Mutual Advantage and Global Inequality

The notions of hierarchy, and consequently of poverty and wealth, are inherent within human society. Such fact, attached to the importance of sovereignty, impedes the international community to reach an agreement on effectively solving certain issues.

graffiti based on iNeed stencil on canvas by Mantis, 'global inequality'

Martha Nussbaum in her chapter Mutual Advantage and Global Inequality criticizes Rawls’ theory of the social contract. In her view Rawls’ contractarianism is problematic because of the commitment to equality of power in the initial framing of the contract and because of the commitment to mutual advantage as its final goal (271). Nussbaum on the opposite side believes that human bond and respect is the starting point; human being is the main actor in the structure of the state. The citizen indeed continues to be “the basic subject of the theory of justice” (262), in which the state becomes the representation of the people both on a domestic and international level.
However, although the puzzle’s pieces are all present, it can not be completed. Due to the fixity of societies’ systems, states intentionally avoid any change domestically. Such phenomenon causes the impossibility to redistribute income and wealth in an equal manner among the various states of the world; it would necessitate a review of internal priorities (236). Thus territorial sovereignty, despite globalization and the erosion of national boundaries, maintains an important role both in domestic and international politics.
It is undeniable that international organizations and multinationals corporations have increased their influential power, but nevertheless sovereignty (quite paradoxically) still serves as a central theme: it is being sustained by the mutual recognition and shared expectations generated from the international society (Krasner, 3). Nussbaum herself touches upon this issue by questioning why as citizens we are up to this moment so attached to the state: “Why might people want the state, rather than corporations or international agencies, to supply much of the basic structure for their lives?” (237).
The effect of our need to be legitimized through a government generates the inequality of capabilities and means present in internal societies to be reproduced in the international sphere. The same framework of the United Nations, The organization that is supposed to promote justice, peace and sustainability, is characterized by a legalized hegemony. The Security Council, and therefore its permanent members control the entire functioning of the UN by maintaining their private interests.
In conclusion we can acknowledge the functional role of power and wealth in the process of forming a contract; natural inequalities are present from the beginning, thus determining the system’s procedure (31). Nussbaum correctly claims that the ultimate cause that brings people to form a society is an inherent need to bond; however she naively interprets humans’ disposition. The natural characteristic to socialize and care for the other is intrinsic to our weakness to stand on our own.

By Georgia Rae Lasio (Third year student, LUC ... currently at McGill University)


Sources:
Martha C. Nussbaum, “Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership”, The Belkann Press of Harvard University Cambridge (2006).
Stephen D. Krasner “Sovereignty and its Discontents” Chapter 1 in Sovereignty Organized Hypocrisy, Princeton University Press (1999), 3-42.