Faculty Blogs // Notre Dame Magazine // Notre Dame Magazine

The Common Good: Does selfishness really explain everything?

2012-02-24T09:00:00-05:00

Economists recently have recognized a need to revise the picture of economic behavior portrayed in homo economicus, the long-held view that people act on the basis of self-interest alone. There is increasing recognition that a good deal of human behavior is not explained by the concept.

For instance, David Hausman and Michael McPherson, who together founded the journal Economics and Philosophy, recount an experiment in which wallets containing cash and identification were left in the streets of New York. Nearly half were returned to their owners intact, despite the trouble and expense of doing so to their discoverers. People seem naturally inclined to observe norms that put the welfare of others over their own interests. Many other researchers have found the same phenomena.

What constrains individuals from seeking solely their self-interest? One answer is that our tendency to maximize our material welfare at the expense of others is inhibited by a deeply ingrained set of moral values.

Economists have devised a number of approaches to formally represent the relationship between moral values and the standard utility framework of economic theory. One way is to think of moral values as preferences comparable to preferences for goods and services. So just as someone is satisfied when they acquire a desired good or service, likewise they are satisfied when they comply with a societal moral value. At the same time if we act contrary to a moral value, we feel uneasy and unsatisfied. This formulation appears more appropriate in modeling altruistic behavior, such as purchasing a gift for one’s child, than it does for an ethical norm like honesty or a commitment like duty.

Amartya Sen, the Nobel Prize-winning economist who will deliver the 2012 Hesburgh Lecture at Notre Dame on April 17, has proposed an approach in which he distinguishes between “ordinary preferences” and “metapreferences” that stand over and above ordinary preferences. Moral values regarding fairness, liberty and honesty, among others, make up the metapreference function that determines the ranking of ordinary preferences.

So, for example, a person who has a strong preference to consume grapes still doesn’t buy any because of a commitment to justice for farm workers. This approach captures the internal conflict surrounding such personal choices as whether or not to smoke. An individual may simultaneously desire a cigarette (ordinary preference) and desire not to smoke (metapreference) in the first place.

Rather than conceiving of ethical values as mere utilitarian preferences or metapreferences guiding the rankings of common goods, norms might also be seen as constraints on choices. As in a budget constraint, norms could be seen as externally imposing (presumably from the conscience or superego) limits on available choices. However, unlike budget constraints, norms may be violated; therefore, the limits they impose are not rigid.

Missing from all these arguments, however, is what the economist David Hirshleifer calls the “dark side” of human behavior. While there is some discussion of envy and revenge as motives, most economists believe that people are better than the selfish agent depicted in rational actor theory. Charles Anderton points out that it might be closer to reality to model human behavior as both better and worse than mere selfishness. As Michelle Garfinkel and Stergios Skaperdas note:

The notion of homo economicus is a bit puzzling in what it requires of a human being: he will haggle to death to get a better price, though never think about grabbing what the other person has if given the chance to do so. This is an image of well-defined ruthlessness within a bubble of sainthood. But, real human beings everywhere — from Russia, to Somalia, to Columbia, to inside U.S. prisons as well as board rooms, to name just a few places — are often so ruthless that they burst this bubble.

These economists see the darker side of human behavior as a general phenomenon having vast economic implications little explored by mainstream and heterodox economists alike.

Charles K. Wilber is a Notre Dame professor emeritus of economics and fellow of the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies who has written widely on Catholic social thought and economic theory. His most recent books are Economics and Ethics: An Introduction (Palgrave Press, 2010) with Amitava Dutt and Catholics Spending and Acting Justly (Ave Maria Press, May 2011). Email him at cwilber@nd.edu.

The new Lou, Part II

2012-01-17T13:00:00-05:00

Editor’s note: When the Brian Kelly era began two years ago, it got Ted Mandell ‘86, ND professor of Film, Television and Theatre, thinking. The more he thought about Notre Dame’s 29th head football coach, the more he thought he saw the second coming of Lou Holtz. Now, last week’s announcement that Kelly had been offered and had accepted a two-year extension of his contract through the 2016 season has triggered another Mandell epiphany.

I saw that BK got a two year extension, and I thought, Hmmm, after two seasons is he still the New Lou?

Well, let’s see . . . Brian Kelly has the exact same record after 26 games as Lou Holtz (16-10).

At the conclusion of Holtz’s second season (1987), the greatest receiver in ND history (Tim Brown) finished his ND career on the sideline during the fourth quarter of a bowl game loss against a top defensive foe.

At the conclusion of Kelly’s second season (2011), the greatest receiver in ND history (Michael Floyd) finished his ND career on the sideline during the fourth quarter of a bowl game loss against a top defensive foe.

Timothy Brown and Michael Floyd both have exactly 12 letters in their names.

Louis Holtz and Brian Kelly both have exactly 10 letters in their names.

After two years, Holtz replaced his defensive coordinator with a position coach on staff and hired a new offensive line coach.

After two years, Kelly replaced his offensive coordinator with a position coach on staff and hired a new offensive line coach.

Notre Dame finished the 1987 season 8-4.

Notre Dame finished the 2011 regular season 8-4.

In 1987, Notre Dame beat #17 Michigan State 31-8, highlighted by two kick returns for touchdowns by Tim Brown, future Oakland Raider.

In 2011, Notre Dame beat #15 Michigan State 31-13, highlighted by a kick return for a touchdown by George Atkinson III, son of a former Oakland Raider.

In 1987, Notre Dame beat Navy 56-13.

In 2011, Notre Dame beat Navy 56-14.

In 1986 and 1987, Notre Dame had 10 losses by a total of 90 points.

In 2010 and 2011, Notre Dame had 10 losses by a total of 88 points.

In 1987, Bon Jovi’s “Livin on a Prayer” spent two weeks at #1 on the Billboard Charts.

In 2011, Jon Bon Jovi spent two minutes on the field at Notre Dame Stadium as the ND Band played “Livin on a Prayer.”

The live recording of Ozzy Osbourne’s “Crazy Train” was first released in 1987.

The studio recording of Ozzy Osbourne’s “Crazy Train” was first played live inside Notre Dame Stadium in 2011.

And just in case you’re wondering for season three . . .

In 1988, Notre Dame defeated four teams ranked in the Coaches’ Poll Top 10.

In 2012, Notre Dame plays four teams ranked in ESPN.com’s preseason Top 11.

Meet the New Lou . . . same as the Old Lou.

Ted Mandell is a faculty member in the Department of Film, Television, and Theatre. Author of the multimedia book Heart Stoppers and Hail Marys: The Greatest College Football Finishes (Since 1970), he also filmed the documentary Inside The Legends, following Lou Holtz in his final game on the sidelines during the 2009 Notre Dame Japan Bowl.

The Four Horsemen against the Bomb

2011-12-14T06:00:00-05:00

Military officials and politicians today seem unable to conceive of a future without the Bomb. Old thinking retains its grip at the Pentagon, and the vested interests that profit from excessive military spending remain a formidable lobby. Congress sustains nuclear postures that are inherited from the Cold War and continues to fund unneeded weapons systems.

Yet some of the principal architects of the Cold War have now become advocates of disarmament. It is one of the ironies of our age that Cold War wannabes in Washington cling to outmoded policies, while genuine Cold Warriors of the past now call for a world without nuclear weapons.

The Four Horsemen

The most important voices against the Bomb are those of the “four horsemen”— former Secretaries of State George Shultz and Henry Kissinger, former Defense Secretary William Perry, and former Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee Sam Nunn. All are eminent statesmen who spent their careers justifying and building nuclear weapons but who now recognize the need to abandon them. In the process they have reshaped the global nuclear debate.

The four eminent statesmen who spent their careers justifying and building nuclear weapons now call for a world without nuclear weapons.

The “neo-abolitionist” cause emerged from a conference in 2006 at the Hoover Institution commemorating the 20th anniversary of Reykjavik. That was the dramatic international summit at which Reagan and Gorbachev came breathlessly close to an agreement on complete nuclear disarmament. After that conference Shultz, Kissinger, Perry and Nunn wrote their now famous articles in The Wall Street Journal announcing their support for disarmament, making the case for eliminating all nuclear weapons and listing concrete steps toward achieving that goal.

The case of William Perry

For the group of four, the commitment to nuclear abolition is a striking departure from previous beliefs. William Perry spent most of his professional life in the Pentagon, building and maintaining nuclear weapons. At the end of the Cold War, however, he realized that the vast remaining arsenals of the United States and Russia were a security liability rather than an asset. His support for disarmament results from a deepening concern about the spread of nuclear weapons to other governments and potentially to non-state actors and the consequent risk of nuclear use and terrorist acquisition.

There are fewer nuclear weapons, but they are in a growing number of hands, and they are coveted by those who would not hesitate to use them to inflict maximum loss of life.

Perry warns that the danger of a bomb actually exploding somewhere has increased since the end of the Cold War. There are fewer weapons in the world, but they are in a growing number of hands, and they are coveted by those who would not hesitate to use them to inflict maximum loss of life and global chaos. Many international experts and policy reports have called attention to the twin threats of nuclear proliferation and terrorism, including the Hans Blix Commission.

