“Living in a world of white oppressors, blacks have no time for a neutral God.”
Thus, striving for equal treatment of black and white people is succumbing to a set of white values. This is a key area where he differed from King, as Cone felt that difference had to be outlined assertively. In this way, Cone’s black theology links in well with Rawls’ idea of justice, that black people would be free, but at the same time allowed to express their difference in the form of blackness. It would therefore seem as though Cone’s black theology certainly had a Rawlsian understanding of justice.
Rawls also goes further to talk about a maximin rule of game theory where one must choose the distribution pattern that favours the least well off. This theory asserts that one must select the strategy in which the worst outcome is nonetheless better than the worst outcomes of all other possible strategies. The corollary of this is not that the best outcome is better than the best outcome of all other possible strategies, however. Instead this is a somewhat defence and protective strategy: in the case of justice, Rawls thinks this is in the form of distribution favouring the poor.
There is an in-built concern for those worse off than oneself. Moreover, there is an in-built moral obligation to consider carefully the plight of these who will inevitably come off worse in the serious game of life. Indeed, under the veil of ignorance, it may be us who become worse off at some time in the future. Rawls argues therefore that we are under a moral obligation not only not to harm one another, but also to assist those who are worse off than ourselves. If we do not assist those who are worse off than ourselves, then the onus is upon us to come up with a good argument or justification as to why we should not do so. Again, this theme of justice concurs with Martin Luther King’s theology and James Cone’s, as they both seek to achieve a sense of black people not being oppressed unfairly. They both seek a redistribution of rights and positions in a white-dominated society.
Individualist Theories of Justice
Thomas Hobbes, an individualist, thought that there are two basic conditions which characterise man in his natural state: continual fear (thus the life of man is solitary, poor, nasty and short) and contention, enmity and war. Given this gloomy picture of humanity, a “social contract” can lead to a tolerable existence. This would be a set of laws to ensure maximum freedom combined with personal security. Therefore justice is a fulfilment of the contract that he has established. John Locke also thought that the justice is based on the individual rather than with the community. Locke’s work is based on two principles: the right to the individual’s self-preservation and the rights to property bought, held or acquired by the individual. The underlying moral obligation is a simple one: we each have a moral right not to harm another.
However, as determined by Nature, that is the extent of our moral obligations to others. A modern version is found in Robert Nozick’s famous work. Nozick thought that there are two sorts of theories to do with social justice: firstly, “patterned” theories such as Marxism and utilitarianism. They impose a particular pattern or order upon social reality. Nozick has no formal pattern as such, and thought that they close off the normal pragmatic way that people engage with others and shape their futures. Nozick argued that these just don’t work in reality. He felt that experience counts for more than formal learning. Countries that run along strict Marxist guidelines will inevitably collapse sooner or later because a semi-utopian order placed upon communities does not take proper account of human nature. Human nature isn’t ordered and neatly patterned, so why should we expect societies to be so? From an objective view of any society, it is clear that one cannot pigeon-hole society into specific categories or theories. Therefore, why theorise about absolute theories, when societies end up and relative and contextual?
Thus there are “unpatterned” theories, on the other hand, such as Nozick’s. He takes full account of reality as we find it, and tries to explain the concept of “justice” in those terms. Having looked at society, he tries to unpack it in a theoretical way. This means that it is descriptive not prescriptive. Nozick defines justice in terms of “entitlement”. Everyone is entitled to what they have, earn or acquire as long as it does in the way in which my society or community defines as legal. Indeed, there are three main principles at work in a just society, and these principles apply to the just distribution of all “holdings”: firstly just acquisition; secondly just transfer; thirdly rectification (the resort to law if the acquisition or transfer of goods or holdings has been illegal). If all of the principles are adhered to then everyone is legally entitled to what they have got. In this way, rich weapons dealers or cigarette manufacturers are allowed, as long as the goods or holdings in which they deal are transferred and acquired legally, then the society is a just one. This is what constitutes justice. We have no moral obligations to anyone except ourselves, and provided we live by the rules of society then we are morally safe.
There are many different attitudes towards black theology, but essentially it was developed not for an intellectual ruling elite but instead for tens of millions of working class blacks in the United States. It emerges from their experiences of hundreds of years of white racism and economic exploitation, two forms of discrimination that are inseparable and which still exist in our time. In the mid 20th Century blacks rebelled against racism and their imposed poverty during the Civil Rights movements, with radicals rallying around the slogan: Black Power! Black theology allied itself with this black power movement that was clearly calling for a new economic order.
