TRANSCRIPT:
Kim
In this episode, we’ll be talking about how interdependence relates to justice.
Philipos
I will start today’s justice conversation with a question – Is justice served among interdependent, dependent, or independent parties?
It is self-evident to not make a dependent person, for example, children, accountable or responsible to certain aspects of the rule of law due to their lack of agency which results from their young age.
Independence is based on the idea that you do have agency: in other words, the ability to make your own decisions and take your own actions. So, from this perspective, consequences should be borne because you have that agency. But I question what it means to be independent, and I have difficulty seeing it in reality. When I look at what is happening in ordinary life, I witness interdependence more than independence.
Kim
What is it that you see in reality that tells you this?
Philipos
On the idea of independence, the picture that comes to my mind is: I’m not dependent, I’m not vulnerable, I don’t need anyone, I can stand on my own, and my need for the other is zero or almost zero.
On the other hand, the picture that comes to my mind is when I hear the idea of interdependence is: I’m dependent on you, as you depend on me. I have a certain vulnerability, and so do you, and therefore we are not independent as often claimed.”
From my native Tigrinya language and cultural perspective – justice comes from interdependency rather than independence. To give an example, when two parties enter into a contract, there is a cultural understanding that the contract is based on a concept called ኪዳን (Kidan). The literal translation of ኪዳን (Kidan) means “to clothe.” Clothing demonstrates in a fundamental way that we are each vulnerable. We need each other for something.
Kim
We each clothe each other? Can you give me an example of that?
Philipos
For example, when two people make a marriage vow, they call each other Kidaney. Kidaney means “you clothe me and I clothe you.” This shows the fundamental premise of the relationship. In the current English-Tigrinya translation, the word “kidan” is like “covenant” or “treaty.” In short, it is understood as a contract.
Kim
A contract. Is kidan the word for contract?
Philipos
No. There is a different word for a contract. But kidan is understood in the basis of the contracts.
Kim
So do you talk about kidan first and then the contract? What do you do to establish kidan?
Philipos
Kidan is a conceptual word, not a technical legal word. It’s culturally understood that kidan is behind the contract. In America, people don’t usually consciously acknowledge any dependency when they sign a contract. They sign it on the assumption that they’re independent, and so is the other party or parties. We don’t need each other. But in the concept of kidan, we know that we do need each other. We need each other’s help to make the contract work.
Kim
So, the term that you use in your culture assumes that everybody is essentially clothing each other.
Philipos
Yes. So that is when we say, “justice,” we have to see from that perspective of kidan, of interdependence, instead of from the independence. The rule of law also relies on Kidan – In Tigriyna culture we say “ዝባን ሕጊ” (ziban Higi) – meaning on the back or shoulder of the law. The law by itself is not independent. The law needs clothes, the common understanding is that the people cover the rule of law. It cannot work without the support and backing of the people.
Kim
That sounds like the basis for democracy. The entire governing body is only legitimate with the support and backing of the people.
I think that in America, there is such a strong focus on independence. It’s woven into the fabric of the story of the constitution, and the present government. Many in America have grown up with this focus, which is almost a hyper-focus, on the importance of independence. I think that it’s a deep-rooted problem with us. Because we don’t recognize that actually, we’re not independent. We’re interdependent. It’s not even healthy to be independent. Independence separates us from each other. It creates space for violence. It does not create situations of justice. It does not affirm or strengthen relationships.
I think there IS such a thing as freedom, and that’s what people are really after, but freedom is not to be independent. Freedom is to have the supportive relationships that are needed for thriving, for feeling safe, or having the different needs met. And the whole community has to meet those needs for each other: family members, friends, social and organizational groups… Even municipalities provide interdependent support, like building roads or having a fire department. We live interdependently every day. We couldn’t get through a week without doing so. I don’t’ think we even get through a day without doing so. And yet people keep telling themselves this falsehood that they are or should be independent. They are not, and should not be, independent.
I think in order to have freedom people also need to be able to be seen for who they really are. To guard freedom is to make a space for a person to be safe, even when vulnerable. And I think that this ability to be vulnerable safely leads to the ability to be creative. Maybe that is what freedom really comes down to: creativity. Because if you can think and dream, and then act on what you come up with, without being held back by your own fears, or harm being put upon you by others, then you are free. It takes more than one person to nurture that. Freedom relies on interdependence.
Philipos
The idea of independence from my perspective has been misplaced. We have to see ourselves as a whole, and at the same time being also a part of another whole. So, too, is the process of justice. In justice based on relationship, the interdependent parties are at the same time whole, and part of each other and opening each other. In a nutshell, what I’m trying to say is justice is the result of interdependence, not independence.