Completing unfinished business

It is not only fear but hope that inspires the growing disarmament movement. For Shultz especially, the goal is to rekindle the spirit of Reagan and Gorbachev and their commitment to transformational disarmament. He was present at Reykjavik at the most pivotal moments as the two leaders exchanged agreed plans for reducing nuclear weapons to zero. He knows it would be possible to negotiate such a staged process. In Reagan’s vision it would include shared missile defenses to protect against cheating. Shultz, Perry and their confreres want to complete the unfinished business of Reykjavik, a binding agreement among the major powers to rid the world of nuclear weapons.

The goal is to rekindle the spirit of Reagan and Gorbachev and their commitment to transformational disarmament.

The journey toward that goal will be a long one, but steps in that direction are being made, including implementation of the New START arms reduction treaty and the declared commitment of the United Nations Security Council to a world without nuclear weapons. Efforts by the four elders undoubtedly have helped to make this possible. Now in their 80s and early 90s, respectively, Perry and Shultz could be resting on their laurels. Instead they continue to campaign across the globe for their lofty vision. We owe them a debt of gratitude.

David Cortright is director of policy studies at the University of Notre Dame’s Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies. This essay is adapted from “Cold Warriors Against the Bomb,” found at the webzine Peace Policy, published by Notre Dame’s Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies.

TV or not TV: Shakedown the Tweets

2011-10-24T10:00:00-04:00

Sports fandom is best experienced among others. The thrill of victory and the misery of defeat are rarely as profoundly felt as when screaming amongst a joyful throng or embracing in a heart-shattered group hug. Unfortunately, due to some terrible travel planning, I was scheduled to experience the Notre Dame-USC game all by myself. Of course, in today’s digital era, we are never alone (even if we want to be). And thanks to Twitter, I was not alone.

I spent the morning in Georgia, and the early gameday tweets had me unusually longing to be in South Bend in late October rather than down south.

@CoachBrianKelly, 9:31am, Sunday: Not a cloud in the sky. Going to be a great day for football. Go Irish!

@PootND, 11:56am: Let 7+ hours of tailgating begin.

For me, 7+ hours of solo shuttling, flying and driving began. But in the early evening, as I flew in the air while football fans streamed into Notre Dame Stadium, I caught some impressions of the pre-game atmosphere via Twitter, thanks to airplane wifi. The energy being transmitted in 140-character bursts virtually shook my mobile device.

@Brucealeg, 6:28pm Pre game awesomeness in the stadium.

@emilymonacelli, 7:46pm The energy for this #NotreDame night game is incredible.

@UND-com 7:42pm Let there be music! #NotreDameStadium

@ndIRISHlc19, 7:48pm I hear music! I’m so confused.

Then the game started. Well, it did for USC at least.

@ChiTribHamilton, 8:10pm New helmets. Rally towels. First night game since 1990. Ozzy on the PA. And USC is just playing harder and better than #NotreDame. How?

@oaknd1, 8:16pm This sucks.

@NBCNDNearParab, 8:54pm Maybe helmets are too shiny. Too easy for USC to see ND players?

By the second quarter, I was in an airport bar, just me and two Chicago cops seated beneath a ceiling-mounted set. When the game reached 17-0 USC, one of the cops asked a passing waiter to flip the TV to the Blackhawks game. I contended that we should give the Irish the rest of the half to make their case. This is the first and likely last argument with a Chicago cop I’ll ever win, so I owe the Notre Dame football team one for that satisfaction.

@crsbecker, 9:14pm And George Atkinson III helps me hold off the cops a little longer.

@oaknd1, 9:21pm Very very very very very very fortunate to be down 7. Very.

@Pres-Bartlet, 9:21pm I need Notre Dame to #OccupyTheEndZone

@rakesofmallow, 9:34pm Show a little faith, there’s magic in the night.

So after a very rough first half, a win was somehow still within sight. At this point, I relocated to my car, figuring that listening on the radio, the premier live sports medium during Notre Dame’s glory days, might help to wake up the echoes. Instead, the echoes got kicked squarely in the face.

@ISDUpdate, 9:56pm Rees on the ground, appears to have hurt his knee…Dayne Crist is warming up.

@herloyalsons, 11:26pm CRIST FUMBLED AT THE GOALLINE!?… Crist fumbled a ball that was returned 80 for a TD? There is no God that angry or that mean.

@edsbs, 10:08pm I’ve just never seen a QB specialize in fumbling for distance. Quite unique.

And yet, despite such ignominy that could have only been worse had Crist simultaneously lost his pants and stepped on a rake, Notre Dame still had a chance. They just needed a little magic. And then the magic came!

@oaknd1, 10:14p HIS. NAME. IS. JOOOOOOOOOOOOONAS

@NDatRivals, 10:25pm USC’s kicker hooks a 27-yard field goal attempt, keeping ND within one score of tying the game.

@Dascenzo, 10:24pm YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

@ndIRISHIc19, 10:26pm Believe believe believe! I’m Catholic, some stuff I believe defies all logic. I should be able to believe in #NDFB at the very least.

And then just as quickly, the magic walked away, chuckling and shaking its head, with the endlessly replayed excerpt from “Crazy Train” as its exit soundtrack.

@ChiTribHamilton, 10:29pm And it’s under review. Call of the season for #NotreDame. Critical to remember: Called a lateral on the field. Looked like right call… Ruling on the field stands. #NotreDame fumble, USC ball at 18-yard-line.

@edsbs, 10:29pm Notre Dame turns the ball over again. Brian Kelly farting blue flames of rage.

@JimmyClausen, 10:40pm Bed…

@JohnStowe, 10:40pm South end zone empties. That’s ballgame.

All that was left was regrets…

@NDFakePR, 10:26pm We should’ve bought the 6 song package. We’re sorry. The 3 song seemed sensible.

@tessaseinz, 10:54pm Well, that’s over. If I never hear #crazyTrain again, it will be too soon.

…and pain…

@aheadofme, 12:52am That hurt. More than a simple college football game should…stood in the middle of the SC crowd while their band gloated for 20+ minutes on our field. Absorbed enough hate for a lifetime.

@LoyalSonBiscuit, 1:36am Boo for fumbled snaps that swing 10 points. Boo for slow starts. Boo for the tedious progress of progress. Boo for above shoulder BS. Boo

@ndeconprof, 9:10am, Sunday I feel so helpless. I want so badly for this team and this university to succeed and I have to stand and watch us find ways to lose

…and final thoughts…

@herloyalsons, 11:47pm Darn it, ND, if you force me to obsess on something else, it’ll be business and politics. #saveTheWorld

@starkruzr, 12:14am This will be all the more frustrating if we now go and beat Stanford in Palo Alto. ALL of this loss was psychological.

@TheNDleprechaun 11:03am, Sunday KEEP YA HEADS UP! #GoIrish

@jdubs88, 11:48am After all been thru, u wanted Crist 2 lead ND to TD on THAT drive. Deserved that moment. Life’s not fair. It’s what makes sport compelling.

@cwilk, 10:56pm The true measure of how into a football game I was is when my voice recovers. We’re 24 hours after kickoff and I still can’t talk.

Twitter is certainly no replacement for experiencing a sporting event among 80,000 ecstatic fans in a packed stadium waving towels and shouting along with “Seven Nation Army.” But it surpasses experiencing it alone with just two cops in an airport bar. So much of fandom consists of the shared “YESSSSSSS” and “That hurt” expressions anyway, and most of the highs, lows, cries, cheers, snark, jeers and tears come across quite expressively in creative textual form on Twitter. That said, I’d recommend you not take a look at the USC fan Twitter feed. Their 140 characters don’t translate as well into hug form.

Christine Becker, an associate professor of film, television and theatre at Notre Dame, was named by The Wrap as one of 25 TV superfans to follow on Twitter, where she can be found @crsbecker.

By Design: Walking Rome

2011-10-06T10:00:00-04:00

Walking: it can be hard on your soles but good for the soul. This past summer I spent four weeks in Rome, a city that offers ample rewards to hardy visitors willing to walk. I was one of the instructors in an interdisciplinary seminar exploring the relationship between globalism and localism throughout the history of Rome. The Roma Glocale seminar was jointly sponsored by the Notre Dame’s Italian Studies Program and La Sapienza University of Rome.

Before I departed campus I collected my notes, prepared my lectures and bought a good pair of walking shoes. Every day I walked the cobblestoned streets of Rome’s Trastevere neighborhood to a bus stop on the Viale Trastevere to catch a bus to the seminar site across town on the Via Nomentana. Late afternoons and weekends were filled with excursions.

Sometimes these involved meandering strolls with no particular destination in mind. Other times I would stride out at a vigorous pace determined to rendezvous with my students at the agreed upon hour. But because I was on foot, whatever pace I set for myself remained a human one, a pace that allowed all my senses to sample and sort and savor my surroundings. My eyes had time to take in the streetscape; my ears had time to record the neighborhood soundscape and my nose to absorb the aromas of produce markets, street stalls and restaurants.

We live in a culture that too often values speed above all else. Walking is a way to resist the frenetic pace of modern life. The human pace is something we still share with our ancestors. I cross the Eternal City at the same pace as citizens did in the ancient city and pilgrims did in the Renaissance.

A good city walk can be a marvelous mix of planned and chance encounters. Rome, like many European cities, posts historic markers on many buildings recording notable former residents and local events. En route to class I would pass random reminders of other times and other lives. For example, a stone slab on the side of the church of San Rocco on the Piazza Augusto Imperatore carefully records the level reached by floodwater from the nearby Tiber River in the great flood of December 1870. Other plaques mark the birthplaces or residences of poets, musicians, statesmen and saints. One, in a beautiful small piazza near the ancient Porticus of Ottavia, informs passing pedestrians that from the spot on October 16, 1943, Nazi troopers began the deportation of Rome’s Jewish community to extermination camps. Sometimes a walk in the city can be unsettling.