James Foreman’s Black Manifesto saw clearly that liberation would not work within a capitalist system: any black man or Negro who is advocating a perpetuation of capitalism inside the United States is in fact seeking not only his ultimate destruction and death but is contributing to the continuous exploitation of black people all around the world. He realized that there was a strong link between racism and capitalism, two forms of oppression that were both part of the same package that the black power and black theology movements were opposing. Unlike others who were more concerned with opposing the current system then creating a new vision, he explicitly called for a new socialist economic system as a crucial goal for the liberation of blacks:
“Our fight is against racism, capitalism, and imperialism, and we are dedicated to building a socialist society inside the United Sates where the total means of production and distribution are in the hands of the State, and that must be led by black people, by revolutionary blacks who are concerned about the total humanity of this world.”
This reflects individualist theories, such as Nozick’s, as it is based on experience. Black theology is a product of its time, created because people so vehemently opposed their situation. This means that it concurs with Nozick’s idea of taking full account of reality as we find it. In other words, black people see their situation and try to make sense of it in a theoretical way, but importantly in an “unpatterned” way. This is because the intrinsic nature of black theology being contextual falls in line with Nozick’s dislike of absolutes. Their objection is to the laws of entitlement. Black people, feel that the acquisition and transfer or holdings of goods is essentially flawed. In their situation, it is difficult to justify why white people should be permitted to impose a racial hierarchy. This means that black theology is concerned with changing capitalism (as Foreman says), as in Nozick’s terms, society’s based on this principle do not lead to holdings being acquired and transferred legally, and society is therefore not a just one. This leads to the necessity of third principle of justice: rectification.
However, Nozick has no objection to exploitation, therefore one may question what grounding there is to the black person seeking the rectification of their situation. This is why Foreman feels that an abolition of imperialism and capitalism will lead to new laws being established which promote equity. The individualistic nature is not really fulfilled in the justification of why society’s laws ought to be altered. It is the intrinsically self-preservatory nature of individuals that causes a desire of why society’s laws ought to be changed, and black people want this.
In the quest for justice, there is more emphasis on being liberated than a redistribution of income. The distribution of justice or goods is usually associated with philosophers, whereas the retribution of justice is a more legalistic approach, outlining how to keep everyone in line. How could a movement favour liberation and agree that economic inequalities should be allowed to continue, though? Those two beliefs seem incompatible. Especially when given the fact that black people were themselves the primary victims of the inequality. Does not liberation carry with it a clear message of economic liberation in addition to the stated goal of racial liberation? How could black theologians talk about revolution and agree to maintain the primary system of control, that of capitalism?
Marxism
Revolution would clearly be associated with new left ideology and of past revolutions in countries like Cuba, China, and Russia. The call for revolution was synonymous with advocating socialism. Certainly, for Marx, justice changes in line with the economic status of society. Marx thought that society should change from agrarian to capitalist, then socialist, before becoming communist. However, the notion of justice also changes alongside this, suggesting a link between justice and the economic circumstances of society. This is apparent when Marx says that “right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.”
Starting in the late Seventies, writers like Cornel West and James Cone began to integrate the Marxist critique of capitalism into black theology. In his essay, Black theology and Marxist Thought, Cornel West calls out for the need for the two to come together and to focus on critiquing their common enemy. First he questions the use of the term “liberation”. Do blacks only seek to imitate middle class whites and permit vast economic inequalities to continue to exist? Or does black theology have something to say about the dual economic exploiting doctrines of capitalism and imperialism? He argues that black theology has in the past concentrated more on opposing the current dominant paradigm than on proposing an alternative, and for that reason it has neglected economic justice. West argues that class is actually the dominant cause of alienation and this can be seen by the fact that working class whites are also affected. Finally he sees that the same forces are aligned behind capitalism and racism against the liberation of blacks. It is all one fight.
Cornel West in a second essay, “Black theology of Liberation: a Critique of Capitalist Civilization,” calls for a shift in black theology to one that recognizes the validity of the Marxist critique of capitalism and the need for a new socialist order. He recognizes Christianity's prophetic tradition of speaking out against oppression and notes Christianity's focus on self fulfilment, a concept that is incompatible with any form of discrimination. West is not a utopian and recognizes that sin and imperfection will exist, but believes that a revolution, likely an armed struggle, will lead to the establishment of a socialist society that he hopes will combine the best of the Marxist and Christian traditions. The Marxist principle of justice seems to diverge away from an individualistic theory such as Nozick’s, and becomes a communitarian theory of justice.
