<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
A useful way to reconceptualise the debate and avoid the problems of a
metaphysical concept like 'justice' is to think in terms of assembling
or making, that is of justification. Here a useful discussion of this
as a way of reconceptualising Michael Walzer's notion of 'Spheres of
Justice' is in Boltanski and Thevenot (2006) <i>On Justification:
Economies of Worth</i>. They use the notion of six 'cities' (renamed
'worlds' in Boltanski and Chiapello (2007) <i>The New Spirit of
Capitalism</i>) and discuss the way in which different 'cities'
construct different notions of how a justification is made and with
reference to what (in this case 'tests of worth'). The six cities are
civic, market, inspired, fame, industrial, and domestic, and they are
legitimated through a range of tests that orient the actors towards a
notion of the common good (that is, the common good within the
discursive framework of a particular city/world). They later add a
seventh city/world, the 'projective world' in <i>The New Spirit of
Capitalism</i>, which is particularly relevant to the kinds of
discussions taking place on this list. What is key, I think, about this
conceptualisation is that these city/worlds exist simultaneously and
are in constant tension with each other, so that actors are continually
mobilising different worlds, and attempting to undermine alternative
justifications in order to deploy and stabilise particular projects. <br>
<br>
A good example might be the way in which free software advocates use
the notion of a 'civic world' (e.g. citizenship, community) against
notionally similar actors in the open-source movement who tend towards
an 'industrial world' for justification (e.g. productivity,
efficiency), which is in contrast to Creative Commons which tends
towards justification based on a projective world (e.g. flexible
networks, projects). As these city/worlds are based on tests of worth,
they must constantly be renewed and reapplied (in a recursive sense)
and this gives a dynamic to the process of justification, and (argue
Boltanski and Thevenot) a dynamic to capitalism which requires
justification in some form of another (a la Weber) to operate
successfully. What is fascinating about this approach is that it does
not assume a hegemonic form of ideology, nor a homogenous group
acceptance, rather the process of justification is a process of
building alliances around the acceptance and performance of tests –
which really reminds me of the example of David Clark's phrase 'We
reject: kings, presidents and voting. We believe in: rough consensus
and running code', in other words the 'test of worth' of functioning
software together with the witnessing of that performance which will
give a technical consensus to the solution to a (usually) technical
problem. This I think helps unpacks the notion of 'justice' within
particular spheres and allows us to look for moments when a test is
being made, and whether that test has legitimacy and is accepted by the
participants. <br>
<br>
David<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Dean, Jodi wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:A9CB20B2E922894AB91C979CE39066F5F5E14C0699@EXMAIL.hws.edu"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Jodi says:
Another way to put this: the justice of the market is not the same as political justice.
Chris replies:
okay, i'll bite, what is the difference?
Jodi:
in a market, the agreement of buyer and seller makes something just; this is understood as price (under the assumption that markets achieve equilibrium).
there are different versions of political justice. some of these versions meet up and conflict with price, so:
--justice requires that some things not be sold, that some things have no price
--justice requires an equal outcome
--justice requires participation in the constitution of the site of exchange
--justice requires basic conditions that come prior to exchange
--justice requires mindfulness of the long term/future generations
with the last one, we get into different kinds of justice
--justice in rectifications
--justice in the distribution of responsibilities and rights
--the characteristics of just laws and procedures
_______________________________________________
iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity (distributedcreativity.org)
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:iDC@mailman.thing.net">iDC@mailman.thing.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc">https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc</a>
List Archive:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/">http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/</a>
iDC Photo Stream:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/</a>
RSS feed:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc">http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc</a>
iDC Chat on Facebook:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647">http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647</a>
Share relevant URLs on Del.icio.us by adding the tag iDCref
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<br>
Dr David M. Berry<br>
<br>
Media and Communications Department<br>
School of Arts<br>
University of Wales Swansea<br>
Swansea<br>
SA2 8PP<br>
Wales, UK<br>
<br>
Email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:D.M.Berry@swansea.ac.uk">D.M.Berry@swansea.ac.uk</a><br>
Tel: x2633<br>
Web: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.swansea.ac.uk/staff/academic/Arts/berryd/">http://www.swansea.ac.uk/staff/academic/Arts/berryd/</a></div>
</body>
</html>