For architects, urbanists and students of city life, the sensorial stimulations (and, yes, even the muscle soreness) that come from long walks through Rome’s dense network of streets provides a valuable counterpoint to the abstractions of maps and photographs. In the classroom I focus the students’ attention on carefully selected examples of architecture and urban design; I can arrange the sequence of images I use to illustrate my lectures to emphasize specific aspects of the city’s history while ignoring others. But once we step outside the classroom or climb off the splendid isolation of an air -conditioned tour bus we come face to face with the gritty honesty and the messy complexity of city life. The monumental and the mundane are inextricably entwined and call for our attention. Cities, like life itself, aren’t neat and tidy. Real cities have a way of keeping us honest and grounded.

In addition to solid disciplinary and professional training, Notre Dame prides itself on providing a good liberal arts education. To see life whole, in all its richness and complexity, is the goal of such an education. In some small but not unimportant ways, walking in the city with all your senses open to the experience is an opportunity to put that education into practice.

Notre Dame Professor Dennis Doordan is an architectural and design historian and the co-editor of Design Issues, a leading journal devoted to design studies.

How to prevent war and be secure

2011-09-20T06:00:00-04:00

The United States recently wound down a protracted war in Iraq and is currently fighting another one in Afghanistan. At the same time, there is a robust debate about what policy Washington should adopt with respect to a turbulent Middle East and a rising China. There is no consensus about the best approach, but there is widespread agreement that the American people are tired of large-scale military action. This raises an obvious question: What policy can the United States pursue that will keep it safe while minimizing the chances of war?

The United States’ default position is to pursue a foreign policy that involves spreading or defending democracy abroad and working through international institutions such as the United Nations. This approach, called liberal internationalism, which has been followed by Democratic and Republican administrations alike, is underpinned by a simple logic: democracies are “good” states and can be trusted to act responsibly toward one another; and institutions embody rules of behavior that advance the cause of peace by telling states what they can and cannot do.

However, another tradition exists. Known as realism, it provides a starkly different blueprint for U.S. foreign policy. Realists — the descendants of George Kennan and Henry Kissinger — argue that power, by which they mean military and economic strength, is the currency of international politics and that the focus of foreign policy should be to maintain a balance of power.

What policies are implied by this worldview? For the United States, it means building up its power and making it clear that it will oppose other states’ attempts at expansion. This practice —commonly known as balancing — should deter aggression by powerful rivals.

At the same time, great powers such as the United States should take a relaxed approach toward weak competitors. Because they do not have much power, these adversaries can do little damage either on their own or in alliance with others. At most, then, a great power should be prepared to balance against a hostile weak state, which is to say that it should make its interests clear and threaten to retaliate with overwhelming force if those interests are violated.

Today, realism has few supporters inside or outside the Beltway. Americans find it hard to accept an approach that depicts international politics as an unrelenting struggle for power. Nor are they satisfied with the claim that states can only secure themselves by threatening to harm others. On the other hand, liberal internationalism, with its emphasis on the rule of law and democracy, fits much better with basic American values.

A recipe for security

The fact of the matter is, however, that realism is a recipe for security without war. Indeed, had the great powers of the past acted in a more realist fashion there is a good chance that some of the most devastating wars of the past century might have been avoided.

Consider World War I and World War II. Germany was the most powerful state in Europe in the lead up to both wars. Given this situation, the realist policy would have been for the other great powers — Britain, France and the Soviet Union — to build up their power, draw a line in the sand, and warn Berlin not to cross it. But they did not do so. Britain did not make its opposition to German expansion clear prior to World War I, and all three of them went out of their way to avoid balancing before World War II. The result in both cases: deterrence failed and Germany plunged the continent into war.

Conversely, because Vietnam was a very weak state, its loss to the communist bloc would have had little effect on the global balance of power. Indeed, realists counseled against the U.S. becoming military involved in Indochina on exactly these grounds. But they were ignored, and the United States became embroiled in a bloody and protracted stalemate in Southeast Asia.

A similar story applies to Iraq. Despite its location in a strategically important region, Iraq was and is an exceedingly weak state. Given that, the realist prescription — one widely publicized following 9/11 — was that the Bush administration should be content to use its overwhelming power to deter Saddam Hussein even if he acquired nuclear weapons. Rather than try to remake Iraq in its own image, all the United States had to do was make its interests clear and draw a line in the sand. The Bush administration thought otherwise, and the United States has been at war in the Middle East ever since.

There is good evidence, then, that had the great powers of the past pursued realist foreign policies they would have been able to secure their interests without having to go to war. This being the case, realism is an appropriate guide for U.S. foreign policy makers as they navigate the current situation.

It is worth noting that liberal internationalism was implicated in all four of the wars. In the world war cases, their commitment to pursuing liberal internationalist foreign policies prevented Britain and France from balancing aggressively enough to deter Germany. And liberal internationalism — in the form of anticommunism and then democracy promotion — was a key driver of the U.S. decision to go to war in Vietnam and Iraq.

What should the nation do?

So what should the United States do? For starters, it should balance against China, its only potential great power rival, if it shows any sign of wanting to dominate Asia. To do so, it may have to deploy military assets to the region to frustrate any aggressive Chinese designs, and cement alliances with China’s strongest neighbors, including Japan and Russia. War need not result if the United States makes it clear that it will not tolerate adventurism while accommodating a growing diplomatic role for Beijing.

As for Iran — the most troublesome weak state on the horizon — the United States should adopt a policy of restraint. The Islamic Republic is to be sure a leading player in a strategically significant region, but it cannot dominate the Persian Gulf militarily. Nonetheless, the U.S. should make it clear that it will not tolerate aggression of any kind. Even if Iran acquires a nuclear weapon — something it has not yet done — the United States’ massive superiority means that deterrence should be a simple matter. Moreover, it would be preferable to a war that would at best delay Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons while inviting almost certain retaliation.

If the United States overcomes its aversion to realism and follows its prescriptions, it will likely remain secure for the foreseeable future and will be able to do so without becoming involved in any major wars. If it continues to succumb to its liberal internationalist inclinations as it has done in the past, however, we are likely to see more conflict and enjoy less security.

Sebastian Rosato is a professor in the Department of Political Science and co-director of the Notre Dame International Security Program (NDISP). This piece draws on his co-authored article (with John Schuessler ’99), “A Realist Foreign Policy for America,” which is forthcoming in the journal Perspectives on Politics.

The Common Good: Labor Day thoughts

2011-09-04T06:00:00-04:00

Catholic Social teaching claims, most forcefully in Pope John Paul II’s encyclical Laborem excercens, that work is integral to the development of the human person.

Human dignity and the dignity of work are key principles of Catholic teaching. All people are sacred, made in the image and likeness of God. Ethiopians are as important to God as Americans. This doctrine emphasizes people over things, being over having. Further, people have a right to decent and productive work, fair wages, private property and economic initiative. The economy exists to serve people, not the other way around.

Is this a realistic claim? If so, how may it be achieved?

An economist might argue that “humanization” of work may be impossible because markets split peoples’ identities into “consumers/workers.” So what they prefer as consumers — lower prices — makes what they prefer as workers — better working conditions and wages — less obtainable. Also working against humanizing work are the competitive pressures of the market that force businesses to become ever more efficient.

Humanizing workplace improvements are not likely to spread widely unless there also is a decrease in production costs. Competition from other firms will prevent “humanizing” costs from being passed on in higher prices and, thus, profits will decline. Since competition is now worldwide, even a whole country faces difficulties in mandating workplace improvements that raise costs.

The problem is reinforced by human greed and the constant effort of business to promote consumption as the ultimate end of life. This creates constant pressure to reduce labor costs, undercutting attempts to improve the quality of work life. Thus, the only hope may be to change work organization in ways that are both humanizing and efficient.

In an earlier column on Google’s gift and the pope’s teaching, I argued that more humane working conditions, higher wages and benefits can be cost-saving and thus efficient if workers respond to these initiatives in a “spirit of gift,” increasing their identification with the companies’ goals, thus putting out more effort and needing less supervision. This may be the hope of the future — developing more cooperative relations between workers and owners, as Google has done.

Where U at?

2011-08-19T07:15:00-04:00

“Where U at?” This was the last text a young woman wrote before fatally crashing into oncoming traffic. Her texting had absorbed her awareness to a point where she was not mentally at the wheel of her auto enough to drive it. How is it that we humans can be so fully immersed in our symbolic lives that we can lose our sense of physical surroundings?

Virtual worlds today are visible as cell phones, video games and other electronic devices, to be sure, but are much more widespread than that. For virtuality is at least as old as the symbol. We are creatures who live by the symbol and die by the symbol.

Consider the ever-increasing rampant “enscreening” of experience, especially for very young children, who spend hour-after-unblinking-hour outside the real world, facing computer, iPod, Xbox and video screens of all sorts. What are the implications, when, for example, 61 percent of babies 1 year old or younger view TV or videos every day for at least an hour on average, as a recent Kaiser Foundation study revealed? Or that 83 percent of children under the age of 6 watch about two hours of combined screen media per day, including TV, videos/DVDs, video games and computers?

