This is part one of a forthcoming book called Collected Essays: Volume Two.
********************
Krzysztof Kieslowksi made a trilogy of films about the three
colours of the French flag, which are called Blue (1993), White
(1993) and Red (1994). These colours symbolise the values of the French
Revolution – liberty, equality and fraternity. However, Kieslowski acknowledges
that the trilogy’s relationship with the French revolution is oblique and that
he primarily chose the subject because the funding came from France. Similarly,
he made a series of films in his native Poland called The Decalogue (1989),
which were loosely based on the ten commandments. This essay will not be
interested in Kieslowski’s intentions, it will be interested in identifying
aspects of political philosophy in these three films. It will consider
political theories on liberty, equality and fraternity and it will briefly
introduce theories from several influential political philosophers. It will later
ascertain how these theories are represented in the three films.
Kieslowski’s earlier films had political
undercurrents and they subtly criticised the communist regime in Poland, but
they were chiefly concerned with more existentialist issues such as personal
freedom, identity and moral choice. Indeed, Jonathan Romney writes: ‘There is
something old-school existentialist about him’ (2011). Although Blue is
ostensibly based on the ideals of the French revolution, Kieslowksi stressed
that the film is not political: ‘We’re talking about individual freedom, a
profound freedom, freedom of life’ (Romney 2011). His Polish productions were politically
charged whilst his international films became more abstract. However, his Polish
productions and his later international productions were about individuals who
attempted to reconcile daily lives with ‘cultural myths, be they communist
propaganda, Biblical proverbs or French Revolutionary slogans’ (Cummings 2003).
Indeed, the trilogy is often concerned with non-political themes: ‘A nuanced
and even playful approach to narrative, the paradoxes of chance, the
interconnectedness of lives and a central importance given to art and
performance (both public and private)’ (Cummings 2003). Kieslowski decided to
make the film about the French revolution due the to the funding (Romney).
However, Richard Armstrong writes: ‘[the films contain] a tension between the
personal and the political’ (2007, p. 278).
However, political ideals do underpin the characters’ personal choices.
Liberty,
equality and fraternity were the ideals of the French revolution, so this essay
will briefly examine its history. Inequality permeated the whole of
pre-revolutionary Europe, which made revolution seem propitious. For instance, the
peasantry comprised 80% of the population in France, one half of peasants owned
no capital and they bore the brunt of heavy taxation (Rude 1964, p. 23). Prices
rose by 30% between 1730 and 1789 and wages only increased by 22% (Rude, p.
26). Workers had no social protections and were subjected to serfdom (p. 26).
However, the growth of industry soon led to an urban working class and to an
industrial revolution (p. 26). Unlike the Russian revolution, it was a liberal
revolution and it overturned the political and social structure of France (Droz
1967, p. 7). However, it later led to a conservative counter-revolution. Hegel
was one of its main proponents and he argued that the state embodied a
community which preceded and endured its individual members. Hegel thought that
individuals had no substance; they were merely members of a state (Droz, p.
14). The period of 1815-1848 led to the rise of middle classes, which had
prospered from the French Revolutions’ (p. 37). In keeping with the ideals of
the French Revolution, the state for them was a guardian of freedom. It should
not intervene in the economy or the organisation of society. Although society
was riven with poverty, the role of the state was ‘negative’ (Droz, p. 45). Although
the French Revolution did eventually create a middle class, it also led to a
reign of terror. Robespierre became the leader of France and he believed that a
more centralised state could create a more equitable society (Egan 1938, p.
27). He wanted to create a classless and co-operative society (22). He derived
his ideas from Jean-Jacques Rousseau, a thinker who wrote about ‘the general
will’ of the people (p. 27). Similarly, Robespierre believed that everyone
should be directed to a single purpose (p. 91). Robespierre would have
shuddered at the idea of an authoritarian or totalitarian state – he believed
in the ideals of liberty and equality – but this is what he ended up creating
(P. 89). Indeed, Egan writes that he turned from ‘a liberal humanist’ to
‘nationalist zealot’ between 1789 and1794 (p. 89). Eventually, Napoleon inherited
this centralised state apparatus (Broers 1996, p. 6).
The
philosophical foundations that opposed and supported the French Revolution were
propounded in Edmund Burke’s Reflection on the Revolution in France
(1790) and Thomas Paine’s The Rights of Man (1791). Burke defended the
monarchy and argued that the rule of law and other customs had taken thousands
of years to accomplish. It was therefore capricious to attempt to destroy it:
‘It is with infinite caution that any man ought to venture upon pulling down an
edifice which has answered in any tolerable degree for ages the common purposes
of society, or on building it up again, without having models or patterns’
(1790, p. 74). For a conservative, principles are established after attaining
power, they do not precede it. As such, laws and political problems should
respond to real problems which already exist. On the other hand, Paine argued
that liberty should be extended to everyone and that we are all entitled to
natural rights. He included a ‘declaration of the rights of man’ in his book,
where he lists the principles of the French Revolution. These include the
following principles: ‘1) Men should be free and equal in all respects. 2) All
citizens should be entitled to liberty, property, security and resistance of
oppression. 3) Everyone should have political liberty and should be able to do
what they want as long as they do not harm others. 4) All men are free to
exercise their liberty, although they are circumscribed by the law. 5) The law
should only prohibit actions that harm society. 6) the law is an expression of
the ‘general will’ of the community and citizens can agree or disagree with
these laws. 7) The community is entitled to all honours and employment, which
should be based on their skills and virtue. 8) No man should be arrested
arbitrarily and they should only be arrested when they break the law 9) The law
should only impose penalties that are necessary. 10) Every man should be
presumed innocent before being convicted. 11) No man should be convicted
because of political or religious opinions. 12) Everyone should be able to
speak and think freely. 13) Policing is necessary so as to protect these rights.
14) Everyone should contribute to public expenses, but these contributions
should be divided equally and based on the ability of each individual. 15) Each
citizen has a right to determine how much each individual should contribute.
16) Every society requires a political constitution. 17) Everyone has a right
to property and no-one should be deprived of it, unless it is of the utmost
public necessity. 18) Finally, all elected representatives should be held
accountable to its citizens (1791, p. 350-352). These were the central
principles of the French Revolution.
