The Decent Society – Avishai Margalit

Humiliation (pp. 9-12)

1.   What is the connection between a decent society and humiliation? What is Margalit’s definition of humiliation? Why is there an emphasis on intentional action?

2.   Should a decent society distinguish between citizens and non-citizens in its policies? Why or why not?

3.   Why does a decent society refuse to distinguish between first and second-class citizens?

4.   There are two ways in which one might be treated as a second-class citizen. What are they? What are Margalit’s two examples of this?

5.   "The claim that I am advancing is that the problem of discrimination in civil rights is not only an issue of distributive justice but also a matter of humiliation: second-class citizenship of whatever form may be not only depriving but humiliating." Explain and justify.

6.   What is ‘social citizenship’? How might one argue that in the US, there are groups that are second-class citizens in this regard?

7.   What is ‘symbolic citizenship’? Margalit raises an objection to her view based on the idea that national symbols are (i) important to unifying the state and (ii) not easily changed. What is this argument? What is her response?

1.   One of the questions that a decent society must wrestle with is how to balance the demands of decency and freedom of expression. In the US, this occurs in the context of the ‘political correctness’ debates. What does Margalit say herein regards to artistic work?

2.   Explain what Margalit means when she says, "We are interested in collective representation, which includes mainly symbols whose conceptual and emotional significance is shared by members of the society, and which are potent enough to contribute to identification with the group." (p. 167)

3.   How does Margalit define stereotypes? Why are these ways of representing people humiliating?

4.   What is meant by a ‘hegemonic culture’? Why is it the only one which can determine whether or not the society is decent?

5.   Margalit returns to the question of political correctness. She wants to make a distinction between a decent society and a civilized society. What is the difference between the two?

6.   Margalit thinks that restricting institutional freedom of expression (while leaving alone individual expression) is an attractive move. Why? Do you agree?

7.   Why does Margalit think that institutionally ignoring and silencing gays is indecent but doing the same to racists is acceptable? Does she then contradict herself when she forbids victims from ‘spitting back’ at these groups? Explain.

8.  How does Margalit distinguish between pluralistic and tolerant societies? Where would Rawls fit in here?

9.  Margalit notes that it is quite difficult at times to make out the difference between healthy criticism and untoward humiliation. This issue becomes even more difficult when there are significant differences in power and influence. Why is this so? What is Margalit’s compromise position?

1.   "And when this artistic humiliation is institutionally supported, for instance by subsidies, then the society is also not a decent one." (p. 164) Conventional liberal wisdom declares that art must be strongly protected and that it deserves public support. This view came under fire in the recent past when publicly funded but yet controversial art was produced. (e.g. Piss Christ) Would Margalit support the liberal or conservative position? Why? Is her answer a good one?

2.   While Margalit criticizes retaliation against racist groups (such as the KKK or neo-Nazi skinheads), her condemnation is reluctant and tepid. She regards such action as a ‘borderline case’ and seems uncomfortable in having to eventually condemn it. Should she have allowed for this type of action? If so, what defence could you provide on her behalf to allow such action? If not, should her condemnation been more vigorous? Why?

3.  Margalit doesn’t think that a merely tolerant society can be civilized (or at least is ‘suspect’). This seems to put her in odds with Rawls. Who has the more persuasive argument here? (Alternately, you might argue that there really isn’t an incompatibility between the two.)