At these early ages, children have a biological need to face their mothers and fathers, playmates, other people and the living world. The face is a subtle neuromuscular organ of attunement, a key organ of perceptive, empathic development. And so what does it mean to be habitually displaced on a daily basis from live face-to-face contact in favor of virtual interaction through a screen?

A recent study showed that in paralyzing facial muscles, Botox treatments reduce the empathetic micro-mimicry we naturally engage in during social interaction. The Botox recipient is not only impaired in exhibiting her or his own emotional facial micro-muscular movements but also is impaired in subconsciously micro-mimicking that of the other, thus reducing the embodied feel of the other’s emotional state.

Similarly, I would argue, commercial television alienates children by removing them from everyday face-to-face, tactile-friendly, empathically based interaction. A “good-enough mother,” in psychoanalyst D.W. Winnicott’s sense of this term, is a caretaker who empathically meets a young child’s developing needs. A “bad mother” is one who demands that the child meet her needs. In this sense, television and other electronic screen devices function as a “bad mother,” not only by ignoring a child’s needs but also by demanding the child meet the television’s “needs” through commercial advertising and the desires it instills.

The amount of time American children spend watching electronic media — almost a full work shift every day — paints a bleak picture. It involves a huge giving up of “here-and-now” social interaction that anchors one’s real life in favor of a virtual life of virtual communications.

A Kaiser Foundation study found that children ages 8 to 18 reported spending a whopping 7 hours and 38 minutes of media time per day, actually 10 hours and 45 minutes, if you include multitasking, squeezed into those 7 hours and 38 minutes. For ‘tweens between ages 11 and 14 it is actually 8 hours 40 minutes, and even higher for African-American and Hispanic children. If a child sleeps for 8 hours and is involved with school for 8 hours, then virtually all remaining available time is totally “enscreened.”

Of course Facebook and Twitter have been used for political activism, and even social revolution. But consider: typically these uses make the social media a means for actual public real-time encounter toward a public end. That social media-enabled real world is not where American 8- to-18-year-olds spend an average of 7 hours and 38 minutes per day, 7 days a week.

Also, much of the “enscreening” content is commercial, and so these little kiddies are “going to market” virtually all of their spare time, becoming branded in the process with logos as well as with endless acts of violence for boys and images of sex objects for girls. The dynamics of how kiddies get captured by the pseudo-ecstatic button-pushing of the virtual world speaks not only of corporate consumerist capitalism maximizing itself but also of unbounded technological innovation as another agent transforming social lives and identities, including gender. Some people actually call this progress.

What do you think? Where U at?

Eugene Halton is a Notre Dame professor of sociology and author of The Great Brain Suck: And Other American Epiphanies.

The Common Good: Averting the next ‘too big to fail’ bank crisis

2011-04-26T08:00:00-04:00

In a recent New York Times Op-Ed article, Thomas Hoenig, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, wrote that despite financial reform legislation, the biggest banks still control our economy and pose a serious threat. After the last round of bailouts “the five largest financial institutions are 20 percent larger than they were before the crisis. They control $8.6 trillion in financial assets — the equivalent of nearly 60 percent of gross domestic product. Like it or not, these firms remain too big to fail.”

“Too big to fail” is a threat that should not be ignored. The financial system is the life blood of the economy. Firms need to borrow for investment purposes from banks, other financial institutions, and from the bond and stock markets. Consumers borrow from banks and credit unions to finance lumpy purchases such as automobiles, houses, appliances and the like. Thus the financial system is deeply intertwined with the entire economy. Iif a large bank or other financial institution goes bankrupt, it takes many other firms down with it, threatening the entire economy.

Thus, the political reality: Large financial institutions will not be allowed to go under whether there is Democratic or Republican control of government.

The very large size of the major banks and the fact that they are seen as “too big to fail” has an unfortunate incentive effect on bank executives if they know they will always be bailed out even if they are reckless in their risk taking. This gives rise to what in the insurance industry is called a “moral hazard.” When a person buys auto theft insurance, for example, they have less incentive to be careful, say, by locking the car doors. If their car gets stolen they will be compensated by the insurance company. Likewise, bank executives will be tempted to take on more risk than is prudent when they know they will be bailed out by government, as happened this past financial crisis.

If large banks and other financial institutions will not be allowed to go bankrupt, what can be done to reduce the incentives to take on too much risk? One possibility, of course, is to break up existing banks above some maximum size and enact regulations that will make it difficult for others to grow beyond that maximum. Then the much smaller banks can be allowed to fail when they overextend. However, this is an unlikely possibility. Neither political party has been serious about downsizing over-grown financial institutions.

If breaking-up the very large financial institutions is not on the table, what other policies might be possible to avert another implosion caused by the financial sector taking on excessive risk? One way to think about the “too big to fail” issue is that in effect the government is taking on an implicit liability for bailing out extra large firms which, in fact, is a subsidy to them. This encourages banks to get bigger so they can benefit from that implicit subsidy. Therefore, what is needed are policies that reduce the incentive for risk-taking and/or policies that make it difficult to grow ever larger.

A partial, piecemeal approach would, among other things, establish minimum capital requirements for all large financial institutions above a certain size. For example, Switzerland has mandated that their two largest banks, UBS and Credit Suisse, have 19 percent capital by 2019. This will give the banks a cushion of time during the next financial crisis when they can pay their debts and work out other arrangements to remain solvent. In addition, it can be required that in a crisis some bondholders will have to accept non-payment or have their bonds converted to stock.

Peace in South Sudan: A Catholic Agenda

2011-04-25T05:00:00-04:00

Religious institutions, especially the Anglican and Catholic churches, have played a leading role in peacebuilding in Sudan for decades. Their role in the process leading to South Sudan’s independence is the most recent example.

Through a process of dialogue called Kejiko I and II, the churches helped address divisions among political and military factions in South Sudan. As the only significant functioning civil society institution in much of the country, the Church played a powerful role in facilitating the remarkably orderly and peaceful election and referendum processes. The churches also helped garner international engagement at key times in the process.

Just one indicator of the churches’ role: Besides its crucial humanitarian and development programs, Catholic Relief Services, one of the largest development agencies in Sudan, dedicated $4 million to peacebuilding in the 18 months leading up to the referendum, by far the largest peacebuilding program the organization has ever undertaken.

Fortunately, the return to all-out war that many feared did not happen. But a mostly peaceful election and referendum process is the beginning, not the end, of church involvement in peacebuilding in South Sudan. I propose the following agenda for mobilizing the Catholic community as it continues to be a significant force for peace, justice, and reconciliation.

Support a Marshall Plan for South Sudan

On July 9, South Sudan will become one of the poorest countries in the world, with 50 percent of its people living under the poverty line, 93 percent lacking basic sanitation, 4.5 million requiring food assistance and more than 80 percent illiterate. Add to that a massive influx of returnees from the north, a quarter of a million people displaced by violence last year, and more displaced from recent fighting in border areas and in Jonglei and Malakal. The hopes engendered by independence will soon dissolve into disillusionment if ordinary people see no change in their daily lives.

Working with the Vatican and other episcopal conferences, the Church in Sudan will have to advocate for a massive international, governmental and private effort to provide humanitarian and development aid to this new country. As the institutions with the necessary infrastructure, experience and trust of the population, church agencies, local and international, will play an indispensable role in meeting basic humanitarian needs and promoting sustainable development, a precondition for creating a politically and economically viable South Sudan.

Promote good governance

A Marshall Plan can succeed in galvanizing the energies of this new country for rapid economic development only if there is corresponding progress on political development. Perceptions of exclusion and marginalization are at the heart of ongoing instability, violence and displacement. An antidote to exclusion and marginalization is building representative, participatory, accountable — and therefore legitimate — political institutions.

Building legitimate political institutions at all levels is the work of political leaders, but religious leaders can play a critical role in encouraging equitable solutions on difficult issues of governance. They will insist that this solution is grounded in respect for the good of the whole nation and basic human dignity and rights; a commitment to nonviolent means of resolving political differences; guarantees of equal representation and participation in political institutions; and measures to ensure transparency and accountability. Especially important, church leaders will continue to insist that constitution-writing and other aspects of political development be based on full respect for the cultural, religious and ethnic diversity of the two Sudans.

Promote reconciliation  

Political development requires political and social cohesion and reconciliation. Decades of war have resulted in a “war culture,” profound trauma and deep social divisions. Even more important than the churches’ consensus-building role in political development is their role in promoting personal and communal healing and reconciliation. Working within the Catholic community as well as with other religious bodies, the Church needs a well-designed and equally well-funded process that can engage individuals and communities over an extended period of time from the ground up.

Resolve remaining North-South issues

The Church’s peacebuilding efforts will include advocating for just and peaceful resolution of the north-south issues left unresolved by January’s referendum: sharing oil, waters, debts and assets; demarcating the border, resolving the status of Abyei, Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile areas; and ensuring citizenship, religious freedom and other rights for the minorities. In addition to advocating with the governments in North and South Sudan, the Church will continue to collaborate with the Vatican, other bishops’ conferences, and international Catholic and other faith-based nongovernmental organizations in advocating on these issues with countries in the region, the United Nations, the African Union, the Arab League, and key countries like the United States, China and Italy.