This essay
will now look at political philosophies of liberty, which is broadly defined as
the freedom to do certain things. It will start by looking at Issiah Berlin’s
ideas on ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ liberty. ‘Negative liberty’ is defined as
‘freedom from interference’ whilst positive liberty is defined as ‘the freedom
to do something’. Berlin says the following about negative liberty: ‘What is
the area within the subject – a person or group of persons – should be left to
do or be what he is able to do without interference from other persons?’ (1969,
p. 3). On the other hand, this is how Berlin defines positive liberty: ‘What,
or who, is the source of control or interference that can determine to, or be,
this or that?’ (p. 3). According to negative liberty, an individual is free
when no-one interferes in his activity (p.3). An individual is unfree when he
is prevented from doing something. There are external societal factors that
prevent freedom, such as poverty (p. 4). Berlin also says that mental and
physical incapacities also prevent freedom. Berlin: ‘The wider the area of
non-interference, the wider my freedom’ (p. 4). According to Berlin, social
harmony and equality can only be achieved by bestowing a private life to
individuals. Crucially, neither the state nor any other entity should intervene
in the private realm (p. 6). On the other hand, positive liberty aims to provide
resources which make individuals free. Liberty means that the individual wants
to be a ‘master’ of his own destiny. An individual is ‘a subject, not an object’
and he is ‘moved by reasons, conscious purposes, which are my own’ (p. 8).
However, Berlin admits that coercing an individual in the name of a higher goal
can sometimes be justified. These include causes such as public health, social
justice, the fight against fascism, etc. (p. 9). However, Berlin points out
that definitions of what is good and just vary drastically amongst individuals (p.
9). In some cases, however, coercion in the name of the common good might
enlarge one’s own liberty (p. 9). The Second World War is a good example of
this, as many people argued that the fight against fascism was an attempt to protect
individual freedom.
However,
some liberals wanted to create ‘an enabler state.’ Social liberals, as opposed
to ‘classical liberals,’ wanted to create state resources that intervened in
the economy and combated poverty. They did this because they wanted to
heighten, not diminish, individual freedom. William Beveridge provided the intellectual
formulation of ‘welfare state’ in his ‘Beveridge report.’ On the other hand,
classical liberals argue that state resources create dependency and that they
intrude into the private lives of individuals. Social liberals, meanwhile,
argue that they empower the individual by providing him with resources such as
money, health and education. It enriches their autonomy, as opposed to creating
dependency. Supporters of positive liberty believe that a degree of wealth
redistribution enriches individual liberty (Sloman 2015). Martha Nussbaum, a
social liberal, views negative liberty ‘as an incoherent idea,’ as all our
choices are either permitted or inhibited by others. All choices depend on
resources such as education, health, food, etc. The state should provide
resources such as education, health and redistributive welfare and they develop
the capacities of the individual (Nussbaum 2011, p. 65).
However, as this essay identified, Kieslowski
was mainly interested in personal, not political, freedom. Robert J.
Havinghurst writes about the individualism of the west and contrasts it with
the ‘groupism’ of the east. In line with Berlin’s ideas, he writes that freedom
involves the absence of constraint and the freedom to speak or assemble (1952,
p. 230). However, Havinghurst writes that excessive individualism can lead to
loneliness and isolation. As such, people need some sense of belonging, such as
nationhood and family. Western societies are more individualistic, and have
less encroachment from the state, than the communistic east (p. 235). These
societies emphasise personal freedom. On the other hand, several political
philosophers have argued that political freedom is more important than personal
freedom. Hannah Arendt did this in her book On Revolution (1963), where she
emphasised participatory democracy and self-government. Freedom, for her, was
public; that is, ‘it was a network of relation between human beings' (Wellmer
1999, p. 84). In a liberal democracy, the state must recognise that each
individual is an end in itself, has equal value and that he has a right to
choose the life that he wants to lead. Moral rights and values emerge from our intrinsic
humanity, not political institutions (Wellmer, p. 91). In private, however, the
individual is free to choose what to do without interference from the state (p.
91). In the public sphere, however, members of the community are equal and they
have the power to influence decisions (p. 91). Hence, Arendt placed more emphasis
on political freedom whilst Issiah Berlin thought that personal freedom was
more important (p. 94). Although Arendt shared some concern for a liberal
conception of rights, she thought that it was a necessary precondition for
political freedom, which involved ‘self-government based on common action and
shared deliberation’ (Dybikowski 1981, 208).
This essay
will now ascertain how these ideas are represented in the film. Julie is played
by Julliette Binoche and she talks to a lawyer in one scene. She is framed via
a mid-shot and the values of liberty are reinforced by the blue wallpaper and
the saturation. The lawyer is framed via a mid-shot. Julie tells him: ‘You’ll
take care of mother. No-one must know. The money will go to the same account.’
Julie is on the left side of the mid-shot and the entire room is covered in
blue wallpaper. The lawyer says: ‘May I ask you why?’ The mid-shot tilts down
and reveals Julie holding blue wrapping and this once more reifies the
underlying value of liberty. She says: ‘No.’ The lighting, the saturation and
the mise-en-scene allude to the revolutionary ideal of freedom. Most viewers,
however, would be aware of this, as the title of the trilogy patently alludes
to it. The scene also references ideas on positive and negative liberty, as
Julie wants no interference from others so that she can be free to pursue her
own freedom. She is not prevented from doing this and, in that sense, her
liberty is negative. The state does not tell her how to lead her life, she is
an end in herself and she chooses how to act. Political intuitions do not
determine her choices and she makes her own choices. She also cuts herself off
from family and friends and she wants no interference from either them or the
state. By contrast, positive liberty interferes in society so as to enhance the
choices that people make. In this particular scene, Julie relies on a lawyer to
take care of her accounts. As such, she still relies on other individuals and
institutions that either permit or inhibit her choices. Later on, she relies on
a landlord to rent an apartment and on utility companies for electricity, gas,
etc. Nussbaum claims that negative liberty is an incoherent idea, as all individual
choices are dependent on resources which are controlled by others. However,
Julie is still free to pursue the life that she individually wants to lead.
