couture-1992-social-criticism-after-rawls
Introduction to Rawls's Influence on Social Criticism
Rawls has significantly impacted contemporary social criticism, particularly in the genre of Anglo-American critical theory.
His work popularized a clear vocabulary for political argument and legitimized a coherence approach to justification.
Rawls’s theories reveal limitations that deserve critical examination.
Distinctions in Rawlsian Theory
First-Wave Rawlsians
Key Figures: Norman Daniels, Kai Nielsen, Thomas Pogge.
Focus on:
Coherence theory vs. foundationalism.
Objectivity of judgment, reflective equilibrium, skepticism vs. realism.
Expansion of Rawls's political argument framework.
Second-Wave Rawlsians
Key Figures: Susan Moller Okin, Marsha Hanen, Michael Walzer, Richard Rorty.
Focus on:
Reevaluation of Rawlsian ideas for specific contexts.
Tension between coherence and conflict theory.
Issues of universalism vs. particularism, identity politics, and pragmatism.
Critique of First-Wave Rawlsians
Misconception: Reflective equilibrium is portrayed as a new method for political argument.
Reality: Reflective equilibrium illustrates an end state of coherence rather than a prescriptive procedure.
Critical analysis of aspects of Rawls’s theory that may hinder contemporary critiques.
RAWLS’S ACHIEVEMENT IN POLITICAL THEORY
Rawls uses reflective equilibrium to describe a state where coherence among claims exists.
Misrepresentation by first-wave theorists claiming it as a method:
Reflective equilibrium consists of interlocking and overlapping procedures.
Encourages pluralism and pragmatism when addressing opposing claims.
Steps and Elements of Reflective Equilibrium
Main Elements
Considered Judgments: Historical moral beliefs from a community’s experience.
Moral Principles: Abstract standards for evaluating actions without ethnocentrism; designed for universal application.
Background Theories: Frameworks reflecting the ideals embedded in a community's public culture, moving beyond current conditions.
Procedures of Reflective Equilibrium
Process:
Filter intuitive judgments to establish considered judgments.
Match these with general moral principles and background theories.
Adjust until coherence is achieved, emphasizing pluralism.
Critique on the vagueness of procedures; they are not systematic or fixed.
Idealized vs. Nonideal Reflective Equilibria
Idealized Reflective Equilibrium
Simulation of balanced critical discourse.
Assumed stable framework that accommodates various theories.
Nonideal Reflective Equilibrium
Emphasis on one element (considered judgments, principles, or background theories) over others.
Practical criticisms can lead to more pragmatic and contextual debates rather than rigid theoretical applications.
The Problem with Ideal Theory
Rawls’s ideal theory may mislead critics by structurally distancing it from actual conditions.
Ideal theory sets a standard for judgment of institutions without solid guidance on applying principles to real-world issues.
Critique on the practicality of applying the Difference Principle, which struggles to address the diverse needs of disadvantaged groups.
Gender, Race, and Culture in Rawls’s Framework
Shortcomings in assessing inequalities emerging from social identities.
Rawls’s principles do not adequately address systemic issues or solutions for current injustices.
Critique of Rawls's Supercritic Concept
Supercritics vs. Particularistic Critics
Supercritics: Universal critics devoid of identity, rationally detached from societal positions.
Particularistic Critics: Draw from personal experiences of injustice, embodying specific social identities for authentic critique.
Implications for Critical Practice
Effective criticism arises from the lived experiences of those affected by systemic issues.
Promoting participatory democracy through self-identification and personal agency in social struggles.
Conclusion: A Pragmatic Approach
The importance of recognizing conflicts of interest shaped by diverse social roles and perspectives.
Advocating for a pragmatic criticism seeks practical effectiveness rather than adherence to rigid philosophical correctness.
Rejection of singular justifications in favor of multi-faceted, inclusive standards for evaluating social justice initiatives.