The Catholic Church in particular, working with other religious institutions, will play a critical role as South Sudan engages in nation-building. Like other leaders, religious leaders will have to help people maintain the hopes and energy unleashed by independence. At the same time, they will have to continually instill a large dose of realism, patience and determination, reminding people that independence is only the beginning of assuming responsibility for the arduous, long-term process of achieving freedom, stability, security and lasting peace in the whole Sudan. Far too much blood has been spilled. It is now time for the sweat and tears of hard labor necessary to peacefully build a new nation.

John Katunga is Catholic Relief Services’ regional technical advisor for peace-building and justice in the east Africa region, based in Nairobi, Kenya, and a 2011 CRS-Kroc visiting fellow. This essay is simultaneously published as “What Next for Catholic Peacebuilding in South Sudan?” at the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies’ webzine, Peace Policy

Great God, It’s the Great God Debate

2011-04-13T14:41:00-04:00

On April 7, a sold-out audience in Notre Dame’s Leighton Concert Hall watched this year’s edition of “The God Debate.”Before a packed house, “New Atheist” Sam Harris and philosopher of religion William Lane Craig argued whether God is the source of morality.

Oddly, whenever I think of Harris in this debate, I think of St. Augustine’s Confessions. Specifically this passage comes to mind: "I was glad, if also ashamed, to discover that I had been barking for years not against the Catholic faith but against mental figments of physical images. My rashness and impiety lay in the fact that what I ought to have verified by investigation I had simply asserted as an accusation.”

St. Augustine wrote those words in midlife, reflecting on that time in his youth just before he entered fully into the Catholic faith of his mother, St. Monica. I won’t suggest that Harris is at a similar point in his life. But someone so obsessed with religion, even if negatively, is surely wrestling with the angel of God.

Still, my first and less-than-charitable thought involving Harris is ad hominem abusive. He is so uncomprehending of Catholicism that for a Christian to debate him at Notre Dame is like a physicist debating a Flat Earth theorist at Cal Tech. Yes there are such theorists, although perhaps not as many as those who “bark against mental figments . . . asserting as an accusation” their own ignorance of Christian belief. And while I am convinced that even Sam Harris has a mother, and for that reason ought to receive a kind thought here and there, I have no illusion that he is on the verge of an Augustine-style conversion.

Yet, earlier in the Confessions, Augustine tells us that his mother pleaded with a bishop that he intervene with her son to lead him away from his Manichean errors. The bishop basically told her: “Augustine is a smart boy; let him keep reading and he’ll make his way out of the nonsense; I did.”

So there’s hope for the likes of Sam Harris, struggling so hard like Augustine to find an explanation of what’s wrong with stealing pears. But here is where the terms of the debate, “Is Good from God?” come in to play, and one has to wonder just what is at issue. I am writing this piece just hours before the big event. And I wonder what this great debate is about. It’s sold out, and the advertising says that it is back “by popular demand,” a reference to last year’s great God debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D’Souza. But what is it that the people demand, and why?

Science vs. religion

Is Good from God or not from God? Harris, we are to understand, will argue the negative by proposing a natural science explanation of moral goodness for the supernatural explanation we are to suppose Craig will advocate. Thus at Notre Dame do we engage the modern dilemma of science versus religion — the two great enemies, so we seem to believe.

Our students pack the hall with great anticipation. Will God triumph over science? Or will science expose God for a “mental figment?” And if it does, what will our students do? Abandon Our Lady’s university in droves, having realized that she is the mother of all God delusions, and that they are paying $50,000 a year for a sham and a fraud? Is this really what Christians believe — It’s God or quarks? Priests or physicists?

In our youth many of us learn by heart Hopkins poem, “God’s Grandeur,” in which he writes “The world is charged with the grandeur of God. It will flame out, like shining from shook foil.” But do we take it seriously as a poetic expression of St. Paul’s “the invisible things of God are made manifest by the visible things of this world?” Or do we treat it like a beautiful sentiment with little bearing upon the impetus behind so much of the extraordinary scientific investigation carried on in the name of Christianity?

Yes, yes, yes, we all know about Galileo the Roman Catholic under house arrest in his villa overlooking Florence, without even a GPS ankle bracelet, looking out at the hills, sipping grappa and musing about how it all came to this for simply advocating the Polish monk Copernicus’ theory. But isn’t this really rather the exception than the rule?

There have been so many great Catholic scientists. What of Clavius? Boscovich? Mendel? Pasteur? Nieuwland? Zahm? Lejeune? They never drank the grappa. The very hand that is typing this line has rubbed the nose of the bust of LeMaitre in the Casina Pio IV inside the Vatican, much like Knute’s nose at the Rockne Memorial. LeMaitre is the Belgian priest and physicist who first proposed the Big Bang theory. With this heritage, how is it that we have come to this, thinking that we must choose either science or God?

The greatest among our Christian forebears certainly didn’t think we had to. Even if one remains unconvinced by the logic of Aquinas’ Five Ways, the attitude expressed in them is not one of natural explanations in competition with God. His natural science was almost unimaginably false with regard to what we now know or claim to know. But the reality of natural causes that allows for scientific understanding was for him the best and “most manifest” argument for the existence of a god, a god Who does not compete with His creatures but, rather, enables them.

For Aquinas, God was not an alternative hypothesis or theory to be superseded by subsequent science; on the contrary God was the best explanation for why there is an intelligible world at all to be understood by successive stages in science. Without God, there is no science and no scientific progress. The best reason for thinking there is a god, after the fact that your mother told you so, the same mother who told you who your father is (and I dare you to tell her you don’t believe her!), is the glory of science, not its failure. The glory of God displayed in scientific explanation “gathers to a greatness, like the ooze of oil Crushed.” (Homework for Sam Harris: explain that line from Hopkins’ poem.)

Moral truths

But you will tell me that this God Debate isn’t simply about natural causes. This is about morality and THE GOOD. We are to believe that if Stephen Hawking can get “thou shalt not steal” out of a random quantum fluctuation in the collapsing wave packet of the void, then we ought not to believe in God. Well for various reasons involving a proper understanding of the nature of scientific explanation, natural science won’t ever give an adequate account of the moral truths concerning human life and its destiny. But suppose I’m wrong about that.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that natural science were to give an adequate explanation of moral truths, would that give us any reason to think that God is not responsible for the moral truths that govern our lives? Why? After all, natural science gives us explanations of what good wolves are and good tulips. Do those explanations give us any reason to think that God is not responsible for wolves and tulips? No — at least not in the thought of Augustine, Aquinas, Mendel, Zahm, and even, oh my, that Roman Catholic Galileo.

But if these exemplars of Christian thought have even the most meager insight into what it is that Christians actually believe about God, then just supposing per impossibile that natural science could give us an adequate account of what a good human being is, why would you think that account would pose a problem for Christian belief in the existence of God or His providential care of the world?

When I was young I thought I would be a physicist and a mathematician, even to the point of having published in physics and gone to graduate school in mathematics. But I wasn’t smart enough to go on, smart enough in the modes of explanation characteristic of those fields. Someone once called this recognition that “I do not know” the beginning of wisdom, while others might call it failure. It happens to the best of us. But at no time in my studies of physics and mathematics was I foolish enough to think that they were in some fundamental competition with the understanding of reality that comes from God.

My subsequent failure/wisdom did not consist in failing to see how random variations in reproduction lead to the truth that one ought to feed the hungry, or the evil of hating one’s enemies, or that there is no greater love than that a man should lay down his life for his friends. My failure had to do with topology and homologies of chain complexes.

My father, who was a philosopher, once asked his best friend on the faculty, one of my physics professors, “Jim can you hear the music of the spheres?” My professor responded, “Hear it, Bill? It’s so loud I can’t turn the damn stuff off!” This physicist knew his Augustine: “question the beauty of the earth, question the beauty of the sea, question the beauty of the air distending and diffusing itself, question the beauty of the sky . . . question all these realities. All respond: ‘See, we are beautiful.’ Their beauty is a profession. These beauties are subject to change. Who made them if not the Beautiful One who is not subject to change?” Sam Harris couldn’t do better than to read Augustine. After all even Sam has a Mother, as in Notre Dame do we all.

For Ernan McMullin, requiescat in pace.

Professor John P. O’Callaghan is the director of Notre Dame’s Jacques Maritain Center. The late Rev. Ernan McMullin was a world-renowned philosopher of science at Notre Dame who wrote widely on the relationship between science and religion.

Lessons from the Japanese nuclear disaster

2011-04-04T06:00:00-04:00

Early on Friday, March 11, images of the destruction caused by the Japanese earthquake and subsequent tsunami began to appear. Several hours later, sporadic reports of fires and possible radiation leaks at Japanese nuclear power plants surfaced. The most serious nuclear accident in Japan occurred at the Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear power station, which is located next to the ocean.

This earthquake was amongst the most powerful in recorded history, registering 9.0 in Richter magnitude. The nuclear power station at Fukushima Dai-Ichi was engineered to withstand an 8.2 magnitude quake. The energy unleashed in a 9.0 quake is several times higher than an 8.2, as the Richter scale is logarithmic. There are six reactors at the power station, but only three were running at power when the earthquake struck. Automatic shutdown procedures were successfully executed, via insertion of control rods into the reactors to stop the nuclear fission reactions.