Oliver is a
family acquaintance and a composer. This essay will analyse a scene where Julie
cuts herself off from him and it will bear in mind ideas on negative and positive
liberty. The scene starts with a mid-shot. Oliver stands on the far right of
the screen and it is dark outside. Once more, the screen is saturated with the
colour blue, which reinforces themes of political liberty. There is more light
on Oliver side of the frame, but the rest of the frame is enveloped in darkness.
The sound design is comprised of the sound of rain. The camera work edits to a
mid-shot of Julie, who is on the left side of the frame and it later tilts up
to reveal Oliver. The mise-en-scene is once more comprised of blue wallpaper
and the sky is tinged with blue. The camera work edits to a close-up shot of
Julie and Oliver kissing. The camera work soon edits to reveal a mid-shot
Oliver sleeping, where there is a lot of contrast between dark and light. Julie
is placed on the left side of the screen whilst Oliver lies on the right side
of the frame. This mid-shot is followed by a close-up and the framing of the
bodies emphasises their distance from each other. The camera work edits to a
close-up shot of Julie smiling, where she is surrounded by a blue backdrop. She
says: ‘I appreciate what you did for me. Now you see, I’m like any other woman.
I sweat, I cough, I have cavities. You won’t miss me. You understand that now.’
The camera work edits to a close-up shot of Oliver who looks bemused. The
mid-shot creates a sense of union between the two characters whilst the
close-us create a sense of distance. This is followed by a low-angle mid-shot
of Julie walking away and we see it from Oliver’s perspective. Julie’s liberty is
negative, as she is cutting herself off from others. However, there is nothing
political in this scene because it is about personal relations. However, in
other scenes Julie does rely on political institutions to extricate herself
from others. On the other hand, this scene deals with her private life, where
she cuts off contact with a close relation. She does this so as to focus on her
personal freedom, where she is free to do what she wants to do. She is free to
pursue whatever she wants to do in her private life and she is unencumbered by
responsibilities or the kind of ‘common action’ that Arendt prescribed.
These two
scenes demonstrate how Julie tries to cut off herself off from others. In other
words, it shows how she exercises her ‘negative liberty’ and personal freedom.
Kieslowski claims that he was more interested in personal freedom, but there is
one scene where she connects to a higher political ideal. Her husband composed
a piece about the ideals of the European Union and she attempts to complete it
after he passes away. The piece is about values which transcend national
borders, it is internationalist and it is about values which a community of
nations adhere to. These values are higher than the self and the personal
relations which the rest of the film deals with. Indeed, Julie starts to
reconnect with society and with others once she starts writing the piece. The
scene starts with a mid-shot of a television set in a night club and it is
followed with a 125-degree close-up of Julie. The TV program is once more
saturated by blue and the set design is blue. Oliver says: ‘The concerto will
be played by twelve symphonic orchestras in the twelve united European cities.’
The camera, framed via a close-up, pans across the score. This was during the
early 90s, following the demise of communism and the so-called ‘end of history.’
The ideals of this piece are higher than the ideals of the nation state, they
are about ideals which transcend borders. A later scene depicts Julie and
Oliver working on the score together and it starts with a mid-shot of Oliver’s
apartment. This is followed with an extreme close-up of the score, which pans
across the piece as the score plays in the background. The camera blurs out of
focus, so that the music comes to the fore. The editing later alternates
between mid-shots of Julie and Oliver and they are framed via 125 or 175
angles. In these scenes, Julie reconnects with higher political ideals of the
ideals and she also reconnects with intimate personal relations, as she becomes
Oliver’s partner. The film recreates this with mid-shots of Julie and Olivier,
which conveys their close personal relationship. It conveys the connection with
political ideals via extreme close-ups of the score, the soundtrack of the
score and the blue tinge on the screen.
This essay
has examined the ideals of freedom in Blue and it will now examine the
ideals of equality in White, which is also a multifarious term. The
broad meaning is that people should be treated the same way and that no-one
should be entitled to unfair privileges. Commentators talk about ‘freedom to
what’ and ‘equality of what,’ as both terms have different meanings. This essay
has already examined positive, negative, personal and political freedom. It
will now examine the equal worth of individuals, equality of outcome and
opportunity, the ideas of John Rawls and the ideas of R. H. Tawney. Richard
Arneson defines egalitarianism as the belief that people should be treated the
same way and that everyone is of equal worth (2013). Meanwhile, Nicholas Kirby makes
a distinction between equal worth and equal authority. Equal worth is the
belief that each individual is of each worth whilst equal authority is the
belief that no individual should be under the natural authority of anyone else
(2018, p. 297). Equal worth was originally based on the idea that what is good
for the individual and society would lead to redemption in heaven. After
Christianity, Jeremy Bentham argued that individual happiness was considered
good if the lower rungs of society were as equally happy as the higher ones (p.
303). Meanwhile, unequal authority involves differences in race, sex, class,
education, prosperity, age, virtues, talents, etc. (p. 303). Kirby writes that
individuals have equal rights and that everyone should be able to make laws through
the ballot box and consensual decision making (p. 304). Each individual has
authority over himself and the ability to determine his own decisions, but no
individual should have authority over another individual (p. 304). The
democratic conception of society views individuals as equal members/citizens of
a community (p. 305), which has led to certain kinds of liberals warning about ‘the
tyranny of the majority’ (p. 305). Over time, however, societies have diversified,
which has incorporated a multiplicity of values. As time passes, the individual
has less in common with the majority and we start to speak less of a communal
self (p. 305). According to Rosseau, the government is a body which rules
everyone, but the continues to have the authority to rule himself. When the
government enforces its rules over the individual, it forces him to obey his
previous exercise of authority (p. 308). Kant, meanwhile, claims that laws are
given to the individual, but these laws are universal and they are
commensurable with his autonomous choices (p. 308).
This essay
will analyse a scene of a court scene in White and it will look at these
ideas on equal worth and equal authority. In a democratic society, all
individuals are equal under the rule of law. Everyone is of equal worth and the
law should not discriminate on the grounds of race, class or gender. The law
should be ‘the servant’ of its people, not its ‘master.’ This scene starts with
a long shot in the right-hand corner of the building, where several lawyers
walk around. The building is brightly luminated. The lawyers wear black and
they walk on top of the patterned white floor. All of the lawyers are in a
higher position in society, although everyone is equal under the rule of law.
