Structural transformation and reparative obligation: Reinterpreting the beneficiary pays principle

Unredressed injustices in national and global history raise important normative questions. These questions are highlighted by the growing chorus of voices public academic discourse calling for agents, especially those Global North, to recognize redress major their past, most notably colonialism, chattel slavery, segregation.1 One is justification question: do (some) present-day agents have moral obligations historical injustice, if so, on what grounds? Another content assuming that reparative justified, exactly they obligate do? prominent view philosophical literature responding these centered Beneficiary Pays Principle (BPP).2 Proponents BPP argued some a obligation themselves did not commit because enjoy material benefits—wealth, property, other such resources—as result injustices. Since benefits were originally acquired unjustly, contemporary inheritors ought relinquish them, just lack any legitimate claim resources, but also retaining resources perpetuating effects injustice. This answers question. The suggests an answer While from injustices, others correspondingly suffer harms.3 It thus morally redistribute relinquished beneficiaries injustice toward its victims—even redistribution can only partially approximate holdings victims would enjoyed had never occurred.4 Altogether, offers account one familiar approach past wrongdoing, namely provision compensation or reparations. Indeed, proponents contend principle appealing it avoids many thorny epistemic challenges against reparations injustices.5 But reparations, so understood, removed more radical proposed recent social movements racial equality postcolonial justice. proposals demand egalitarian transformation structures order undo unjust social, political, economic legacies segregation, forth.6 In alignment with this vision, accounts structural injustice: products like colonialism full proper remedy requires addressing which legacies.7 argues significantly expanding agents' include remedying various exist today. approach, however, faces theoretical problems regarding turn distribution obligations. clearly display Iris Marion Young's foundational responsibility Young address insofar as participate produce them: our participation sustains we responsible ensuring going forward.8 line reasoning two First, unable explain how installing today amounts redressing given enact justified structures—not appeal doing something about unredressed injustices.9 Second, has implausibly wide-reaching implications obligation, at least injustice-oriented perspective. On view, effectively everyone since participates way structures.10 extends equal measure descendants both perpetrators example, slaves slave-owners alike. surely ones whom owed—not who owe others. If avoid problems, needs provide alternative article develops novel debate aims incorporate insights while avoiding respective problems. I call Radical Reparations. key innovation reinterpretation be said benefit Unlike existing BPP-based views, Reparations contends relevant (just) wealth property (also) positions power privilege within structures, slavery. Agents receive cannot simply redistributed, takes different form than Reparations: must transform power-conferring privilege-conferring via enacting reforms. Beneficiaries backward-looking support reforms broadly aligned among BPP, specifying terms hybrid gap between approaches perhaps wide argued11: should further suggest, enjoys advantages over views tried hybridize reparation liability corporate state, injustices.12 proceeds follows. Section 2 critically reviews focusing discussion overlooks kinds wrongs involved well lasting legacies. 3 examines despite richer understanding sufficiently propose face significant 4 introduces overcome 5 discusses objections Reparations, approach. 6 concludes. Notably, presents conditional argument, empirical issues surrounding numerous complex. question—whether fact injustices—is hotly contested issue, review all counterarguments here.13 Similarly, question—what required fulfill obligations, justified—is part question, investigation well-equipped due specificity, reform table. does aim offer comprehensive modest goal defend following claim: plausible justificatory assigning slavery ramifications, then there brings together weaknesses. Two nexus discussions will refer them Who Pay What. asks: relatedly, compensated? difficult question original often long gone, means usual rationale (“You this, you better fix it!”) inapplicable agents. What kind amount owed injustices? popular apply occurred ago, reasons.14 For practicable, (which correspond questions, respectively) answered. Several philosophers, prominently Daniel Butt Robert Goodin, questions.15 Its core thesis individuals tainted including unjustly wealth, redistributed descendants. no initially means; perpetuate distributive wrongs. Redressing resources. What: obligated pay precisely gained invite challenges. immediate determine materially benefited extent. easy highly Hilary Beckles spoils Britain's exploitation Caribbean fueled development back Britain, tracing ripple effect slave trade sugar plantation industry sectors domestic British economy, ship manufacturing metallurgy.16 growth presumably own. Thus, her lights, even poorest laborer Britain extent Caribbean. Similar points made Such complex imply determining exactitude quite task cases. clearest application seem limited narrow class cases, where origins specific properties documented subsequent transfers left clear paper trail.17 Furthermore, identified, leaves open skeptical challenge broader justifiability Suppose holds, philosophers do, counterfactual (and harms): agent (or harmed) interaction