Justice

"Abstract: My paper examines a problem arising from, but not directly examined in, texts of St. Anselm of Canterbury.  Briefly put, it is this: Anselm is a Christian Platonist, a philosophical tradition relying heavily on the conception of degrees of being, and Anselm himself says quite a bit bearing on this.  He explicitly lays out a hierarchy of ontological dignity, i.e. of lower and higher being, ranging from bare being (nudum esse) to living being, sentient being, and rational being.  My question is then: given the centrality of the conception of justice in Anselm’s thought, could the condition of justice (i.e. being just) just represent yet another level of being in this hierarchy, higher than that of rational being?

My paper approaches this problem through interpretative exegesis.  In the first part, I assemble several Anselmian passages from Monologion and De Concordia which seem to bear on the problem.  In the second, I interpret these passages to provide arguments for regarding justice as a degree of ontological dignity, buttressing them through interpretation of relevant discussions primarily from Monologion, De Veritate, De Libertate, De Casu Diaboli.  In the third, I then marshal responses, discussing other passages from De Casu Diaboli and De Concordia, which problematize regarding justice as a degree of ontological dignity.  In the fourth, I conclude that even in light of these, it is still possible to regard justice as a degree of ontological dignity in qualified ways, and I end by briefly offering four considerations about the relations between justice and rational being in Anselm’s thought."

The case of the Red Mosque (Lal Masjid) is an example of how Islam can produce a sect within a specific context. Although it is difficult to define what a sect in Islam might be, there are some salient features that enable us to recognize them. Given the special conditions of Pakistan’s history, Islamic sects are mainly political. The use of religion for political ends has been a tool for most governments and for sectarian groups. In the case of the Red Mosque, children from traditional areas came to study religion and ended up in an armed confrontation with a government that they had been taught lacked authority for not being properly religious.

Conflicts over environmental spaces that are sites of trauma or have been designated as sacred involve questions about who has a legitimate stake in determining the use of the site, and where the hallowedness attached to that space ends. We examine these questions in a study of the 2009–2010 controversy about the Park51 [sic] Islamic Community Center, sometimes called the “Ground Zero Mosque,” to examine how issues of distributive, procedural, and inclusionary justice play out in a conflict over valuable land close to Ground Zero. This conflict, though in a specifically fraught locale, speaks to resistance to mosque construction in the USA and Europe. Using newspaper articles on the public debate as data (N = 65), and performing a thematic analysis, we identified four key themes: (1) views of Islam, (2) conflict, (3) American identity and ideals, and (4) proximity and place. Utilizing Chi square analyses to examine the effect of propinquity on support for Park51, we found that people living within New York City were more likely to support Park51 than those outside of the city. Our conclusion discusses constructs that link values, space, and social relations—hallowed ground, place attachment, social distance—and discuss their relationship to justice. We argue that while several kinds of justice are relevant, at its heart, this conflict concerns inclusionary questions about who can speak, who belongs, and who should be excluded.

"Marx thinks that capitalism is exploitative, and that is a major basis for his objections to it. But what's wrong with exploitation, as Marx sees it? (The paper is exegetical in character: my object is to understand what Marx believed,) The received view, held by Norman Geras, G.A. Cohen, and others, is that Marx thought that capitalism was unjust, because in the crudest sense, capitalists robbed labor of property that was rightfully the workers' because the workers and not the capitalists produced it. This view depends on a Labor Theory of Property (LTP), that property rights are based ultimately on having produced something. (A view oddly enough shared with the libertarian right, though the LTP is better support for egalitarian or socialist views; see my From Libertarianism to Egalitarianism, 18 Social Theory & Prac. 259-288 (1992).)

I show that the idea that Marx's objection to exploitation is based on injustice or LTP-grounded theft is mistaken. Marx's real objection to exploitation is based on unfreedom, that capitalist relations of production, he thinks, unnecessarily limit human freedom. In the first place Marx is quite clear that he vehemently rejects the concepts of justice, fairness, or rights as bourgeois ideology. It is true that he uses the language of "theft" on occasion, but either a literal interpretation of that language must be abandoned, or his consistent, life-long objection to rights- and justice talk must be given up. Second, the structure, indeed the point, of his analysis of the laws of motion of capitalism, is that capitalists make profits through exploitation of labor -- without cheating -- by the normal "legitimate" operation of the system. Other arguments make the same point.

The unfreedom or force-based view, though not necessarily my specific arguments advocated so far is shared by a minority of other writers, such as Nancy Holmstrom and Richard Arneson. What my paper offers that is novel, part from arguments for the foregoing that are different and better than those found elsewhere (although Holmstrom and Arneson are excellent), is an account of in detail of what Marx regards as the real problem with exploitation.