The film edits to a court room and it starts with a low angle mid-shot in the left-hand
corner of the room. This is followed with a high angle long-shot of the
courtroom in the centre of the room. The judge is in the middle, Karol is on
the left and his wife Dominique is on the right. The film later edits to
close-ups of both Karol and Dominique. At this point, Karol says: ‘Where’s my
equality? Is not speaking French a reason for the court to refuse to hear my
case?’ The judge says: ‘What is it you want?’ Karol: ‘I need time to save my
marriage.’ This is followed with close-ups of Karol and Dominque. Karol does
not feel that the law is treating him as an equal, as he cannot speak French
and he speaks through an interpreter. He feels that the law is not being just,
as it is treating him unequally because of his nationality. According to Kant,
the law should be universal and follow universal laws of justice, morality,
etc. Nationhood should not be brought to the fore, as the law should be
universal and should be applied equally to people from different cultures. The
law in this scene is not really being the servant of the individual, either. He
has been deprived of some freedom and someone else decide his own fate. Karol
is not really of equal worth, since he struggles to communicate and he has no
financial security following his divorce. The alternating close-ups of Karol
and Dominique emphasises their position in society whilst the long-shot of the
judge emphasises his loftiness.
This essay
will now distinguish between equality of outcome and equality of opportunity. Equality
of outcome attempts to equalise what people become rather than where they
begin, which is what equality of opportunity tries to do (Phillips 2004, p. 1).
Equality of outcome attempts to equalise resources, but people argue that this
ignores the diversity of societies, as people’s preferences vary enormously (p.
1). As such, the division of resources leaves either an excess or scarcity of
what different people consider either valuable or worthless (p. 1). This is
sometimes called the politics of envy, as ‘it attacks achievements that stray
above the norm’ (p. 2). On the other hand, the opposite argument claims that
people should not expect to have the same amount of happiness, misery or
commodities, but they can expect to have the same opportunities to thrive (p. 2).
Phillips: ‘[It is important to distinguish between] inequalities that arise
from circumstances beyond our own control and those legitimate ones that arise
from the exercise of personal choice’ (p. 2). Ronald Dworkin writes that the
obsession with income redistribution overlooks the choices that people make
with the resources which are available to them (p. 3). As such, any
redistribution of resources should take into account the decisions that people
make with their lives (p. 3). It is odd to insist that everyone should do the
same thing with their time. However, equalising income would make more sense,
as it would enable individuals to do what they want with their money, which
equalise starting points, not outcomes (p. 4). However, given differences in preferences
it is also odd to say that everyone should devote their time to accumulating
money (p. 4). As such, resources matter more than incomes. If you lack
resources to do things, you will not be able to do anything. For instance, a
disabled person needs a wheelchair to move (p. 5). For this reason, Phillips
argues that welfare focuses too much on differences between income rather than
on individuals as autonomous beings. Public resources such as education,
health, etc. should empower them to choose to lead the lives that they
individually want to lead (p. 6). Additionally, equality of opportunity takes
into account ‘bad luck’ arguments, such as being born with a physical or mental
condition or being born into poverty (p. 2).
‘Equality of
outcome’ has been to some degree attempted in the western world, when
governments redistribute wealth through progressive tax rates. Indeed, one of
the main objectives of European social democratic parties is to create a more
equitable distribution of income (Kastning 2013). However, equality of outcome
has been more assiduously implemented in the Soviet Union, as communism aimed
to level income distribution completely. However, the abolition of private
property did not lead to the elimination of classes or inequality (Schwartz and
Pease 1973, p. 141). Although the French and American revolutions were
interested in equality, the Russian and Chinese revolutions aimed to create
classless societies, but classes continued to exist (p. 141). The first period
of the Soviet Union aimed to create radical levelling, but the second period
led ‘to a more differentiated status system’ (p. 142). Lenin’s first period
levelled incomes drastically, but this was relaxed during the New Economic
Policy. The most ambitious attempt at levelling involved the collectivisation
of agriculture and the persecution of the Kulaks. After this third period, the
distribution of income became more pronounced because income tax laws ended up
favouring the highest paid members of society (p. 142). Contrary to the
communistic ethos, this led to a greater income differential between ‘manual’
and ‘mental’ workers (p. 144). Additionally, the communists were disdainful
towards leisure activities and tended to prioritise activities which were
socially useful (p. 149).
Kieslowski
released White two years after the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
Although people talked about ‘the end of history,’ and about exporting social
and economic liberalism to the east, the transition to capitalism and liberal
democracy faltered. Boris Yeltsin lifted price controls, prices returned to
normal levels and inflation soared to 1,000% in 1992 (Steele 2007). The
government sold off state assets and created a class of oligarchic billionaires
(Steele). Indeed, White deals with this, as the protagonist makes
millions through the black market. One scene depicts him prying on a
conversation and he discovers that two people plan to buy a plot of state-owned
land and build warehouses. The scene starts with a close-up of a man talking;
the camera is placed at the back of the car and framed via a 70-degree angle.
This is followed with a 180 degree shot of Karol feigning sleep. One of them
says: ‘But if we triple the investment… that’d be very smart.’ The sky is grey
and the car is white, which reinforces the values of equality. The scene starts
with a mid-shot of the car driving up the hill, but it soon edits to a 270
degree angle of a close-up shot of the man in the car. There is a 180 degree
angle mid-shot, from Karol’s perspective, of the two men talking. The camera
pans to the left and follows their movements. They talk about a ‘30% profit.’
This is followed with a 180 degree mid-shot of Karol prying on the
conversation. The camera angles are often subjective and from the point of view
of Karol. The decision to film on location reifies the values of equality, as
they are surrounded by snowy and a wintery climate. Karol was born into the
lower rungs of communist Poland, where class inequalities continued to exist.
