Michael Sandel: A Foreigner Who Visited Keio University

2018/06/26

On May 29, 2012, Michael Sandel, a political philosopher from Harvard University, arrived at Mita Hilltop Square. Professor Sandel was famous for his "Justice" lectures (Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?), which were said to be held in front of over a thousand students at Harvard University every time. Due to the immense popularity of the lectures, it seems that for the first time in Harvard's history, these classes were opened to the media. In Japan, a recording of these lectures was broadcast on NHK in 2010, and later that same year, a recreation of the "Justice" lecture at the University of Tokyo's Yasuda Auditorium, which gathered 1,000 students, became a hot topic. It became an unusual social phenomenon for the relatively quiet academic field of "philosophy."

Since I am the only one at Keio University who holds a lecture with the title of "Political Philosophy," many people seem to think that I was the one who invited Professor Sandel, but unfortunately, that is not the case. This "Justice" lecture at Keio University was actually a project brought to us by Hayakawa Publishing, who invited him to Japan to promote the sale of his translated book, "What Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets," published in the same month. This must have been greatly related to the long-standing love for the Juku held by President Hiroshi Hayakawa (currently a Juku Councilor), who wanted to create an opportunity for Keio University students to learn directly from Professor Sandel. This visit to the Juku took place the day after he gave a mammoth lecture to an audience of 5,000 at the Tokyo International Forum on the 28th. Furthermore, since he was scheduled to fly to Seinan Gakuin University in Fukuoka the day after his lecture at Keio to give another lecture to a thousand people, the arrangement was made in response to a request from his side to "conduct a fulfilling lecture on a slightly smaller scale." Taking that into account, the Keio version of the Justice lecture limited eligibility to third and fourth-year students of the Department of Political Science in the Faculty of Law, and we gathered over two hundred students, giving preference to seminars related to political thought.

About 30 years prior to the "Justice" lectures, it was the work "Liberalism and the Limits of Justice" (1982) that first made Sandel's name widely known to the world. In this book, Sandel criticized John Rawls's "A Theory of Justice" (1971), which was at the height of its prosperity in the American political philosophy world at the time. This led to what would later be called the "Liberal-Communitarian Debate" (although Sandel more often refers to his own position as "Republicanism" rather than Communitarianism).

Rawls preaches the "priority of the right over the good." How humans should live and what should be considered good varies from person to person, and it must be so. Rawls believed that for this to happen, some normative principle must be established prior to the conception of the good, and that is justice.

In contrast, Sandel criticizes the assumption of the "unencumbered self" that lies at the root of Rawls's argument. Rawls starts from the assumption of the "veil of ignorance" in the original position—that is, a human being who possesses general knowledge but knows nothing at all about their own abilities, position, or social status. Rawls believed that under such conditions, since one does not know whether they will be a "winner" or a "loser" in the future, it would be possible to agree on "rules of justice" that allow even the weakest person to lead a healthy life. Against this, Sandel criticized that such an abstract ego, which discards human historicity and sociality, cannot exist. For Sandel, a human being is a "story-telling being" embedded within society and its traditions. Sandel argued that a Rawlsian self lacking these attributes cannot have attachment to anything, nor can it reflect upon itself, and therefore cannot make moral judgments; such a person could not possibly choose the good or justice.

While Sandel criticizes Rawls's view of humanity in this way, when it comes to discussions at the policy level, there does not seem to be such a large gap between the two. While Rawls seeks to correct disparities strictly in accordance with universal principles, Sandel seeks to share the redistribution of social goods with members who share the same values within a specific community; it could be said that both belong to the liberal camp. This can also be seen in the point that Sandel is favorable toward Rawls's argument that an individual's genius is an asset of society as a whole, and that the individual in question should by no means be the only one to benefit from it.

Now, regarding the scene of the Justice lecture held at the Mita Campus North Building Hall. Professor Sandel had fallen ill due to a dense schedule over several days, but he showed no signs of fatigue during the lecture, which began about an hour late. I heard that to overcome jet lag from the US East Coast, Professor Sandel stayed up working from midnight until morning and managed by taking naps during the day while in Japan. Since it was an evening class, he might have overslept. That aside, Professor Sandel's lecture style—presenting examples and case studies, throwing difficult questions at students to draw out debate, and then layering his own arguments on top—was alive and well this time too. He threw a series of examples at the Keio students, such as "Why is it better to receive a gift from a boyfriend or girlfriend than to receive cash?", "Is it a good thing to give children money as a reward every time they read a book?", "How do you evaluate the act of selling blood?", "Is it a good thing to install priority seats on trains?", and "The pros and cons of a bankrupt city trying to rebuild its economy by selling naming rights." The hour and a half spent thinking together with all participants flew by in an instant.

The lecture itself followed his aforementioned new book, in which Professor Sandel raises two objections to the market logic that "money talks even in hell." One is an argument concerning fairness, and the other is an argument concerning corruption. However, of course, the value judgment of what constitutes an act against the principle of fairness and what constitutes corruption differs depending on the society and culture. For example, what about giving or receiving money as a gift? An economist would judge that to be more rational and desirable in any case, but Professor Sandel says there is strong resistance to that in American society. However, in Japan, there is the custom of Otoshidama (New Year's money). Also, my wife always prefers cash over a birthday present chosen by me, as I lack a sense of style.

The argument concerning corruption is not without its problems either. Setting aside developed countries, in developing countries, if one tries to distribute specific goods not through market principles but through regulations involving intervention by the administration or some form of power, there is a higher possibility that even greater corruption will occur.

However, Sandel's argument attempts to view human beings as existences embedded in the historical and social contexts of their respective political communities, and does not attempt to extract standards of justice from universal principles like Rawls. Therefore, he might counter as follows: "That is exactly why it is important to continue debating by clashing diverse ways of thinking against each other." Certainly, debating itself is an activity rich in intellectual stimulation and fun. However, it is understandable that some people feel frustrated by his style, which can be seen as anticipating how the opponent will react and trying to guide them toward the answer he has envisioned.

In any case, I was personally happy to receive words from Hayakawa Publishing later on, saying, "Thanks to the English proficiency and debating skills of the Keio University students, it was a very high-quality lecture, and Professor Sandel seemed to enjoy himself very much."

There are also educational scholars who object to Sandel's teaching style. For example, "The Harm of Dialogue" (Hiroshi Usami and Kumiko Ikeda) is a representative example. They question, for instance, the "Trolley Problem" that Sandel is fond of bringing up. It is a problem like the following: There is a runaway trolley with broken brakes coming at high speed. In its path are five workers who are unaware of it, and at this rate, they will all die. If you change the trolley's path to a side track at a junction before them, you will kill one person who is further down that track. Now, what do you do?

Usami regards this question as a laughable, Rakugo-like coercion. It's like saying, "There are only two possibilities: kill five people or kill one person. Think so. Don't think of anything else."

Ikeda also points out that it lacks the thinking that questions the problem and gets to the essence. What is there is "shallow thinking that only reads the intention of the questioner." Indeed, in the Justice lectures, remarks that exceed Sandel's intention for the question and change the question itself are not permitted.

Currently, "Active Learning" is being discussed in our country along with the revision of the Academic Advisory Board guidelines. One thing that can be said for certain regarding this movement is that the active learning developed there must not be something based on a pre-established harmony. It must not be something that ends up being mere training in reading the atmosphere of the room or just looking at the teacher's face for cues. Such things are already more than sufficiently prevalent in Japanese society.

*Affiliations and titles are those at the time of writing.