I analyze Marx's objection that capitalist exploitation causes unnecessary unfreedom by distinguishing and spelling out three different kinds of freedom that he invokes: classic negative freedom, or noninterference; positive freedom, understood as control over or access to the resources enabling one to exercise one's negative freedom; and "real" freedom, as he puts it, the ability to "give the law to oneself," to regulate one's own activities under rules chosen by oneself, to develop one's capacities by autonomous choice. This puts Marx in the tradition going back through Hegel and Kant to Rousseau, the first express advocate of this idea. The opposite of real freedom, the unfreedom due to lack of autonomy, is alienation.

I conclude by stating that I think that justice-based objections to exploitation that avoid Marx's objections to the concept are possible. I do not attempt to spell these out here. I take up that task in my subsequently published paper Relativism, Reflective Equilibrium, and Justice, 17 Legal Stud.,128-168 (1997).

The present paper is related to and partly overlaps with my paper In Defense of Exploitation, 11 Econ. & Phil. 49-81 (1995), a critique of John Roemer's equality based account of the nature of exploitation and its wrongness. The research and writing of this paper was financially supported by the philosophy department of The Ohio State University."

"ABSTRACT
This book examines the doctrine of transgenerational punishment found in the Decalogue: the idea that God punishes sinners vicariously and extends the punishment due them to three or four generations of their progeny. Already in ancient Israel, even though it was a “God-given” law, the unfairness of punishing innocent people merely for being the children or grandchildren of wrongdoers was clearly recognized. A series of inner-biblical and post-biblical responses to the rule demonstrates that later writers were able to criticize, reject, and replace this problematic doctrine with the alternative notion of individual retribution. From this perspective, the formative canon is the source of its own renewal: it fosters critical reflection upon the textual tradition and sponsors intellectual freedom.

To round out the volume, a final chapter provides a valuable bibliographical essay on the distinctive approach of “inner-biblical exegesis.” This resource will support further study and shows the contributions of European, Israeli, and North American scholars. The volume opens new perspectives on current debates within the humanities about canonicity, textual authority, and authorship. There is an extended discussion of the formation of the German literary canon (Mme de Stael; Heinrich Heine and the "portatives Kanon") and of German intellectual history (Immanuel Kant).

KEYWORDS
Decalogue, Divine Justice, Canon, Intertextuality, Allusion, Immanuel Kant, inner-biblical exegesis, relecture, Fortschreibung, Kanon, Textuality, Literary Theory, Hammurabi, Vassal Treaty of Esarhaddon, scribal curriculum, Ruth, Authorship, Ezekiel 18, Hittite Laws, Lamentations 5:7; Exodus 20; Deuteronomy 7, Deuteronomy 5; Targum; Deut 24; individual responsibility; repentance; transgenerational punishment; vicarious punishment, Kanonformel, Mme de Stael, Land der Dichter und Denker; Heinrich Heine; portatives Kanon; portable canon; Immanuel Kant; literary approach to Bible; legal hermeneutics; interdisciplinary.


REVIEWS

"This just might be the best book I’ve read in a long time. It’s challenged my assumptions about the development of the Hebrew Bible and the role of innovation alongside preservation. . . . All in all, I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in the issues of early biblical interpretation and the formation of the biblical canon. Specialists across the board in religious studies and biblical studies would profit from a closer look at Levinson’s book. I’m recommending it to everyone I know—NT students, rabbinics experts, early Christian studies people, Hebrew Bible colleagues—you know who you are—read this book!"
—Douglas Mangum, Biblia Hebraica: A Blog about the Hebrew Bible; http://bibliahebraica.blogspot.com (2009)

"The book deserves a wide readership. It would serve well as a text for advanced undergraduate or graduate courses that deal with inner-biblical exegesis. One can also hope that scholars in other fields will read it and take to heart Levinson’s argument for the reintegration of biblical studies into the core of academic work in the humanities. In addition, there are faith communities that would be encouraged by Levinson’s insight into the nature of canon and the necessity for ongoing reinterpretation of tradition. The book’s research is thorough, its argument forceful, its writing elegant, and it is blessedly short. If books can be placed into tribes, may this one’s increase."
—Bruce Wells, Review of Biblical Literature; http://www.bookreviews.org (2010)

"Biblical studies were once integrated into the center of scholarship and even its moving agent. With this study Levinson wants to reintegrate the study of the Hebrew Bible into the overall humanities discourse. The religious canon of the Hebrew Bible is not an inflexible collection of books that stands in the way of innovation. Levinson analyses the phenomenon of the rewriting of texts both inside (e.g. legal change) and outside the Hebrew Bible (e.g. Targum) to demonstrate the opposite. The example of transgenerational punishment shows, the exegetical processes involved in this rewriting point not only to dynamic and creative processes inside the canon of the Hebrew Bible but show how a canon initiated and initiates innovation as its driving engine. Levinson points e.g. to a nexus between the emergence of the German literary canon and academic biblical studies. With this study Levinson demonstrates again how he masterfully integrates his own exegetical brilliance into larger theoretical frameworks beyond the constraints of biblical studies. Especially helpful to the specialist and colleagues from other fields is a long essay on the history of research about rewriting processes inside the Hebrew Bible (91–181)."
—Armin Lange, Journal of Ancient Judaism 1:2 (2010)