This is why he moves to Paris, but he is still treated badly. However, he
becomes wealthy through sheer luck, which might emphasise the arbitrary nature
of capitalistic equality of opportunity. The distribution of wealth after the
dissolution of the Soviet Union was undemocratic, as people gained economic
power by just being at the right place at the right time, which is both
undemocratic and unmeritocratic. The ideals of socialism call for the democratisation
of the economy and for the community to share property and wealth. However, this
was taken to another extreme with Boris Yeltsin, as individuals gained large
state monopolies and this was not even based on notions of democracy or merit.
Communism did not produce complete equality of outcome either, as manual
workers like Karol remained in the lower rungs of society and they did not have
opportunities to mobilise upwards. Ironically, the free-for-all capitalism in
this case does offer these opportunities.
This
essay will now examine John Rawls’ ideas on equality. John Rawls wrote an
influential book called A Theory of Justice (1971), where he tried to
reach a reach a compromise between liberty and equality. He starts the book
with a hypothetical ‘veil of ignorance,’ a society of amnesiacs who are in need
of a political constitution. Rawls comes up with ‘two principles of justice’
for such a society:
1)
Each person has an equal claim to a fully
adequate scheme of equal basic rights and liberties, which scheme is compatible
with the same scheme for all; and this scheme the equal political liberties,
and only these liberties, are to be guaranteed their fair value.
2)
Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy
two conditions: a) they are to be attached to positions and offices open to all
conditions of fair equality of opportunity and b) they are to be to the
greatest benefit of the least disadvantaged members of the society’ (1971, p.
5-6).
The first principle emphasises
liberal rights whilst the second principle emphasises egalitarianism, but Rawls
also argued that liberal rights were in themselves a form of social justice
(Rawls, p. 197-98) However, number of criticisms have been made about the
theory. These criticisms have been made by leftists, other liberals,
libertarians, conservatives and communitarians. Some egalitarians believe that
the theory underestimates the importance of equality. G. A. Cohen points out
that some work is less fulfilling than other work and that people in the lower
rungs of society might have to undertake work that is unpleasant and dangerous.
Additionally, other leftists believe that people being better off than others
results in them having more power. Rawls argues that the ‘difference principle’
is permitted as long as it leads to basic political liberties. However, vast
differences in wealth make it impossible for poor people to be elected to
political office or to even have their political views represented. Meanwhile,
utilitarians argue that the theory does not maximise utility. Libertarians, or
‘classical liberals,’ argue that the theory infringes on property rights. The
second principle requires redistributive taxation for the benefit of the poor
and theorists like Robert Nozick think that this involves the immoral takings
of just holdings. Some go as far as arguing that this taxation is a form of
theft. The ‘desert-based principle’ argues that some people deserve their just
takings for hard work. These people come to their advantaged position because
of their hard work and their position in society is thus fair. Finally, ‘luck
egalitarianism’ argues that inequalities are only just when they are derived
from the choices that people make and that the individual is responsible for
(Lamont and Favor 2017). Finally, the communitarian critique of Rawls argues
that ideas of justice and fairness are derived from society rather than the
self (Mansfield 1990, p. 18). The veil of ignorance assumes that people are
individuals without any social ties. According to a communitarian view, a
political constitution should take into account shared values as well as
liberal rights (Mansfield, p. 17).
This
essay will now hold these theories in mind whilst analysing scenes in White.
Karol ends up with no financial security when he breaks up with his former
wife. As such, inequality in this case does not protect the least vulnerable in
society. The scene starts with a mid-shot of Karol in front of a cash machine.
It is late at night and the street is dark and the sound is recorded on
location. The camera tilts down and dollies into a close-up of the cash
machine, from a 180 degree angle. The machine says that his money has been
confiscated. The film later edits to a scene in a bank and Karol is framed via
a low angle shot. The bank clerk says: ‘Your account is frozen. Your account
cannot be used, it’s invalidated. […] I can’t give it to you.’ He proceeds to
cut the card. We later see a mid-shot, shot on location, of Karol in the
streets of Paris, where he is cold and uncomfortable. We later see a low-angle
close-up of Karol busking at the metro, where he encounters another Polish
individual. We The Polish individual is framed via a low-angle mid-shot; that
is, from Karol’s perspective. The man offers to smuggle him back to Poland. The
low-angle mid-shots, which sometimes tilt, are often subjective. They often
recreate his lowly position, as he is often on the floor begging for money. In
these scenes, inequality is not justified from a Rawlsian perspective, as it
does not satisfy the needs of the least disadvantaged members of society. Karol
has not chosen to end up in his predicament; it happens due to forces beyond
his control. He did not choose to divorce, nor to have his card cancelled. The
egalitarian critique of Rawls argues that differences in wealth result in a
small minority having enormous power over the disenfranchised. Karol is a
foreign labourer who ends up homeless and he is represented by politicians or
trade unions. Meanwhile, libertarians do not believe that Karol is entitled to
a redistributive safety net, as it invades their just holdings, even though
Karol is homeless through no fault of his own. Communitarians argue that Rawls
sees individuals as atoms who are devoid of social ties. However, Rawls would
think that Karol is entitled to rights which are denied to him, such as
unemployment insurance. However, Karol does have opportunities to mobilise.
Under communism, he remains stranded in the same economic class. The
opportunities that he encounters, though, are very sinister. Someone offers to kill
him for money and he eventually makes millions through the black market. As
such, some opportunities in the capitalistic system are sinister, immoral and
criminal.
This
essay will now examine R. H. Tawney, a British socialist political theorist.
Tawney wrote about equality in books such as Equality (1931) and The
Acquisitive Society (1920). Tawney argued that poverty was a symptom and
consequence of a disorder in social values. Capitalism stressed individual
rights without any reference to the function that society plays in forming the
individual (Foote 1985, p. 74). Tawney thought that the decline of religion led
to an emphasis on rights without any social purpose (p. 24). Capitalism did not
serve the community, it was only interested in individual self-interest (p.