The Fukushima Dai-Ichi reactors use uranium dioxide fuel enriched to 3-4 percent uranium-235, the fissile isotope of uranium. Under normal operating conditions, the reactor maintains a controlled nuclear fission reaction, whereby uranium-235 atoms are split to give fission products (lighter atoms), energy, radiation and neutrons to sustain the chain reaction. As nuclear fuel “burns” in a reactor, fission products accumulate in the fuel. These are radioactive elements (radioisotopes) that include iodine and cesium, as well as many others. Some of the uranium is converted, by capturing one or more neutrons, to heavier radioactive elements including plutonium. Under normal reactor conditions, the considerable energy released by the fission process is carried away as heat by water to generate electricity using turbines.

The three operating reactors at Fukushima Dai-Ichi appear to have been successfully shut down, meaning that the fission reactions stopped. However, the fuel in the reactors remains highly radioactive. The radioactive decay of short-lived radioisotopes continues to add heat to the reactor core, even when the nuclear fission reactions have stopped. After shutdown of a reactor, circulation of cooling water must continue to remove this heat. Otherwise, the temperature of the fuel can reach the melting point of uranium dioxide (about 2,900 degrees Celsius), resulting in a core meltdown. Melting fuel rods release radioactive materials that may contaminate the environment.

About an hour after the earthquake a tsunami estimated at 6 to 14 m in height struck the Fukushima Dai-Ichi plant. It had been designed to withstand a tsunami of only 5.7 m. The influx of water caused the backup electrical generation systems at the plant to fail, and the cooling water stopped flowing. Diesel generators provided the backup power at the plant, and photographs of the site suggest that the fuel tanks that fed these generators were swept away by the tsunami. Although it will be several months before the details of the damage to the three reactor cores that had been operational before the earthquake is known, all probably suffered at least a partial meltdown. Explosions caused by accumulated hydrogen gas worsened the situation and made restoring reactor coolant more difficult. Each reactor core contains about 100 metric tons of uranium dioxide fuel.

Stabilizing the reactors

Under normal procedures, used nuclear fuel is removed from a reactor and placed in a cooling pond that is filled with water. This is to remove heat generated by the radioactive decay of short-lived radioisotopes. Approximately 1,600 metric tons of used fuel was contained in ponds at Fukushima Dai-Ichi when the tsunami struck. The cooling systems for at least some of these ponds failed, leading to overheating of fuel rods.

Heroic efforts of plant workers may have prevented larger releases of radioactivity. Seawater, and later fresh water, was pumped into the reactor cores to cool them, as well as into the ponds containing spent fuel. Much of the water is now contaminated by radioisotopes. At least some of it has been captured on site, but there is evidence that some radioisotopes are leaking into the ocean.

Each type of radioisotope decays, with emission of various sub-atomic particles or electromagnetic radiation, at a fixed rate known as the half-life. After one half-life has passed, half of the atoms of the radioisotope have decayed, giving either radioactive or non-radioactive elements. Those radioisotopes with short half-lives produce a lot of radiation in a short time (e.g., iodine-131 with a half life of a little more than eight days), but they also decay away relatively quickly. Those with longer half-lives remain radioactive much longer, and can have long-term impacts on the environment (e.g., plutonium-239 with a half-life exceeding 20,000 years).

As I write this commentary, the efforts continue to stabilize the Fukushima Dai-Ichi reactors and fuel storage ponds. As the significance of short-lived radioactivity (such as iodine-131) decreases due to decay, and the short-term risks of release of radioactive materials declines, the focus will shift to the task of reducing the long-term environmental impact of the Fukushima Dai-Ichi site. The uranium dioxide fuel is intensely radioactive due to the presence of fission products, 10-20 tons of plutonium (which was present initially in some fuels, and has been generated in all of them while the fuel was in a reactor), and other actinide elements. The presence of the plutonium and lesser actinides, as well as long-lived fission products such as technetium-99 and iodine-129, make these materials dangerous for thousands of years.

Previously, major commercial plant accidents occurred at Three Mile Island (TMI) and Chernobyl. At TMI, there was a partial core meltdown but little release of radioactivity to the environment. The reactor core was eventually removed from the site and transported to the Idaho National Laboratory. In Chernobyl, fires, explosions and a core meltdown resulted in release of substantial radioactive material. The damaged cores remain at the reactor site today, with the plant enclosed by a concrete sarcophagus. In my view, the fuel rods in the Fukushima Dai-Ichi plant and cooling ponds must be removed and properly recycled or placed in a robust geological repository. The long-term environmental impact of leaving the radioactive material in a near-surface location is simply too high.

Nuclear waste in the U.S.

Today in the United States there are 104 operating commercial nuclear reactors that generate about 20 percent of the nation’s electricity. About 70,000 metric tons of used nuclear fuel has accumulated at the reactor sites, where it is initially maintained in water-filled cooling ponds, and subsequently stored in dry casks. Federal policy had been to create a geologic repository for this material, and also radioactive waste created during the nuclear weapons build-up of the Cold War, in Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The Department of Energy abandoned Yucca Mountain about two years ago. A Blue Ribbon Commission, appointed by the president, is developing recommendations for handling nuclear waste in the United States.

Recent events in Japan highlight the dangers of storing used nuclear fuel at reactor sites for lengthy timeframes, and may increase the sense of urgency for a final solution in the United States. Congress decided more than two decades ago that high-level radioactive waste from commercial plants and the weapons program would be co-disposed in a single geologic repository. Most of the weapons-related waste would be immobilized in borosilicate glass, and commercial spent fuel would be emplaced in its current form. Development of two or more repositories in different geologic environments may facilitate matching of the materials with the geochemical environment, which would be a more scientifically defensible approach.

The Department of Energy-funded Energy Frontier Research Center, Materials Science of Actinides, led by the University of Notre Dame, was created in 2009 to create a foundation of knowledge concerning actinide materials to underpin an advanced nuclear energy system in the United States. The Center focuses on complex actinide materials (the fuels of nuclear energy and major components of used reactor fuel), the nano-scale control of actinide materials, and the behavior of actinide materials under extreme conditions of pressure, temperature, and radiation field. Our research seeks to create better materials for the long-term disposition of nuclear wastes, and better methods for recycling nuclear materials.

Professor of Civil Engineering and Geological Sciences Peter Burns is director of Notre Dame’s Energy Frontier Research Center, which seeks to understand and control the elements that are the basis of nuclear energy, uranium, plutonium and other actinides.

Islamophobia, Nuclear Zero and Cold War Rhetoric

2011-03-15T06:00:00-04:00

Four senior U.S. statesmen — George P. Shultz, William J. Perry, Henry A. Kissinger and Sam Nunn — captured world attention in January 2007 with their call for “A World Free of Nuclear Weapons” in The Wall Street Journal. Their premise is compelling: nuclear deterrence is no longer required in the post Cold War, and the danger of continued proliferation demands urgent action. The steps they propose to get ever closer to nuclear zero are practical and within our current capabilities.

Some disarmament advocates, however, in their pursuit of nuclear zero, continue the dualistic “good guys, bad guys” premises of the Cold War era. This approach does not match current realities and may end up making the needed responses more difficult.

Fear-based focus on terrorism

For some, fear of Muslims underlies the urgency behind the world’s move toward nuclear zero. But Islamophobia skews, toward terrorism alone, the full range of nuclear threats the world faces from nuclear weapons. Demonizing Muslims is an unhelpful and possibly even dangerous approach, as it will make it more difficult to get the information needed to prevent a terrorist attack if an Islamist terror group should get a nuclear weapon.

The fear-based focus on terrorism, and Muslims as terrorists, is evident in the 2010 documentary, Nuclear Tipping Point. The trailer shows one terrorist bombing or attack after another. The film features dramatizations that show individuals in what appear to be Muslim dress, assembling bombs. Yet the film also features extensive interviews with Shultz, Perry, Kissinger and Nunn, which cover many of the other ways the world is at risk from the continued existence of nuclear weapons.

Inadequate security of nuclear weapons

Americans have very recently been most at risk from nuclear weapons that are inadequately secured by our own armed forces. In 2007, a B-52 bomber flew over the central United States loaded with six cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads that were mistakenly attached to the airplane’s wing. The threat of a nuclear miscalculation because of our continued “launch-on-warning” policy is very real.

The nuclear-armed states of India and Pakistan, and their continued conflict, are a very live risk to the world’s security. An armed conflict between the two could accelerate to a nuclear exchange. The threat of nuclear proliferation in an increasingly unstable Middle East also is an extremely urgent issue.

The best way to prevent Islamist terror groups from acquiring nuclear weapons is not to demonize Muslims but to build trust and increase communication with Muslim communities.

No one doubts that Islamist terror groups are seeking to acquire a nuclear weapon or weapons-grade material with the intent to launch a nuclear attack. But the best way to prevent such an event, and for authorities to gain information and intelligence needed for prevention, is not to alienate Muslims, but rather to build trust and increase communication with Muslim communities. This point was made by many of the knowledgeable panelists at the recent Center for American Progress event, Strengthening America’s Security: Identifying, Preventing and Responding to Domestic Terrorism.

Cold warriors to nuclear-zero advocates

The world is too complex for Cold War dualism. The traditional power arrangements have shifted dramatically away from bi-polarity, and our analysis of how to engage issues in this context must not get stuck in a new bi-polar mindset. Replacing one enemy with another, substituting Islamism for Communism, is tempting, because, after all, we “defeated” Communism and thus we are led to the comfortable feeling that we can “defeat” a militant Islam. Those who believe this are dangerously mistaken, both in the analysis and in the prescription for what has to be done now.