"The bibliographical essay is an excellent overview of research on what is now often called ‘inner-biblical exegesis,’ and it will serve as a superb tool for beginners and seasoned researchers alike. The other essays span a vast array of methodological problems and exegetical insights and are at the forefront of current research into legal traditions in the HB. A highly welcome volume."
—Joachim Schaper, SOTS Book List 2009 =JSOT 33 (2009)

"Perhaps I am biased, but it seems to me to be beyond any reasonable doubt that, behind the final form of the canonical, biblical text lies evidence of a lively, imaginative, and creative use of interpretation, reinterpretation, and reapplication of earlier texts. It is a complex, living, creative achievement which, for just this reason, invites constant, continuing invention, as Levinson maintains. I certainly find this book itself a delightful, informative, and stimulating one to read."
—Rex Mason, Journal of Theological Studies 60 (2009)

"The book’s most innovative contribution lies in its first . . . half, which explores the relation between biblical studies and the humanities. . . . As L. notes—rightly in my judgment—this deeply rooted separation of Jerusalem from Athens has been to no one’s advantage. His discussion of the relationship between the concept of ethics in Kant and in Ezekiel demonstrates how much both disciplines might gain from such a conversation. The secularization of the liberal arts has left them largely uninformed about contemporary ways of reading the Bible. Recent discussions in the humanities could find much of value in biblical studies’ sophisticated ways of thinking about canonicity. . . .

"The essays that constitute the first half of this book are the product of more than a decade and a half of research and deliberation. Their sustained and fluent reflection on important issues will reward contemplation by biblical scholars, while the bibliographic essay that makes up the second half will be a useful tool for those interested in exploring the growing body of work on inner-biblical exegesis."
—Frederick E. Greenspahn, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 71 (2009)

"This is a revised and expanded essay first published in French in 2005. The concern is inner-biblical exegesis, an important area of recent Old Testament research and a subject to which Levinson is a significant contributor. The first half of the book sets the subject of inner-biblical exegesis within the context of canon. Levinson rightly observes that biblical exegesis is not a development that emerges after final canonization, but something occurring within the material from an early stage. For him canon is something that tends towards fixity, but yet the texts also attest radical innovation as texts are disputed even within the canon itself. One extended case study occupies a significant part of Levinson’s attention: those texts that deal with intergenerational punishment. Levinson seeks to show that Ezekiel and Deuteronomy 7 deliberately cite the Decalogue in order to subvert its plain meaning and offer a reinterpretation where individuals receive reward and punishment for their own deeds. This reinterpretation of the Decalogue is determinative for later Jewish thinking. The final chapter contributes half of the book’s length and is a bibliographical essay on inner-biblical exegesis. It traces the subject from Wellhausen through the very earliest observers of the biblical literature’s literary (rather than oral) inter-relationships to the most recent works. Pithy and perceptive introductions to all the major literature on inner-biblical exegesis are given and this is an extremely valuable resource for more advanced students. This would be an excellent addition to any theological library and it is to be hoped that the publisher will soon release a paperback version so more students can enjoy the fruits of Levinson’s labours."
—Nathan MacDonald, Theological Book Review 21 (2009)

"The format of this book . . . provides a thorough but brief introduction to inner-biblical exegesis approach, both in method and in theory. Anyone, scholar or student, who is interested in learning more about how the theoretical foundations of this approach as well as how it works will find the text invaluable. Second, for scholars in particular, the footnotes and the bibliographic essay are excellent and up-to-date resources of the field. The bibliographic essay was a particularly delightful read in that Levinson connected many scholars with whom most readers will have at least a passing acquaintance in a new way. Third, the length and style of this text make it very accessible to both upper-level undergraduate students and graduate students working in the area of biblical interpretation or looking more generally at the idea of canon."
—Karla Suomala, Review of Biblical Literature 11 (2009)

"Throughout the text, L.’s careful work leads him to exhort the humanities explicitly to engage in greater interdisciplinary dialogue. Academic biblical studies have engaged and incorporated insights from other disciplines into exegesis, but colleagues in comparative literature, history of religions, and related fields have not reciprocated to the same degree. ‘Unfortunately, many within the broader academic community are woefully uninformed about how to read the Bible critically, historically, and intellectually’ (93)."
—John J. Pilch, Theological Studies 70:4 (2009): 967–68