75). Under capitalism, people use their skills and energy without any reference
to morality. People are used as a means to self-advancement (p. 75). The
brotherhood of man and moral principles become irrelevant and people only
become interested in material gain (p. 75). Tawney wanted society to be based
on duties, obligations, unity and cooperation rather than division and mutual
antagonism (p. 75). In his book Equality, Tawney argued that, although
the upper classes denounced class struggle, they practised it all the time. As
such, they endorsed vast differences in income, security, culture and health
(p. 76). Tawney thought that the redistribution of wealth was insufficient; he
also wanted society to value our common humanity (p. 76). Economic power was
concentrated in one class and Tawney wanted to tackle this by breaking down
‘rigid divisions between labour and management’ (p. 77). Lower income workers
were equally entitled to better wages and for their right to organise
themselves efficiently. As such, they were equally entitled to have a say in
the management process (p. 77). Inequality in health and education led to
ill-health, incapacity and high infant mortality. These inequalities were
concentrated in working class areas and they were hereditary. Their class
background condemned them to overcrowded classrooms, poor facilities, poor
housing and poor medical care. Social traditions pampered a few children and
deprived the rest (p. 77). Both educational privilege and capitalism segregated
people into classes (p. 78). As such, Tawney proposed a free health service,
more state control of public education, better equipped schools and
better-quality education. A small segment of society enjoyed liberty whilst the
majority were restricted to unfreedom (p. 78). Tawney defined freedom as the
ability to act positively for the community. Additionally, Tawney argued that
freedom for everyone also entails an acceptance of social rules so as to
prevent the abuse of power (p. 78).
Karol’s
homelessness can also be analysed from a Tawneyian perspective. Tawney would
argue that Karol’s homelessness is a symptom of an uncaring society. Capitalism
does not meet the needs of people because it is self-interested and profit-driven.
This comes through most strongly in the scene where the clerk cuts up his
credit card. He is not interested in the welfare of the customer; he is simply
interested in the workings of capitalism and he shows no compunction. Tawney
would argue that Karol ends up homeless due to the failings of society, not due
to his own fault. Christianity was interested in catering for the welfare of
everyone, but the acquisitive society is only concerned with profit and not
with meeting the needs of people. Enormous inequalities in wealth and income mean
that power and wealth are concentrated in a single class. Workers have no say
in the economy, as Karol is not allowed to express himself. Management control
the economy and workers like Karol are not allowed to have any say on their
desperate situation. Educational privilege also segregates people into classes,
as Karol is consigned to his lowly class.
However,
Karol eventually rises from his situation by abusing power. This is contrary to
what Tawney wanted, as he wanted liberty to respect social rules. He turns to
the black market, swindles his wife, orchestrates his own death, frames his
wife and sends her to prison. Although he is initially consigned to unfreedom, he
abuses its rules once he acquires liberty of action and economic power. There
are scenes in the film which show him framing his own death. This scene starts
with a 90 degree mid-shot of Karol’s friend, followed by a 180 degree mid shot
of the executor of his will. The editing alternates between these two shots.
This is followed with an extreme close-up of Karol’s passport being shredded. A
later scene depicts Karol choosing his own grave and Karol later blames his
ex-wife for his murder. Earlier on, Karol is not protected from destitution by
any safety net. However, he acquires his wealth by abusing the system and he
keeps acting in a self-interested way. According to Tawney, a Christian society
would prevent him from falling into poverty, but Karol rises from his lowly
social class by abusing social rules.
This
essay will now look at the final ideal, fraternity. Fraternity has been defined
as the ideal of brotherhood, friendship, community or co-operation (Ashtana
1992, p.118). Fraternity is the view ‘that we are brothers’ and that we are on
an equal footing’ (Denman 1995, p. 193). Aristotle initially argued that
friendship is an important aspect of both politics and justice (Asthana, p.
118). Indeed, some people argue that politics is a social contract between
citizens (p. 118). In the medieval ages, people emphasised the political value
of friendship and that we are all the sons of God and, hence, brothers (p.
119). Meanwhile, the French revolution emphasised neither the Aristotelean
meaning nor the meaning of the French revolution (p. 119), it was a springboard
to political action (p. 119). The majority were exploited, poor and hungry.
Hence, everyone had to unite in fraternal friendships so as to overcome class
divisions and national boundaries (p. 119). Hegel went as far as seeing the
state as the expression of the collective human spirit. Meanwhile, Marx wanted
the toiling masses to unite as a fraternal class so as to overcome exploitation
(p. 121). Meanwhile, liberals accept communities as long as they are consistent
with the autonomy of the individual (p. 123). Above all else, there is a
democratic need for fraternity because ‘it provides the context within which
equality can be established and freedom can be protected’ (P. 123). In other
words, it is a means through which to achieve the ideals of freedom and
equality. Additionally, fraternal values are also biologically important.
Evolutionary biology rewards altruistic behaviour, as organisms help each other
to survive this way. Evolution does not reward selfish behaviour, as it does
not lead to reproductive fitness (Okasha 2003).
The
Soviet Union assiduously enforced the ideal of equality, but they also
assiduously enforced ideals of fraternity. Indeed, solidarity is a central
component of socialism. The Polish philosopher Lesek Kolakowski wrote about
‘enforced fraternity’ in the USSR. Indeed, British conservative philosopher
Roger Scruton writes about him in glowing terms. Churchill argued that
democracy is the least worst system and Kolakowski argued that the same is true
for capitalism (Scruton 2009). Capitalism emerged organically after the spread
of commerce. No-one planned it and it did not need an all-embracing ideology. Socialism
was an ideological construction, but capitalism was merely human nature at
work. Scruton quotes Kolakowski thusly:
Socialism is an attempt to institutionalize
and enforce fraternity. It seems obvious by now that a society in which greed
is the main motivation of human action, for all of its repugnant and deplorable
aspects, is incomparably better than a society based on compulsory brotherhood,
whether in national or international socialism (Scruton 2009).
Meanwhile, the democratic
socialist Nathan J. Robinson also quotes Kolakowski in his own publication Current
Affairs. In this quote, Kolakowski still argues that it is important to
preserve the importance of fraternity.