Getting to nuclear zero is going to take more than warmed-over Cold War thinking. It will take the kind of practical, nuanced and consistent approach that, ironically enough, the former Cold Warriors and now nuclear-zero advocates George P. Shultz, William J. Perry, Henry A. Kissinger and Sam Nunn actually recommend.

Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite is the former president of Chicago Theological Seminary and a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. This essay, titled “How NOT to get to Nuclear Zero: Islamophobia and Cold War Rhetoric,” and others investigating violent conflict can be found at the webzine Peace Policy, published by Notre Dame’s Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies.

Ethics Now: When the worst is done, intended or not

2011-01-17T07:00:00-05:00

Last year’s Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was relentless. Apparently the continued investigation and litigation aimed at British Petroleum will be equally so. It was recently announced that the Justice Department is expected to combine forces with several civil lawsuits, positioning themselves as a major player in this process.

Occupying a central position in the legal wrangling are the words “gross negligence and willful misconduct.” For example, Anadarko Petroleum Corp., a 25 percent owner of the damaged well — hasn’t paid BP for spill-related costs, citing that BP’s actions “likely represent gross negligence or willful misconduct.” If gross negligence is found, BP could be fined up to $4,300 per barrel of oil spilled. At 4.9 million barrels spilled, the fine — $21 billion dollars — runs deep.

While the exact definitions of these terms, and the distinction between them, are and will be continually debated in the courts, it is worthwhile to note that, consistent with the focus of our legal system on intent, both are defined as “intentional” acts. The use of these words suggests that BP executives should be held accountable if their decisions and behavior were intentional.

Most of us, I think, would have no problem with that criterion. If someone makes a conscious, intentional decision to disregard safety, ethical and/or environmental criteria in their decision-making process, by all means they should be held accountable. What is missing, however, in these discussions are the unintentional influences on unethical behavior that can result in equally devastating outcomes.

The study of behavioral ethics — a field that seeks to understand how people actually behave when confronted with ethical dilemmas — suggests that individuals often behave unethically despite their best ethical intentions. Rather than making trade-offs between behaving ethically and making money for their organizations, it is argued that executives often fall prey to ethical fading, such that they don’t consciously see the ethics in the decision. Such “blind spots” lead to unethical behavior without the decision maker’s awareness.

Consider the case of Bernie Madoff and his Ponzi scheme. There is no question that Madoff ‘s behavior was purposeful, deceitful and intentional. Yet many others unknowingly helped to ensure the viability of the Ponzi scheme, people who had no intention of hurting Madoff’s investors. Substantial evidence exists that many of those involved, including managers of feeder funds, had hints that something was wrong but failed to “see” the readily available evidence.

A case in point is Rene-Thierry Magon de la Villehuchet, a descendent of European nobility and the CEO of Access International Advisors and Marketers. He received repeated warnings about Madoff and the statistical impossibility of Madoff’s returns, yet he invested not only his own money with Madoff but also that of his family and his wealthy European clients. Despite his best intentions, he made decisions that unintentionally caused a tremendous amount of damage to those around him and, ultimately, to himself. Two weeks after the scheme was exposed, de la Villehuchet took his own life in his New York office.

Unfortunately, this type of unintentional unethical behavior is commonplace. One can look at most situations in which horrible decisions have been made — the Challenger disaster, the mortgage lending crisis, the Holocaust, Enron, the sexual abuse scandals in the Catholic Church, discrimination in the workplace, steroid use in major league baseball — and find individuals who had no intention of being part of a decision process that led to significant harm to others. Yet they were.

With the oil spill, it may turn out that there was gross negligence and/or willful misconduct that involved intentional unethical behavior. But what we are finding out from the field of behavioral ethics is that the success of those who made such intentional decisions may have very well rested on the unintentional behavior of the supporting actors.

The point of behavioral ethics is not to provide an excuse for unethical behavior that lets any person orcorporation off the hook. Rather, it is to illuminate unintentional unethical behavior as an unaddressed and ignored, but equally dangerous, culprit in unethical decisions. It is the hope that doing so will not only ensure that the role of such behavior is considered in unethical decisions, but ultimately better understood so as to reduce the harmful outcomes it causes.

Ann Tenbrunsel is the Rex and Alice A. Martin Professor of Business Ethics and co-director of Notre Dame’s Institute for Ethical Business Worldwide. She also is the co-author (with Max H. Bazerman) of Blind Spots: Why We Fail to Do What is Right and What To Do About It to be published this spring by Princeton University Press.

The Way Out of Afghanistan: Reversing a Deadly Dynamic

2010-12-16T11:03:00-05:00

As the scale of the military intervention has increased in Afghanistan, so has the armed violence and influence of the Taliban. Reversing this deadly dynamic will require an approach that pursues demilitarization through the gradual disengagement of U.S. and NATO military forces.

The Obama administration is committed to a gradual process of withdrawal from Afghanistan next year. While needed, this military exit must be done responsibly. In particular, it must not mean the abandonment of Afghan women. If the United States and its allies depart precipitously, women in Afghanistan could be subjected to grotesque cruelties as they were during the Taliban era, including public stoning, marauding gangs of Taliban thugs, and prohibitions against schooling and employment.

A broad set of agreements

Gradual military demobilization must be linked to a broader set of security and political agreements, including preventing the use of Afghan territory for terrorist operations, supporting political reconciliation and power-sharing within the Afghan government, and continuing financial support for political, economic, and social policies that enhance the status and well-being of women. Military disengagement should be combined with a greatly increased commitment to development, diplomacy, and protection of human rights.
Negotiated security arrangements are needed to end armed attacks and establish conditions for longer term security and stability. The negotiations must involve the Afghan government as well as Taliban insurgents and their Pakistani military patrons.

The presence of an interim security force would facilitate the withdrawal of foreign troops and bolster Afghan security

The deployment of an interim security force to replace Western troops and provide transitional protection is an idea worth pursuing. Taliban representatives have indicated support for a Muslim-led protection force and have pledged not to attack such a force.

Such a force could operate under the auspices of the United Nations, with a mission of providing population-centric protection during an interim period. The presence of such a force would help facilitate the withdrawal of foreign troops and bolster Afghan security. It might increase the willingness of the Taliban to accept security and political cooperation agreements. It could provide security protection for women and other Afghan civilians who are threatened as foreign forces withdraw.

The required interim security force would not need to be large, once allied military operations cease and insurgent attacks diminish. A modest force of perhaps 30,000 troops may be sufficient. It would need to be paid, trained, and equipped by the United States and its NATO allies. The interim security force could be introduced as U.S.-led forces cease combat operations and pull back to their bases in advance of withdrawal. The remaining foreign troops could assist with training and equipping the force.

Risks worth taking

Of course creating an interim security force will require an enormous effort, which the United States must lead. The U.S. Army has well-established security training and education programs with the armed forces of Indonesia, Egypt, Jordan and other Muslim states. The armed forces of Bangladesh have had extensive experience serving in UN peacekeeping operations. Asian experts have mentioned Malaysia as a country that might be asked to provide troops. An appropriate independent command structure would have to be created. The United States and its NATO partners would need to leave behind sufficient equipment, including helicopters and vehicles, to enable the force to operate.

The strategy of demilitarizing and deploying an interim security force poses risks, but it is preferable to a permanent war that has created deepening insecurity in Afghanistan. The current strategy of military escalation and large-scale counterinsurgency is not working militarily and is unsustainable politically. The alternative approach contains uncertainties, but they are preferable to the known dangers of war.

David Cortright is director of Policy Studies at Notre Dame’s Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies. This essay, titled “Reversing a Deadly Dynamic in Afghanistan” and others investigating violent conflict can be found at the webzine Peace Policy, published by Notre Dame’s Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies.

The Common Good: Google’s gift and the pope’s teaching

2010-12-14T08:00:00-05:00

Google made headlines recently when it announced a new perk for its employees. Workers for the Internet company can now have personal odd jobs done at company expense. Google will pick up the tab to have someone pick up an employee’s dry cleaning, walk her dog and a host of other personal errands. If Pope Benedict XVI knows about the perk, doubtless he would give his blessing.

It may come as a surprise, but the new benefit, the latest in a long list of Google employee extras, including free lunch, dinner and snacks, subsidized massages, on-site doctors, free laundry, free gym and more, is actually in line with the latest papal encyclical.

Not that the pope is arguing for any particular benefit or benefits in particular, but in Caritas in Veritate, Benedict XVI makes the case that economic relations can and should be guided by a philosophy of gift. He says:

“… in commercial relationships the principle of gratuitousness and the logic of gift as an expression of fraternity can and must find their place within normal economic activity. This is a human demand at the present time, but it is also demanded by economic logic. It is a demand both of charity and of truth.”

It follows, then, that the relationship between employee and employer can be seen as a gift exchange. Also, it is one that makes spiritual sense as well as economic sense in the real world of worker-employee relations.

The employee gifts the company with his labor while the company gifts the employee with wages and benefits. If employees believe that they are being treated well treated and paid well, they will, in return, be loyal to the employer and buy into the employer’s goals.

On the other hand, if workers believe they are unfairly treated, they will not be loyal and they will feel little sense of duty to get the job done. They may shirk and work the least amount that they can get away with and may even sabotage the production process.

If, however, employees feel that they are treated more than fairly, they will feel satisfied with their job and proud of working for the employer, and therefore put in a great deal of effort.
Employers, such as Google, clearly believe that this is the way their employees will respond, and so they pay a fair wage and try to provide a superior working environment. They understand that productivity will be higher than if they did not pay a fair wage and provide for good working conditions. Moreover, they understand there are likely to be fewer labor–firm disputes and less need for supervisory personnel, which has a positive effect on efficiency.

