By Sosamma Samuel-Burnett, J.D.
Founder/President, G.L.O.B.A.L. Justice
2020 has been a really difficult year, perhaps one of the most difficult with overlapping global tensions, challenges, and crises in political, social, and economic sectors. In previous years we faced human and natural disasters, but now we face crises in ways that we have not experienced before. COVID-19, racial conflicts, and partisan political divides have been the most prominent of our crises in 2020. But COVID-19 was not our first global health pandemic; recent racial violence is not the first instance of racial conflict; and the political divisions that our country and world presently face are also not the first of their kind. What distinguishes these crises in 2020 though is the nature of how these crises intersect and how society responded to these intersected crises. It is not that they are in and of themselves more difficult situations than before, rather it is that these crises presented distinctive dynamics for our present era that are creating societal changes. These crises and their dynamics are defining 2020 and may be redefining our needs and ideas of justice for the 21st century.
So here we are in 2020, in the 21st century, and issues of political division, racial conflict, and global health pandemics have continued and escalated. We had hoped that the lessons from years of political issues, the strife of the civil rights era, and the losses sustained during previous pandemics would teach us and advance our ability to respond them in this new century. However these “plagues” persist, and what’s more, they are taking on complexities that are presenting all new issues that are outgrowths of the original crises.
Further, America, and perhaps the world, has entered the 21st century not fully equipped to handle 21st century crises that have expanded in scale and impact. We have faced earthquakes, floods, fires, disease, famine, persecution, violence, terrorism, war in this 21st century, but we have been ill prepared for neither the direct impact of each of these crises nor the cumulative impact of each successive crisis. We don’t have just the crisis itself but the aftershocks – responses and impacts that are not always foreseeable nor intended. It’s like being awash in the ocean – we may be able to brace the first wave or two, but after several keep hitting, we seem to lose our bearing and our ability to stay above water, and eventually we feel like we are in whirlpool – not quite sure which direction we are going.
While we cannot always predict or control a particular crisis, how we respond to any crisis has as much to do with our actions prior to the crises as it does with what we do during and after the crises. Who we are as people, as a country, as a civilization and how we collectively respond to crises has a bearing on whether we sink or swim in the midst of cumulative crises. Our religious perspective, our political positions, our socioeconomic status, our race/ethnicity/gender/age, etc. all factor into our collective approach and resilience to crises. But while our individual responses may vary greatly based on our personal status and capacities, our collective responses are intertwined with the societal contexts that surround the crises. Sometimes the response itself is a crisis to such a degree that we may not know where the one crisis started and where the other begins. As a result, managing crises in our present context can create as much tension or conflict as the initial crises. We are either not responding enough or hyper-responding – in either case, not correlating the scale of the crises with the response.
We need to understand that some of our current challenges with crises are related to some key characteristics of our country and our world today. These characteristics weigh on how we see and address challenges of any kind, let alone global crises:
1) Globalization – We live in a global world. Many of us in the U.S. tend to think “America” in the midst of crises. Buy American. Support American. Be American. While we do want to help and support our own country and people, we have to realize that in a global economy and ecosystem, it is not clear what companies and policies truly benefit Americans. We have Americans that work in various parts of our world and many international companies that employ Americans here. Similarly when we are supporting economic empowerment in other regions, we are also providing economic opportunities for our own communities in tangible work, innovation, etc. Similarly, how we approach foreign policy can also have a return impact on our own domestic policy. Globalization connects and integrates our national interests with global interests.
2) Underlying political/economic/social disparities: At the heart of all of our political, economic, and social divides in the U.S. are underlying disparities. And those disparities are not simple to understand or address. Each country, and particularly America, is defined by a culture that is in turn defined by subcultures based on our context and experiences. Varying contexts and experiences within a country can vary how sectors view that culture. As such, the urban version of America is quite different than the rural version. The America of the working classes is distinct from the America of the wealthier classes. And the America of people of color varies considerably from other racial groups. Each of these contexts creates disparities and affects our perspectives about our nation and our globe. There are also intersections between these contexts that create greater disparities and complexities. For example, since most Americans are White, the poor population in this country is mostly White. However, a disproportionate number of the poor are people of color. At the intersection of race and poverty are some key distinctions that make addressing either race and poverty more difficult, and requiring greater awareness and intentionality to address. Consider the disparities and intersections that exist in places like Los Angeles, Ferguson, and Minneapolis and then consider the issues they have experienced in recent years and months. These recent concerns are rooted in the ongoing and underlying political, economic, and social disparities between various segments of the population.