another whenever level welfare higher lower) been occurred.18 motivates well-known objection actually some, all, members “victimized” group, instance spurring development—as few historians claimed colonial legacy India.19 argue, unjustified worse off happened.20 might replies: sorts claims based historically economically flawed assumptions,21 salvaged using idealized counterfactual,22 still publicly beneficial ends benefited,23 forth. Whether replies successful matter discussion, point here arises appeals justify Finally, adequacy basic issue value may necessarily equivalent harm piece dispossessed Indigenous land become barren unproductive time harmful environmental practices; relinquishing returning land, hardly adequate people. possibility speaks actions after initial acquisition matters reparations.24 Note problem run direction well, leading reparations: out stem largely rather themselves. overcompensates injustice; indeed, calls into very count “benefits” injustice.25 Given conclude if, argued, best available version impracticable. But, want suggest different, optimistic diagnosis: avoided abandoning certain mistaken assumptions nature More specifically, current proceed unduly (1) (2) lie squarely past. There good reasons reject assumptions, several injustice-based argued. Understanding rescue particular Consider first assumption essentially nature, lingering repaired distributions starting point, inevitably calculating damages each incident expropriation, totaling up translating holdings, used compensate turns spreadsheet problem. Historical begins maldistribution redistribution. focus ignores nondistributive dimensions emphasized first-hand lived experiences under racism.26 To name few: W.E.B. DuBois describes Black experience misrecognition nonrecognition white dominated society “double-consciousness, sense always looking one's self through eyes others, measuring soul tape world looks amused contempt pity.”27 Frantz Fanon alienation story French child him exclaims “Look, Negro! Maman, Negro!”—the emptiness being seen “object objects” world, person.28 Chief Standing Bear rapid decline Sioux culture ensuing cultural disorientation his tribe wake US settler-colonial expansion late 19th century.29 Gandhi he perceives bankrupting India Western civilization promises comes cost spiritual fulfillment.30 worries resources; rather, speak values self-respect, standing, survival recognition, self-determination, continue inform demands complaints justice.31 Assuming authority harms wrongs, worry segregation adequately understood assessed merely terms.32 now straightforwardly injustices—hence fixation correct inflict-ed. far too simplistic history. disappear day, leaving behind skewed old persist new forms institutions shaped cases literally grew them.33 Take colonialism: Kwame Nkrumah formal end European 20th century inaugurated era “neo-colonialism” former powers “perpetuate same talking ‘freedom’.”34 Or take slavery: Michelle Alexander emphasizes institutional continuities American Jim Crow mass incarceration (e.g., modern day police departments originated patrols), comprising “a tightly networked system laws, policies, customs, operate collectively ensure subordinate status group defined race.”35 ‘historical’ urges greater recognition ways ramifications. persistent disparities originate ill-gotten recurring present, asking for, say, alone miss inevitable phenomenon redressed, purely reality, Americans number overlapping including, to, enslavement ancestors.36 short, applications fail justice subject matter. extend beyond distributions; moreover, stretch present-day, meaning misleading think lead hold wrongdoing. else done us vision requires: expansive response redistributing transforming structures. Beyond contention, diverge details. section examine discussing proponents: Young, Catherine Lu, Alasia Nuti, Maeve McKeown.37 redressed go (the question), argue serious concerning why, which, question). pioneering observes occur wrongful unintended consequences large numbers participating everyday actions. Existing models guidance liable blameworthy processes outcomes innocuous variety fill gap, she proposes connection model: model, “those production reproduction share organize collective action structures.”38 emphasizes, primarily forward-looking backward-looking: primary enjoin achieve forward, identifying holding accountable Unsurprisingly, emphasis raises pressing model inherently making right wrongs? not. deceased truly repaired; thus, bear recognized “how narrate past.”39 enter pragmatic role, argues, “reference past” “understanding present conditions structural, evolved, intervention change effective.”40 then, seeking memorializing abandoned favor reforming Lu endorses reconciliation She revises respects: failure therefore incur still-alive implicated, bringing closer relative account.41 Notwithstanding revisions, joins arguing deceased, properly acknowledge foster “relations mutual respect political reconciliation” victimized groups forward.42 acknowledgment, Lu's rejects deceased. Instead, superseded project shared them. Although helpfully draws attention causes concerns emphasis, my downplays constitute meaningful obviously true nothing However, relations influence As herself puts it, “contemporary just. Part involves halting historic injustice.”43 sense: repair repairing impact structures.44 That is, serve aim: undoing generate second model. virtue contributory role reproduction. No distinctions, therefore, explicitly notion framework: see “all structure suffering burdens.”45 “[t]hose privileged reproduced rooted uniquely burdened privileges, whereas disadvantages way.”46 generates flattened responsibility: regardless (unequally) situated Whatever submit implausible when applied responsib