"In his foray into the topic of the Ten Commandments in history and tradition seen from the vantage point of inner-biblical exegesis, Bernard Levinson zeroes in on the question of moral agency. It is hard to think of a more fundamental topic at the interface of law and theology. Levinson understands Ezekiel 18 to amount to a covert repudiation of the doctrine of cross-generational transfer of the consequences of human behavior as it finds expression in the Decalogue at Exod 20:5–6.1. A brilliant thesis, one I hope receives a wide hearing."
—John Hobbins, Ancient Hebrew Poetry blog; http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com (2009)

"In this book, Levinson considers the literary and textual authority of scripture and the creative conventions that led to its production. . . . With an extensive bibliographic essay outlining the contributions of renowned scholars, prominent in the field of inner-biblical exegesis, this exhaustive book recognizes the need for a more innovative and intuitive debate within the wider humanities about canonicity, textual authority and authorship. . . . I was inspired by Levinson’s theories and would certainly recommend this book to scholars interested in the textual construction of scripture. . ."
—Benjamin Bury, Reviews in Religion and Theology 17:3 (2010): 279–80

"Best Book on Inner-Biblical Exegesis Ever!
I’m pleased to announce that this thought-provoking volume is now available in an affordable paperback edition. My hope is that it will reach a wider audience in biblical studies, especially graduate students interested in the formation of the Hebrew Bible and inner-biblical exegesis."
—Douglas Mangnum, Biblia Hebraica et Graeca; A Blog about the Hebrew Bible; http://bibliahebraica.blogspot.com (2010)

“The book may claim to be about the dynamics of legal (i.e. halachic) development within the Bible, but the underlying message deals with the viability of theories of halachic change in the contemporary Jewish community. That is why it should be required reading for participants in law committees and students of Jewish law.”
—Rabbi Neil Gillman, in CJ: Voices of Conservative/Masorti Judaism, Summer 2011, p. 9 [online: http://www.wlcj.org/articlenav.php?id=416]

“This slender volume . . . sets out the discipline of “inner-biblical exegesis” by one of its foremost practitioners today. The author, Bernard Levinson, sets himself apart from most other inner-biblical exegetes in two ways. The first is his desire to engage in dialogue with disciplines outside of biblical studies. The second is the scrupulous attention he pays to ancient Near Eastern legal texts as sources for illuminating biblical law. . . . Levinson is to be applauded for this fine volume, which demonstrates his preferred methodology clearly and concisely for a broad academic audience.”
—Sidnie White Crawford, Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible and Theology 40 (2010): 165–166

“Levinson’s book is a gem and deserves a wide readership.”
—Megan Warner, in Australian BiblicalReview 59 (2011);
www.fbs.org.au/reviews/levinson59b.html

"Legal Revision and Religious Renewal concludes with an extensive annotated bibliography (86 pages!) that is primarily populated with books from Biblical Studies. This section will be most helpful for specialists in the fields of Biblical and Judaic Studies. Some of the arguments, however, may prove inspiring for scholars outside the field."
—Michael J. Chan, Shofar: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies 31 (2012); online: http://www.case.edu/artsci/jdst/reviews/Legal.htm"

""Nos últimos anos tem havido uma intensificação da presença dos media no debate em torno do exercício dos cargos políticos. Todavia, essa exposição pública não tem tido correspondência direta no trabalho legislativo quer de combate à corrupção, quer de criminalização do comportamento do político, em geral. Observa-se, aliás, uma certa permanência de vazios legislativos acerca do tipo de comportamentos potencialmente lesivos dos políticos, no exercício da sua atividade quotidiana, enquanto representantes da população eleitora. Além disso, a política é um eixo fundamental da narrativa quotidiana do tempo presente, um tempo de crise, um tempo de interrogações diversas, inclusive sobre a própria sustentabilidade e futuro da democracia. Os media desempenham, neste contexto, um papel muito próprio e central na construção e na desconstrução da política, muitas vezes distanciando-se dela, outras vezes propondo a sua própria reconfiguração. Neste texto, procuramos mostrar, mais especificamente, qual e de que forma se manifesta o papel dos media na formulação de uma imagem de político, nomeadamente no que se refere à idoneidade e à vocação para a política, tal como enunciado por Max Weber.
Assim, esta comunicação tem como objetivo problematizar a relação entre os media e os políticos, em particular quando estes estão acusados de crimes de corrupção e de violação ética. A comunicação alicerça-se, fundamentalmente, nos quadros teóricos da sociologia dos media e da sociologia política e debruça-se sobre o contexto português e europeu. Empiricamente, sustenta-se na apresentação e discussão dos resultados obtidos no âmbito de uma investigação em curso que incide sobre a análise de conteúdo e de discurso de um corpus de materiais selecionado, a partir de imprensa escrita, assim como da legislação diretamente relacionado com a regulação do comportamento do político, no exercício de cargos públicos.""