Kim
There’s a legal scholar named Peter Gabel, whose work I’m familiar with. One thing he wrote that struck me is that in the United States, our laws and constitution are written to protect the individual from other individuals. That’s what we say are ‘our rights’ and even what we call ‘human rights’ are still based on this. Fundamentally, we think in terms of protecting the one from the other as independent entities, not about how to bring relationships to wholeness. Peter tries to shift the thinking of those working in legal fields, such as law professors, judges, practicing lawyers, and others, to figure out how to change our approach to justice to one that seeks more connective, relationship based, community wholeness. It’s probably not going to happen in our lifetime. But there are a number of people who can see it. I don’t know how you get it all shifted over because it is such a foundational difference in legal and social thought.
Philipos
So, what you’re saying is, justice should not be measured on the perspective of independence, or protecting the individual? It should protect the interdependence. Correct?
Kim
Yes, it should support both the individual and the interdependent relationships..
Philipos
Yeah, so if you see this in the debate during the pandemic about wearing masks. One side says, I’m independent, I can choose whether I wear a mask, or I don’t wear a mask. You know? You can’t force me. I’m independent. Leave me alone. The other side says, You can make others sick. We live on this planet together, this country together, this city together. Let’s protect each other. Let’s not forget we are interdependent on each other.
Kim
I think that this is an area where people’s understanding of justice needs to shift. And there needs to be a critical mass that understands differently in order for that shift to happen, because right now, many people do associate individuality and independence with justice. And most people are not thinking about relationship in terms of justice. But like I said, I think the awareness is already growing. There are so many people working on restorative justice, on Truth and Reconciliation. This way of thinking is being used more and more.
You brought up the mask issue, and I wanted to bring up another event that relates to interdependence and independence that has happened this past year. I’m thinking about the school shooting in Uvalde, Texas. The 18-year-old gunman was supposed to have been graduating that week. He had dropped out of school, and was not living with his mom anymore because of difficulties that she was having. I read that his father also had not been present in his life. So, he was living with his grandparents. The news reports said that he had no known mental health issues. He easily purchased the weapons he used to attack the school children.
I find it interesting that they said he had no mental health issues, when it seems like clearly there was a struggle there. If he couldn’t stay in school, if the family relationships were broken, there seems to be a failing of adults in his community to understand interdependence. (And his community is no different from most communities in this country in this respect.) Those who have upheld independence and feel that they need guns to protect their independence, upheld his ability to purchase assault rifles easily. They are not paying enough attention to interdependence – that the safety of our citizens is based on how we ensure people’s needs are met, including fundamental relationship needs. He had to have been hurting, to have done this. And so, this, to me shows the dangers of focusing on independence, and ignoring interdependence.
Philipos
Yes, I agree with your point. That requires hard work, to see the whole person’s life, the whole upbringing, the whole relationship. So it’s “easy” for us as bystanders, to put every burden on one individual person. This person carried a gun and killed people, so let’s call him the person responsible, but for how long can we do that? You know, in the past 20 years, these shootings have happened continuously. There is no clear legal way to stop it. The people have the right to bear arms, and there are many scholars and many advocates are trying to change laws to have better gun regulation. How about we see this from the interdependence perspective? Why does somebody want to carry a gun to protect himself or herself? It’s like we see each other as a broken family. We see each other as a threat. If we see each other as a threat, of course, you’re going to try to protect yourself from the other. What if we shift to thinking my neighbor is my collaborator, my neighbor is my coworker for a greater good. Even changing laws, taking guns out of people’s hands, is not enough. If we were to see interdependence as the core operating value, this gun issue would be less dangerous and the costly for society in large.
Kim
I need to think about that. Is a change in societal perspective to an understanding of interdependence enough to change the situation with gun violence in our country? Making that shift in perspective creates a focus on relationship, and how we keep relationships healthy. Is that sufficient to counter the gun violence?
Philipos
Yes, as I see it, the fundamentals of gun violence is based on a mentality of independence, of protecting myself from the threat of the other. If we shift to the idea of interdependence. For example, going back to the value of keadaan, that I explained earlier, we can say, “who is covering me?” It means I don’t see the other as a threat. The shooting is a consequence, it’s not the cause. The cause is the breaking of relationships in many levels of society, starting from home and going all the way to Congress. But back to the cases of mass shooters, if a person believes the those around them are going to take care of them, and also that their own contributions are valued, probably they won’t feel the need to carry a gun.
It’s so important that not only are a person’s needs met, but they are also able to provide for the needs of others. This exchange allows people to develop something together. It requires a lot of interdependence, and connectivity and relationship, to develop something. If you don’t have that, how are you going to do anything?
Kim
I was just thinking, what would it look like if we had an Interdependence Day instead of an Independence Day? How would that be? What will be the colors? What would be the symbols? Maybe it would be clothing, maybe it would be ways of blending colors. I don’t know. That’s something creative to think about.
Philipos
That’s a really nice statement, the nice statement for closing of this podcast.
11 Kim
Thank you for the conversation.
Philipos
Thank you, too. We’ll talk again soon.