a nation must pull out our books of ethics, dust them off and venture a peek inside. Americans have a mixed balance sheet as of now, between beneficence and malfeasance. The best way to honor the sacrifice and courage of the OWS movement, is to raise our voices among theirs, demand our right to participate in the decisions, stop using the narrow definition of “individualism,” and begin to work toward economic justice.

Post, R.(2006) Democracy and Equality. ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (603) pp 24-36. doi:10.1177/0002716205282954