3) Systemic flaws increased by societal flaws: Many point to institutional “systems” such as our political, criminal justice, or education systems for the flaws in our society. Certainly there are many systems worldwide that are fundamentally flawed. But most of the flaws within these systems, particularly in the US system stem from two sources – historic disparities and present societal flaws. The fact that these two issues have not been adequately addressed makes addressing disparities difficult if not impossible. For example, some would argue that racism is embedded in our US system. However, many if not most of the aspects of racial discrimination have been removed in the structures and laws of our US system. But where we have a break down is the application of the system. In other words, even if the system is nondiscriminatory, it can function in a discriminatory way. Police brutality highlights this issue. Police are a necessary part of our society that is given the responsibility of helping maintain public peace and order. Police systems and policies are not advocating brutality. But there are flaws in the context of screening, training, and enforcement of officers, which means that the police may not be able to effectively prevent brutality if a particular officer does that. The flaw in the implementation of the system is significantly increased by the flaw in the person. The personal flaw was likely developed and exacerbated by the societal flaws of violence and racism that are promoted in families, communities, and media. While there are flaws in the police system, it is not the flawed system that breeds police brutality. It is the flaws in the people and their implementation of the systems that cause these negative results. Even a perfect system would be marred by a flawed society.
4) Intolerance of disagreement: Expression of our views has become a central part of the way many engage in our society, and especially online. Media and social media are tools for expressing our views on politics, economics, society, etc. However, they are often misused or abused. Online expression is both indirect and direct and as such emboldens many to speak what they want, when they want, and to whomever they want in ways that would not be acceptable in face-to-face communications. These online expressions often do not benefit dialogue, exchange, edification, or learning. Most often these online expressed are used to wield a certain power of our opinions and views – expression is then perceived as the highest level of significance. But there is very little significance to our expression if we don’t allow people to disagree or to evaluate the merit of our expression. So expression is no longer about convincing or influencing but of insulting and tearing down. If we don’t feel heard, we feel emboldened to make someone hear us and see us…and more so, to agree with us. At that point, we are no longer making a point or progress; we are simply imposing an intolerance to disagreement.
The partisan divides in our country are of particular concern for this intolerance. The idea that if someone doesn’t agree with a particular partisan position, then they are our enemy, is not only wrong thinking, it’s just wrong. We have different parties in our country so that we have different ways to represent our opinions and vehicles to align to our views. Someone in another party will align with someone else’s views. Neither party has it completely right, or completely wrong. But when we convince ourselves that someone from another party is completely wrong, we are preventing ourselves from learning from the other “half” of our country and world, and preventing them learning from us.
5) News promoting panic and discord: News was once “news” – a source of information on what is happening in the world. Especially in the context of crises, the news can be helpful in guiding people and providing information resources. But news, or more precisely news media, has become a source of panic and discord. Many news sources are biased and do not present the news fairly or evenly. And most news sources use crises as way to generate greater viewership. Certainly there are news professionals dedicated to sharing the real news – but many are enveloped in a media context that doesn’t fully allow accurate information. That is a disservice to the community in that it can exaggerate or minimize crises and the best ways to respond. Thus, we over or under respond to what is happening around us. Either we become so saturated that we can’t seem to respond to a crises, or we become so panicked that we think the crises is the only significant issue before us. Neither is a helpful approach t in the context of managing crises.
6) Lawlessness: Violence and crimes of many forms are rampant in many parts of our world. And where there are disparities and crises, violence and crimes increase. In recent months, certain violence and crimes have suggested a degree of lawlessness in many places in our world. And in some contexts, that lawlessness has been viewed as acceptable to confront various issues. But that is a highly problematic approach to addressing injustice. Violence not only destroys lives, but causes destruction of property, livelihoods, and communities. Rampant violence and criminal activity destroy the rule of law. The idea of rule of law is that we are all bound by laws and standards no matter who we are and no matter what our circumstances. Laws are meant to protect both our rights and our well-being. Rights to free speech, expression, assembly, etc. are protected by law. But when these freedoms exceed the bounds of law and cause harm to individual and community well-being – such as arson and looting -- they are no longer covered by the laws and are subject to other laws that protect other people. As soon as we break laws, then we break down how we are supposed to function as a civil society. The exception, of course, is when the laws themselves are unjust on their face or in their application. In the 21st century we have fewer and fewer unjust laws on their face, but we have more and more unjust application and consequences.
7) Increasing harm and exploitation but decreasing concern: Sadly, as crises rise, so too does harm and exploitation. Not only do we have issues of violence and crime that is apparent to all, but we have extensive abuse that is often not seen or heard. Domestic violence, rape, sexual exploitation, human trafficking, slavery and forced labor – all are significant issues in our society and increase significantly when our society is under the stress and strains of crises. But ironically as these increase, we become less engaged in our concern for these abuses. The crises themselves overwhelm us or we choose not to engage in order to focus on our personal circumstances rather than those of others. As a result more people are abused in the context of crises with less concern from those that could otherwise help.