[It would be] a pity if the collapse of
communist socialism resulted in the demise of the socialist tradition as a
whole and the triumph of Social Darwinism as the dominant ideology. Fraternity
under compulsion is the most malignant idea devised in modern times. This is no
reason, however, to scrap the idea of human fraternity. If it is not something
that can be effectively achieved by means of social engineering, it is useful
as a statement of goals. The socialist idea is dead as a project for an ‘alternative society.’ But as a statement of
solidarity with the underdog and the oppressed, as a motivation to oppose
Social Darwinism, as a light that keeps before our eyes something higher than
competition and greed—for all
these reasons, socialism—the ideal,
not the system—still has
its uses. (Robinson 2018)
Indeed, many European socialist
parties talk about the importance of socialism as an ideal rather than as an
alternative economic system (Kastning 2013). If fraternity is to be of any
importance, it should be realised by autonomous individuals and through
voluntary associations. Scruton believes that institutions and human
relationships are important, but they should come about organically and through
private associations.
Martha
Nussbaum writes about the tension between solitude and fraternity in her book The
Fragility of Goodness: Luck and Ethics in Greek Tragedy and Philosophy
(1986). Nussbaum argues that, although self-sufficiency, solitude and
contemplation is enriching and important, it still needs some sort of external
stimulation to instigate it (p. 343). Political citizenship, political
attachment, personal love and personal friendship are also important values (p.
343). Indeed, Aristotle argues that social, political relations are essential
parts of the good life (p. 344). Other hermetical thinkers from antiquity, such
as Epicurus and Phyrro, urged contemplative detachment from civic life (p.
345). Aristotle argues that membership of a political community is in itself
good for developing character (p. 345). This is because laws, political
institutions and public education nurture individual lives (p. 346). Aristotle
argued that a public education would create a sense of belonging to the city
and the community (p. 347). It requires ‘support from without’ (p. 347). The
good life is still dependent on individual choice; slaves cannot choose and are
therefore not fully human (p. 348). Although Aristotle values individual choice
and autonomy, political life is part of our nature. The Cyclopes in Homer’s Odyssey
are not fully human, as they have no social or political life. Aristotle
believes that virtue is ‘relational’ and that justice, courage, moderation and
generosity are impossible without it (p. 352). By increasing our activity in
the world, we make it meet our demands (p. 352). The city, however, is a
plurality of free and equal citizens who make their own choices (p. 352).
Aristotle defends family bonds, but he also defends personal separateness.
Plato wants to eliminate the family and private property, but Aristotle
believes that diversity enriches society whereas Plato’s view ‘impoverishes the
world’ (p. 353).
Red is based on the ideal of
fraternity. The main character, played by Irene Jacob, meets a reclusive judge.
The former judge pries on private telephone conversations. The character
initially meets the judge, played by Jean Trignitant, because she runs over his
dog. The scene starts with a mid-shot Trignitant and Jacob. This is followed
with a low-angle 90 degree mid-shot, with light coming in from outside. Jacob
tells Trignitant: ‘Don’t do this anymore.’ Trignitant says: ‘I’ve done it all
of my life.’ ‘What were you? A cop’ ‘Worse. A judge.’ The editing alternates
between 90 degree close ups of Jacob and Trignitant. A mid-shot of Jacob tilts
down as Trignitant leans down. Jacob later says: ‘Everyone deserves a private
life.’ The room is filled with many books and this reveals that he is very
learned. The camera angles are often framed via mid-shots, which reveal the
vastness of the house and how it is festooned with books and other objects. The
vastness of the house, and the framing, emphasise how lonely the judge is and
how he has cut himself off from fraternal bonds. There is also a small statue
of dogs, which reveal his affection for the animal. Trignitant encourages Jacob
to confront the family about his illicit activities, but she rescinds because
she does not want to break the family apart. This has parallels with Nussbaum’s
ideas on justice, as the attempt to act ethically has to take into
consideration factors which are outside the control of the individual and which
could potentially bring ruin. Jacob also wants the judge to respect the
autonomy and personal separateness of the family, but she feels that Trignitant
is encroaching on their own autonomy so as to pursue egotistical choices. Jacob
would also be trampling on their fraternal bonds, as breaking the family apart
would break apart the ties that hold them together.
However,
Irene Jacob and the judge become closer. There is a scene wherey meet at a
venue with red seats, red wallpaper and a red podium. We see a mid-shot of
Jacob and the judge who are both far away from each other, but they are both
pleased to be near each other. We later see a long shot of the theatre and the
red seats. There is a mid-shot of Jacob and Trigninant is in the lower right
hand corner of the frame. ‘You came. You knew the invitation came from me? ‘I’d
hoped so.’ Trignitant later says: ‘I’m leaving tomorrow. I came to say
goodbye.’ The camera work later edits to mid-shots from the characters’
perspectives. Trignitant says: ‘You’re the woman I never met.’ The abundance of
red obviously emphasises the values of fraternity. Also, the camera work
emphasises the distance from each other, but the framing of the bodies via
close-ups brings them closer together. Fraternity was championed during the
French Revolution because it overcame divisions between classes and people. In
this case, both characters overcome their divisions and bonds, even though they
are different from each other. Fraternity was also a means towards the ideals
of freedom and equality, as common unity created the conditions that could
eradicate inequalities in class, wealth, gender, etc. They also overcome their
divisions so that they can pursue their own individual freedom. Indeed,
fraternity in this case is reached voluntarily. This is line with Nussbaum’s
and Aristotle’s views on fraternity, as they wanted a diverse political body to
unite of their own volition. It also in line with Kolakowski’s views on
fraternity, as they are behaviour has not been enforced. It is done by
autonomous individuals, not an arbitrary centrally planned hierarchy.
Kolakowksi preferred the most egotistical form of unregulated capitalism to
this other sinister outcome.
The
French revolution emerged after a period of extreme inequality and its ideals
were delineated by Thomas Paine in The Rights of Man. This essay looked
at positive liberty, negative liberty, personal freedom and political freedom.
