Politcal Responsibility in the Global Market
Written in reference to: Young, Iris. (2003). From Guilt to Solidarity: Sweatshops and Political Responsibility. Dissent, 39-44.
Iris Young argues that “social and economic connection” reaches far beyond the bounds of a city or the borders of a nation-state. In addition, such global economic interdependencies imply political responsibilities for events that occur outside of one’s own country. Young focuses largely on the issues of the global garment industry and creates an outline of what she believes to be the political responsibility of consumers or beneficiaries, especially of products of social inequality and unethical practices. Furthermore, she calls to question the political responsibility of the individual and forces us to consider our personal effects on the market and its political practices.
In summary...
Young’s argument outlines four principles of political responsibility. First, political responsibility does not leave one specific group or person to blame. In a global market, many people interact along a large chain of events to produce a product. From the manufacturing to the consumer, every person involved sustains some form of liability if instances of unethical practice are brought to light. Second, political responsibility questions “normal conditions”. Cultural practices and economic stances vary greatly from country to country and, therefore, so does the status quo. Third, political responsibility focuses on the future, not the past. Young argues what’s in the past is finished, and while there are lessons we can learn from it, the important thing to focus on is how to change the practices and outcomes of the future. Her fourth and final point of the model states that political responsibility is shared. This point reiterates the first: that not one person or group carries the blame for the whole.
The second component of Young’s essay adds to these ideas of political responsibility by outlining the degrees and kind of responsibility for participants in the “structural process”: connection, power, and privilege. Connection refers to the proximity to instances of injustice. She argues that an individual owes more political responsibility to a situation if they are directly associated with it. Power refers to the systematic control an individual has over the “structural process”. An individual with more power owes more political responsibility to situations of injustice because their actions and words hold more performative value and authority. Finally, privilege refers to the “beneficiaries” of structural injustice. Young argues that those who benefit from mistreatment of others in the structural process hold more political responsibility to resolve the situation. In other words, the guilt of these beneficiaries should motivate them to resolve issues of injustice.
As an upper-middle class, female, Young may argue that my political responsibilities span multiple fronts. As a female, Young would argue that I should feel obligated to speak up about the injustices of unequal pay in the garment industry. According to a fellow student's unpublished report on Nike, female workers make thirty percent less than their male counterparts. This disparity seems to be a global phenomenon with no valid explanation. As an upper-middle class citizen, Young would argue that I fall under the category of “privileged beneficiaries”. As a consumer of higher-end retail products, I hold more political and social responsibility to the system and should, therefore, be conscious of the structural injustices involved in my purchases. In a another student's unpublished report on Lulu Lemon, they stated that Lulu Lemon was one of several companies involved in the death of hundreds of people in a factory collapse in Bangladesh. In addition, students noted that the overheads were aware of the building’s instability and forced the workers to continue manufacturing goods. In response, I have significantly limited my purchases from those companies involved in the incident.
My position as an individual, however, does not have a large effect on the global market.
In this way though, I have taken Young’s philosophical arguments and transferred them into concrete action through my purchasing practices.
While Young argues that political responsibility does not “mark and isolate” individuals, she claims that globalization is largely to blame for unethical practices. In this way, she contradicts herself because if globalization is a large, uncontrollable, inevitable force, then how are we as consumers to stand against it? As such, I disagree with her argument that individuals should feel politically responsible for structural injustices. The term “beneficiaries” creates the connotation of guilt and responsibility for what are simply consumers participating in a global market.
What do you think? Should "beneficiaries" and/or consumers feel responsible for the injustices within the global marketplace?