8) Godlessness: I am a Christian. But I don’t need to be a Christian to recognize that the Christian faith, as well as other faiths, has a significant role in society – both for good and for bad. Most of the civil and human rights advances that we have are connected to the moral principles of Christianity or stemming from people of various faith communities. Consider any society that didn’t have Christianity – today or in history-- and compare that to the conditions under Christian society. Pagan societies have always been harsher, crueler, and more unjust. Having said that, in the name of Christianity, many have also caused destruction – consider the Crusades or imperialism more generally. However, in those cases, it was not Christianity but the abuse of it that led to those results. In those instances, God was no longer the center of faith, but rather reference to God was used to gain power. That is not much different today. As we become increasingly Godless, we have also become increasingly infatuated with power – in the form of money, status, and leisure. The more we have the more we can do and say what we want. That notion that we can do whatever we want is a characteristic of Godlessness. We replace God with ourselves.
With the backdrop of these characteristics, we have to question whether our current approaches to addressing crises are working for the good of our country or world. Are we making any progress on major national and global crises? Have any of the political, economic, and social positions we vehemently defend actually advanced our current society? Have any of the violence and lawlessness addressed racism or issues of the most vulnerable? Have we become more just without God?
At present, there are no “clear” answers because no one is clear on what the problem is. Even justice has become problematic – who’s justice and for what? We are fighting unknown enemies (literally and figuratively) in unknown territories (literally and figuratively) using an outdated game plan (literally and figuratively).
But in asking these questions, we may come to the conclusion that we are making the mistake of trying to employ 20th century approaches to our 21st century crises. The approaches that were tried in previous eras did not protect us from our current characteristics nor from continued crises in our present era.
In the 21st century, we need to realize that there is no singular answer, no singular party, and no singular sector that make things right. Progress takes time and intentionality across many sectors and approaches. We need a collective and focused effort from everyone in each major arena – political, economic, and social – to effectively respond to crises:
1) Political: Government’s primary responsibility is to protect the people and provide for the general welfare. That does not mean that we should seek government control or provision of all things. Protection is from foreign and domestic enemies that could do harm to our people and way of life. General welfare is not the same as a welfare system, but there are many instances when the government needs to provide support, particularly in crises. More importantly, the government needs to remove impediments to our community’s welfare – allowing people to be educated, work, and advance without stigma or hurdles.
These concerns are not Left or Right issues – they are collective issues. Neither political party has all the answers or all the correct approaches. But together they can bring various considerations to light that can help ensure both protection and provision. So, it is not which presidential candidate or party that makes the difference. Rather, it is how both parties work with each other, with whoever is elected President, and with the people for common purposes that benefit the community, especially in the context of crises. Each political segment can then bring varying perspective to problems, while being dedicated to solving the problems together.
2) Economic: Because of the range of disparities in our country and the intensity of economic greed, there are some who have been convinced that we should shift to an economic and political system that could potentially have government making decisions on distribution and redistribution of resources to ensure equality and fairness. But all one needs to do is look at the examples of 20th century socialism in various parts of the world, to know that the idea of government making those decisions only works in theory. The flaws in human nature and power structures have made it not possible for governments to actually function in a way that fairly distributes or redistributes anything for all. The answer to disparities therefore is not about having government provide all distribution and redistribution of resources, but rather focusing individual and community efforts on investing and reinvesting in opportunities for economic empowerment and sustainability for all.
Especially in the midst of crises, fewer economic opportunities in either urban centers or rural areas, results in increasing societal disparities in education and employment, that in turn results in higher levels of poverty and the diseases of poverty including poor physical and mental health, drugs/alcohol, and crimes/violence. Economic concerns are directly intertwined with societal concerns. So we cannot dismiss individual and community economic concerns even in the context of public health or other concerns.
3) Social: We need to shift our societal focus from social media to social good. There comes a point when we have to put down our megaphones – literal or figurative or online. We need to step back and recognize that we have many voices that need to be heard, and many faces that need to be seen. Rather than allowing media to sensationalize or social media to turn issues and people into memes, we need to use our media platforms to provide the voiceless an opportunity to share their concerns. And these platforms can also be a way for those with a voice to learn more about these concerns and to work together with the vulnerable in addressing the concerns.
But to address concerns, we also need to recognize various views and ideas may be expressed, but not all have the same levels of validity or effectiveness. Some are better or worse in various contexts. We have to as a society use our faith and morality to discern the collective good and then move toward decisions and changes that pursue what is good, especially through the promotion of civil and human rights. That kind of decision-making and change moves beyond viewpoints and necessarily takes concerted steps now and in the longer-term toward social progress.
In this convoluted time, I want to challenge our national and global society to consider these issues and crises from new vantage points – perhaps shifting our paradigm of crises and crisis responses. We could try to deconstruct these 21st century crises with 21st century approaches and perspectives. They may not be altogether new ideas but we could employ them in with some new intentionality that could result in greater progress than we have previously experienced. They may not solve the issues completely, but they may advance us as a people by upholding human rights for all. When we shift our approaches from politics to sound policy, from economic greed to economic opportunity, personal interest to community good, we can then focus our energies in the 21st century to not only addressing crises but creating true progress for individuals and communities, and true justice worldwide.