Negative liberty emphasises absence of interference whilst positive liberty
aims to interfere and provide resources which strengthen individual freedom. The
character in the film, Julie, tries to cut herself off from others, but she
still depends on resources and institutions to achieve this. This essay looked
at both personal and political freedom. Julie strives after personal freedom,
but she later connects to a higher political ideal when she writes a piece of
music dedicated to the European Union. This essay examined several aspects of equality,
namely the equal worth of individuals, the differences between equality of
opportunity and equality of outcome, the ideas of John Rawls and the ideas of
R. H. Tawney. The Polish character Karol does not believe that he is treated
equally at a trial, as he does not speak French. In a democracy, however, laws
should be universal and all people should have equal worth. The differences
between equality of opportunity and equality in outcome are crucial in White,
as the protagonist makes a fortune after the collapse of communism. The
communist countries attempted to level incomes completely, but this meant that
individuals in the lower rungs rarely mobilised upwards. There is more equality
of opportunity in the capitalist west, but Karol makes his fortune by abusing
the system. This essay looked at the ideas of John Rawls, who argued that a
decent society should let its citizens enjoy basic liberties. He also argued that
inequalities should only be permitted if they benefit the least advantaged
members of society. Inequalities do not benefit Karol in White, as he
has no financial security following his divorce and the safety net does not
prevent him from becoming homeless. According to R. H. Tawney, capitalism was
based on individual self-interest and it was immoral. According to Tawney’s
view, Karol ends up homeless due to the uncaring nature of the capitalist
society. Finally, Red deals with fraternity. The character played by
Irene Jacob bonds with a character played by Trignitant, although she initially
objects to him prying on the conversation of his neighbours. Their fraternal
bonding overcomes their divisions and this is how the French Revolution conceived
of fraternity. They do this, however, of their own volition, which is in line
with the ideas of Aristotle. Aristotle wanted a society that valued common
citizenship and friendship, but he still wanted it to be comprised of plurality
and individual choice. Similarly, Lesek Kolakowski argued that compulsory
fraternity was ‘malignant’ and that he preferred a highly unregulated and
immoral society to ‘compulsory fraternity.’ However, he still thought that it
was important to value fraternity as long as it respected human agency. This is
what happens in Red, as the characters bond of their own volition. These
are the aspects of liberty, equality and fraternity that this essay has
identified in these three films.
Works Cited
Arneson, Richard. (2013) ‘Egalitarianism.’ The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Available from: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/egalitarianism/
Armstrong, Richard. (2007) ‘Krzysztof Kieslowski.’
In The Rough Guide to Film. London: Penguin.
Asthana, Mukul. (1992) ‘Fraternity: A Political Ideal.’ In The Indian
Journal of Political Science. Vol. 53, No. 1.
Berlin, Issiah. (1969) ‘Two Concepts of Liberty’ In Four
Essays on Liberty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Broers, Michael. (1996) Europe Under Napoleon: 1799-1815. London:
Hodders Education.
Burke, Edmund. (1973) Originally published in 1790. Reflections on
the Revolution in France. New York: Anchor Books.
Cummings, Doug. (2003)
‘Great Directors: Kieslowski, Krzysztof.’ Senses of Cinema. Available
from: http://sensesofcinema.com/2003/great-directors/kieslowski/
Denes, Iván Roltan. (2008) ‘Personal Liberty and Political Freedom: Four
Interpretations.’ In European Journal of Political Theory. Vol. 7, No.
1.
Denman, Kamilla. (1995) ‘Recovering Fraternité in the Works of Rousseau:
Jean-Jacques’ Lost Brother.’ In Eighteenth-Century Studies. Vol. 29, No.
2.
Droz, Jacques. (1967) Europe Between Revolutions: 1815-1848. London:
Harper Collins.
Dybikowski, James. (1981) ‘Civil Liberty.’ In American Philosophy
Quarterly. Vol. 18, No. 4.
Egan, Michael. (1938) Robespierre: Nationalist Dictator. New
York: Columbia University Press.
Foote, Geoffrey. (1985) The Labour Party’s Political Thought: A
History. London: Croom Helm.
Havighurst, Robert J. (1952) ‘Personal Freedom: Its Meaning for
International Understanding.’ In Bulletin of the American Association of
Professors. Vol. 38, No. 2.
Kastning, Thomas. (2013) Basics on Social Democracy. Bonn: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.
Kirby, Nicholas. (2018) ‘Two Concepts of Basic Equality.’ In Res
Publica. Vol. 24.
Lamon, Julian and Favor, Christi. (2017) ‘Distributive Justice.’ The
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available from: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-distributive/
Mansfield, Jonathan Edward. (1990) John Rawls, The Concept of a Liberal
Self, and the Communitarian Critique. Dissertations and Theses. Portland
State University. Paper 4142.
Nussbaum, Martha. (1986) The Fragility of Goodness: Luck and Ethics
in Greek Tragedy and Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
.Nussbaum, Martha. (2011) Creating Capabilities: The Human Development
Approach. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Okasha, Samir. (2013) ‘Biological Altruism.’ In The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available from: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/
Paine, Thomas. (1973) Originally published in 1791. The Rights of Man.
New York: Anchor Books.
Phillips, Anne. (2004) ‘Defending Equality of Outcome.’ LSE Research
Online – Journal of Political Philosophy. Vol. 12. No. 1.
Rawls, John.
(1971) A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Robinson, Nathan J. (2018) ‘Socialism as a Set of Principles.’ In Current
Affairs. Available from: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/socialism-as-a-set-of-principles
Romney, Jonathan. (2011) ‘Krzysztof Kieslowski – Interview for Three
Colours Blue.’ In The Guardian. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2011/nov/09/three-colours-blue-interview
Rude, George. (1964). Revolutionary Europe: 1783-1815. London: Fontana
Press.
Schwartz, James. (1973) ‘Towards Complete Equality?
Soviet Views on the Future of Inequality.’ In International Review of Modern
Sociology. Vol. 3., No. 2.
Scruton, Roger. (2009) ‘Lesek Kolakowski: Thinker for our Times.’ In Open
Democracy. Available from: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/leszek-kolakowski-thinker-for-our-time-0/
Sloman, Peter. (2011) ‘The Liberal Party and Economic Policy:
1918-1964.’ Open Edition. Available from: https://journals.openedition.org/mimmoc/695
Steele, Jonathan. (2007). ‘Boris
Yeltsin.’ In The Guardian. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/apr/23/russia.guardianobituaries
No comments:
Post a Comment