Good Intentions?
So it is really amusing to hear through the grapevine that Moody Press has just published a book that discusses me and my underwear choices. Apparently chapter 8 of the recently released book Good Intentions uses a poorly (barely) paraphrased version of my "Justice Bra" article from the God's Politics blog as an extended illustration (to read, enter my name in the "search inside this book" function on Amazon). Now it is one thing to use my own voice to write a somewhat tongue-in-cheek article about buying a bra, but it is a tad creepy to have two (male) economists open a chapter by stating "Julie Clawson needed a new bra."
The book hadn't crossed my radar yet (not like I read much out of Moody Press these days), but I found it intriguing that its basic concept is similar to the book I am currently writing for IVP. Both books address relevant issues of our day and attempt to give a Christian response (the issues aren't all the same though). I've only read excerpts of Good Intentions, but from what I can gather our perspectives and conclusions are rather divergent. The Good Intentions promo carries the tagline "few things are more dangerous than good intentions" which gives a good indication as to it's perspective on people who care about stuff like the environment. The description of the book states that because the Bible is about "morality" it is difficult to apply scriptural principles to economics, so we instead need to apply economic theory to the Bible to understand how best to live. I obviously have an issue with that sort of thinking, believing instead that Biblical morality should be what determines our economic systems in the first place. But it's not surprising to still find Christians who believe that free-market capitalism was invented by God and should be worshiped as the fourth member of the Trinity.
From the parts I read regarding my "Justice Bra" article, I found that the authors fell into the typical trap common in that line of thinking. To them there exist only two options when it comes to things like sweatshops – either people get paid pittance in an often abusive situation or they have no job at all. Their argument is that people like me seeking "fair and just" products are actually hurting the workers because by demanding the end of sweatshops we are putting people out of jobs. They argue that it is better for the people to have a job rather than not and therefore I am being unjust in buying a "justice bra" and not some $8 piece of crap at Wal-Mart. But they are assuming a false dichotomy here and really missing the point those of us calling for justice make. There is no reason why people should have to choose between a crappy job and no job at all. The idea is that since the cruel sweatshop jobs shouldn't exist because they are immoral, they need to be reformed into jobs that treat the workers with dignity and pay them fairly. It is about redeeming the system, not destroying it. A good, decent, and safe job needs to be an option – the primary option – for workers everywhere. And if an economic system exists that doesn't allow for the possibility of such jobs, I have a hard time understanding how Christians should be encouraged to participate in it.
But then again as I see it, rubber-stamping the status quo as "biblical" is far more dangerous than anyone's good intentions to "act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with their God."
Tags:
julieclawson(at)gmail(dot)com 
that's just creepy…..to say nothing of the fact that they missed the point and put their own spin on what you were saying -and even hinted at your ignorance regarding this issue.
However, It could be a perfect example to use in your book when showing how social justice is misunderstood and vilified….
The problem comes when you begin at a completely different starting point. If you assume that there is nothing we can do to change the system, then the authors are probably right – you've got to choose the lesser evil and just deal with it. But if you actually believe that change can happen, or even just believe that you should do the right thing even if that doesn't change anything, it's impossible to stick with the status quo.
You're my hero
– made me smile as I read this post, and wanted to make sure you call Good Intentions out when your book sets the underwear record straight.
Good point Geoff. The authors' perspective does seem rather cynical and fatalistic to me – as if it would be impossible to actually improve sweatshop jobs rather than eliminating them. Perhaps they should go back and review the history of labor reform in this country a century or so ago. Conditions here in America back then were as bad as many developing countries today, and yet through labor movements and political reform things did change. (Ever wonder why we have a 40-hour work week, a minimum wage, child-labor laws, or job-safety requirements?) Things can change for the better if people have the vision and the will to change them.
That's a bit creepy.
A couple good articles there…and maybe that website will have a nursing bra for my wife.
I have an underwear theory…but it's a couple years old and doesn't account for "justice underwear." Ha!
http://nathangann.com/?p=14
Cheers.
I'm troubled about fair trade. I thought about it after reading about chocolate. I think it's complex though. Mike, your analysis is true, but the situation in these foreign countries is much more difficult politically than in the U.S. Labor unions were organized and as flawed as our system was it was a much better representative democracy than Ivory Coast for instance, where Cocoa is grown. I suppose by putting pressure on American Corporations like Hershey, will result in more pressure on the government of Ivory Coast to police slave labor laws. The difficulty is that the abuses are probably at the lower grower level which is hard to regulate in these places without real resources.
"There is no reason why people should have to choose between a crappy job and no job at all."
I wonder if that's accurate. I'm not sure. I commend the search for justice, but I think like many things it's a complex quest. I certainly commend the effort.
I know that's longwinded, but I think it's possible in the short term individuals could be hurt by a boycott. The more organized lobbying on this the better.
Of course it's complex, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
And it's not about "boycotts" it's about choosing to support producers that treat their workers fairly versus supporting producers that abuse their workers. If you call it "boycotting" to buy from fair trade producers instead of from sweatshops, wouldn't it likewise be "boycotting" the fair trade producers if one only ever bought from sweatshops? Why should you deprive the fair trade workers of your business? Don't you risk depriving them of a job when you only buy from sweatshops?
Fair Trade is nothing more than using capitalism to promote justice.
Possible title for your book: 'One Hand Clapping Slaps Back!'
I actually just got through reading this book and I think you treat it a bit unfairly. In fact, I guarantee there is a ton of stuff you would agree with in this book if you read it. It was surprisingly balanced and seemed to fly in the face of typical evangelical responses to these issues (check out their argument for why we should RAISE gas prices or why Massachusetts is the most family friendly state). Think you should give this one a second look.
Christ certainly was not worried about putting people out of work when he dispelled the moneychangers from the temple. He was, I think, interested in change across his culture, which is something that–even a Christians– many struggle to believe possible.
Can't wait to read your book!