Skip to main content

Injustice By Daniel Dorling (A Review)

Daniel Dorling’s Injustice aims to “redefine” our understanding of why injustice exists and how it is reinforced over time. The book is passionate and written as a rallying cry to the masses to agitate for greater redistribution of power and resources in society. The question of course is why the masses don’t do that already, but that brings us to Dorling’s central argument.

According to Dorling, although the developed world has become richer, people continue to live in an unjust world largely due to ignorance rather than conspiracy by the rich. At the heart of this new injustice is extreme social inequality, with the rich supported by a band of economists, continue to propagate social inequality through state machinery. They are able to get away with this because society at large continues to hold certain sets of beliefs that are aligned against positive social change. Over the ages these beliefs have taken many forms but in the modern era they have evolved into new five “modern evils” of elitism, exclusion, prejudice, greed and despair”. Crush these beliefs through books like his and we are on our way to a fairer and more just world.

The evidence presented is undoubtedly weighty. On every page statistic after statistic shows just how unequal society is, or more specifically the UK and USA. Through the unfolding pages we learn that a seventh of western children today are unfairly labelled as delinquents. We also discover that a sixth of households are excluded from social norms. As if that’s not enough there’s the shocking revelation that a fifth of people in the west find it difficult or very difficult to get by due to prejudice. Equally worrying is that in rich countries where there’s clearly enough for all, a quarter of people in these societies still do not possess the essentials. We also learn that despite the opulence and much talk of “western development” a third are now living in families where someone is suffering from mental ill health. 

Such inequality of course matters and it is necessary to question whether it is “acceptable” let alone sustainable. Unfortunately, the question of how naturally sustainable is not explicitly discussed, and on “acceptability”, this is where Injustice is weakest. The book is missing is a clear analytical framework that properly anchors “social inequality” to “injustice”. The author takes it for granted that where deep social inequality exists there must be injustice. This is a poor foundation for social change, especially in a field where much of the literature already demonstrates that justice does not necessarily imply equality. There are many outcomes which involves unequal outcomes in terms of distribution that are morally considered just outcomes. The absence of “injustice” (justice) must consider other aspects e.g. exogenous rights, rewards and compensation. The author simply has not demonstrated sufficiently that those who view his form of injustices as irrelevant based on other notions of justice are wrong. Injustice does not sufficiently engage with alternative ideas or even contrasting evidence.

Equally worrying is that even accepting the central argument, there remains the vital question of how one begins to bring about meaningful equality, and indeed whether it is sustainable. Injustice’s answer is that we need to educate the masses on the evils of injustice through small steps of millions. There are also suggestions that we should live more in villages and other strange notions, which largely represent hopeless answers to people in need of hope. 

One is left to conclude that though Injustice paints a an informative picture of the level of social inequality in the developed world, the lack of a coherent framework and insufficient balance in critique means it does not offer anything new beyond interesting statistics.

Copyright © Chola Mukanga 2020

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I am what I am by Gloria Gaynor

Beverly Knight closed the opening ceremony of the Paralympics with what has been dubbed the signature tune of the Paralympics. I had no idea Ms Knight is still in the singing business. And clearly going by the raving reviews she will continue to be around. One media source says her performance was so electric that "there wasn’t a dry eye to be seen as she sang the lyrics to the song and people even watching at home felt the passion in her words" . The song was Gloria Gaynor's I am what I am . Clearly not written by Gloria Gaynor but certainly musically owned and popularized by her. It opens triumphantly: I am what I am / I am my own special creation / So come take a look / Give me the hook or the ovation / It's my world that I want to have a little pride in / My world and it's not a place I have to hide in / Life's not worth a damn till you can say I am what I am The words “I am what I am” echo over ten times in the song. A bold declaration that she

Spiritual Leadership

J Oswald Sanders (1917-1992) was a Christian leader for seventy years.  He wrote more than forty books on the Christian life including one book I dip into often, The Incomparable Christ. He was the director of the China Inland Mission (Overseas Missionary Fellowship), where he was instrumental in beginning many new missions projects throughout East Asia.  Spiritual Leadership encourages the church to pray for and develop Spirit empowered leaders. People who are guided by and devoted to the Lord Jesus Christ. The book presents the key principles of spiritual leadership. He illustrates his points with examples from Scripture and biographies of men who have led the people of God in history.  The book has 20 chapters. I have tried to summarise the main conclusions of these chapters under five key questions. Most of the ideas presented in this article are directly from the book. But I have  communicated these ideas in my own way, except where direct quotes are given. Towards the end, I off

The invisibility challenge

He is the image of the invisible God I have long been fascinated by the challenge of invisibility. One of the things people say when you discuss with the question of God with them is that there’s no evidence for God. Usually what they mean is that God is not physically obvious to them. God is not something that they can feel and touch so they struggle to accept that he exists.