Cone’s hermeneutics are affected by Marx. Although he does not refer to Marx very often, he uses Marx’s critique of society and its economic power structure as a basis for his theology. Importantly, Marx’s influence on Cone is to make Cone apply the hermeneutic of suspicion. As a result, black hermeneutics is deeply distrustful of all biblical interpretations; instead it is more holistic, less fragmentary and less sceptical than white theology. According to Cone, Marxism had been neglected because it has been associated with racist whites, viewed as a fringe ideology, associated with Russia in a time of anticommunism, viewed as atheist and a direct threat to Christianity, and seen as overly sectarian. In face of these negatives, Cone's interest in Marxism was renewed through contact with Latin American theology. From there he began to recognize the validity of the Marxist critique, agreeing that Christianity had been used as an opium of the masses:
“[Marx] was correct in identifying the intention of oppressors. They promote religion because it can be an effective tool for enslavement.”
Furthermore he affirms that black liberation theology is in clear support of the poor:
“All proponents of liberation theology contend that the masses are not poor by accident. They are made and kept poor by the rich and powerful few.”11
Finally Cone directly affirms black theology and being compatible with Marxist political values:
“No one can be a follower of Jesus Christ without a political commitment that expresses one's solidarity with victims.”11
However, Cone had also been influenced by the neo-orthodoxy of Karl Barth who believed in the exclusivism of Christianity. Therefore he could never entirely adopt a Marxist view of justice, as he could never adopt Marxism in its entirety. Marx himself criticised anyone for “cherry-picking” parts of his revolutionary communist society, as otherwise it would not work. This nullifies, the effect of using Marx, and so suddenly, one could argue that Cone does not have an understanding of justice in Marxian terms. For in Cone’s black view, justice is human willed, but God demonstrates justice through human agency, i.e. God siding with the poor, where there clearly is a justice of inequality. In the beginnings of black theology, while it was just emerging, the first and most evident source of oppression of blacks was white racism. So racism became its primary target, while black theology's support for socialism remained under the surface. However as black theology developed, writers like Cone and West recognized the value of a Marxist critique of the capitalist system, and integrated that into black theology and now call for a total liberation of black people from both racism, capitalism, and imperialism. This is a huge step towards justice.
Conclusion
There are many different black theologies with different outlooks. Indeed, many self-titled black theologians criticise other self-titled theologians for not actually having a black theology. James Cone thought that Martin Luther King did not have a theology. The fact that many “black theologians” have thought that King did not actually have an academic theology meant that I felt it acceptable not to include him in this essay. Instead, I have tried to show how different black theologies have understandings of different theories of justice. Therefore I think that there is a significant understanding of justice and the ramifications of it in black theologies. Obviously by defining justice in different ways, the significance of justice in black theology can be augmented or reduced. However, I have tried to compare some of the most widely acclaimed theories of justice with well-known black theologies and my conclusion thus far has been that there is definitely a coherent sense of justice apparent in most black theologies. Katie Cannon sums up this point succinctly:
“Black religion and black church served as a sustaining force, assuring boundless justice.”
Black theology emerges from black religion and the black church, and so it too tries to assure boundless justice, and does so coherently in my opinion.
Bibliography
Dwight N. Hopkins – Black Faith and Public Talk
John Rawls – A Theory of Justice
Ralf Dahrendorf – The New Liberty
Robert E. Goodwin &Philip Pettit – Contemporary Political Philosophy
(In particular, the chapters on Nozick and Rawls)
Peter Vardy & Paul Grosch – The Puzzle of Ethics
Cone – A Black Theology of Liberation
John Rawls – A Theory of Justice (p148)
Cone – A Black Theology of Liberation (p70)
Robert Nozick (mentioned later) did exactly that, moderating Rawls’ theory to an individualist theory.
The Leviathan, or the Matter, Form and Power of a Commonwealth, Ecclesiastical and Civil (1651)
Second Treatise on Civil Government (1689)
Anarchy, State and Utopia (1974)
James Foreman – Black Manifesto
Marx - Critique of the Gotha Programme
Cone – A Black Theology of Liberation
Katie Cannon - Katie’s Cannon (p54)