Other firms might learn something from Google’s example . . . and the pope’s teaching.

TV or Not TV: Sanity is in the eye of the beholder

2010-11-11T09:00:00-05:00

On October 30, I attended Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert’s Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear in Washington, D.C. Drawing well over 200,000 people to the National Mall, the event was part entertainment festival, part media criticism.

The former elements of the three-hour presentation by Stewart, Colbert and a group of performers were intended to assuage the attendees’ frustration with the current state of political discourse. The latter elements, showcased most eloquently by Jon Stewart’s ending speech, indicted the major news media outlets, particularly the 24-hour cable news factories, for corrupting that discourse by accentuating its divisive and sensationalized aspects.

While the rally had its slow moments (and standing elbow-to-elbow in a crowd for three hours of anything is taxing), on the whole I found it to be a thrilling experience. The sheer size of the crowd combined with the good mood everyone was in by virtue of the event’s underlying tone — to be respectful of others and deny fear-driven anger — offered the harmonious sensation of mass agreeability one rarely gets to experience when it comes to politics.

When I got back to my hotel afterward, I scurried to the Internet to try and sustain that warm, fuzzy feeling by reading accounts of the afternoon. But the fuzzies dissipated when I saw reports from those who had watched on TV. Many viewers found the broadcast of the Rally to be tedious and pointless, and they mocked the very moments I had most enjoyed (such as the crowd exercises, led by the Discovery channel’s MythBusters, which let us literally feel how large an audience we were —The Wave took forever to make its way across the Mall).

It was quite apparent that being there in person was a very different experience than watching from a living room.

Yet another set of contrasting reactions emerged from the media in subsequent days, as numerous journalists lashed out at Jon Stewart for his final speech, one that had been well-received both at the rally and by most TV viewers. The New York Times’ David Carr complained that Stewart was misguided; not enough people watch cable news for those outlets to be at fault for our communicative dissonance. MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann railed that Stewart’s logic was flawed; cable news isn’t the problem, Fox News is the problem. Fox News’ Glenn Beck dismissed the rally as juvenile nonsense on the level of a high school play.

Conversely, media analyst Jeff Jarvis said the news naysayers got it wrong: “Stewart has given us reason again to come together, to set new standards, to expect real change, to celebrate democracy (not government), to communicate (around media) — in short, and in every sense of the word, to rally.”

What struck me after considering all of these varied viewpoints, including my own, is that they are indicative of exactly what prompted the Rally for Sanity in the first place: divided experiences are leading to intractably divided viewpoints. Those who were at the Rally processed the event differently than those who watched on TV, who read about it in The New York Times or viewed a Fox News piece about it or followed Olbermann’s tweets about it, who operate within the media bubble or outside of it, who don’t regularly watch The Daily Show or who do, and on and on.

While the digital age has brought an explosion of information outlets and access to more viewpoints than ever before, that very expansion has conversely enabled us to bury ourselves more deeply into narrower sanctuaries. That isn’t to say we were better off when we had no Internet and only a handful of television channels. But I wonder if the stunningly rapid growth of new media technologies and interfaces has left us dizzied, and the retrenchment of beliefs based on strategic selection of experiential material is one way people are buttressing themselves.

Until we can better understand the impact of these new models of social and political discourse and the potentially divided subjectivities they engender, sanity may remain elusive.

Christine Becker, an associate professor of film, television and theatre at Notre Dame, was recently named by The Wrap as one of 25 TV superfans to follow on Twitter, where she can be found @crsbecker.

The Common Good: Debts, Deficits and Economic Growth

2010-10-27T15:11:00-04:00

The old advice: “Keep your eye on the ball” makes sense when discussing the problems of the U.S. economy. We have become diverted from the immediate issue — jobs — to the issues of deficits and the national debt.

The claim that the national debt will bankrupt the country is a serious issue in the long term but not in the short term. The claim that it hinders the recovery by crowding out private investment is not important at this time. Private investors are not investing in new capital goods because there is insufficient demand for the output from those capital goods, not primarily because the federal government is out-competing the private sector for available savings.

However, there is one argument for making debt reduction a key issue NOW, and that is a psychological one. The argument goes something like this: Investment by business, particularly by small businesses, is driven by future profit expectations; large federal budget deficits increase uncertainty about the future stability of the economy. The result — businesses invest less and thus hire fewer workers. This, in turn, impedes the economy from recovering.

So what is needed is a firm sign that the debt problem will be addressed. If this is believed, businesses will be willing to invest and hire workers in the expectation that the future will be stable and prospects bright for future profits.

Unfortunately there is little undisputed empirical evidence to support this theory as a singular explanation for growth or the lack thereof. Ireland, for example, has pursued a deficit reduction program for the past two years and their economy has not improved at all. In fact it has declined farther than most, now averaging 13 percent unemployment. Despite this, a number of European countries are pushing for debt reduction now. The argument cannot be ignored and I will come back to it below.

The recession of the past three years has held back growth in income and therefore in tax revenues. The normal expectation is that there should be three or four years of better economic growth — enough to reduce the deficit significantly. But a problem persists. The economic stimulus of 2009 was too weak to kick start the economy into a growth path that would absorb the unemployed and provide jobs for new entrants to the labor force. And Congress is resisting any further stimulus on the grounds that it will make the deficit worse.

And so we face the undesirable prospect of a decade-long Japanese-style stagnation of growth and employment or even a double-dip recession.

The primary task at this time, therefore, is to provide further economic measures which will generate jobs and a growth in incomes that will result in increased tax receipts. This, in turn, will help reduce the deficit even though alone it will not be enough.

In the longer run — three to five years — attention will need to turn to the structural deficit problem (defined as a deficit at full employment). Continuing economic growth in the USA will require us to increase national savings (defined as personal + business + government + foreign savings) by reducing the chronic federal budget deficit (which is dis-savings), to finance private and public investment.

The approach to deficit reduction in the long term that relies on economic growth to increase tax revenues is faced with a chicken egg problem: economic growth is needed to lower the deficit, but the deficit needs to be reduced to insure long term economic growth. Though control of expenditures must make a contribution, neither spending cuts nor “natural” growth can of themselves eliminate the deficit.

It follows then that tax increases are also needed. In economic terms, the deficits resulting from tax cuts of the early 1980s and the early 2000s have lowered the total national savings available to finance long-term investment in the economy, the source of productivity gains and economic growth. The continuous deficits over the past four decades (except for the last years of the Clinton Administration) have forced a reliance on foreign savings for domestic investment resulting in increasing trade deficits.

Deficit reduction is not the number one problem at this time. Creating jobs is. But it is a serious problem for the long term. Thus, the Obama administration should signal now that it is thinking and planning how best to reduce the deficit when the time comes to do so. And it is here where our values are crucial in making choices regarding the necessary tax increases and expenditure reductions.

Charles K. Wilber is a Notre Dame professor emeritus of economics and fellow of the Kellogg Institute for International Studies who has written widely on Catholic social thought and economic theory. Email him at cwilber@nd.edu.

Beyond Just War in Afghanistan

2010-09-29T14:16:00-04:00

General David Petraeus was in the hot seat during his Senate confirmation hearings in Washington this summer, and it had nothing to do with the heat wave outside.

While senators were confirming Petraeus as commander of U.S. and international forces in Afghanistan, they criticized the tactical guidance issued last year ordering greater restraint of U.S. forces to protect against civilian deaths. Although it was the deadliest summer for U.S. troops in nine years of war, some senators and media commentators were complaining about limitations on air strikes.

Rather than caving to criticism, Petraeus issued tactical guidance that reinforced civilian protections. “We must continue — indeed, redouble — our efforts to reduce the loss of innocent civilian life to an absolute minimum,” he said.

Good news and bad

General Petraeus knows the United States cannot kill every Taliban, insurgent or Al Qaeda sympathizer. In media interviews, he explained that the strategy of protecting civilians is working. United Nations figures bear this out, sort of.

The U.N. Assistance Mission in Afghanistan’s recent report on protection of civilians notes a 64 percent decrease in deaths and injuries from coalition aerial attacks and a 30 percent decline in the civilian casualties caused by coalition and Afghan government forces. That’s the good news. The bad news is that overall civilian casualties in Afghanistan have dramatically increased by 31 percent due to increased killing of civilians by antigovernment forces.

Exposing fundamental flaws

Afghans understand the Taliban and insurgents are responsible for nearly 80 percent of civilian deaths compared to 12 percent caused by coalition forces. Yet coalition forces do not get credit for increased civilian protection efforts. Instead they are blamed, even for the civilians killed by the enemy, under the belief that the very presence of U.S. and international forces in the country exacerbates the violence.

This exposes some of the fundamental problems with the Afghan and other counterinsurgency operations. It is difficult for centralized violence (exemplified by the U.S. military organization) to meet and contain highly decentralized violence. It is difficult to use military force, which will always cause unintended civilian casualties, as a means of upholding the norm of civilian protection. You can’t argue that every noncombatant life is sacred while killing noncombatants. As General Petraeus notes, “Every Afghan civilian death diminishes our cause.”

Beyond just war

We urgently need to expand just peace norms and practices. Just war logic helps institutionalize the protection of civilians, but restraining airpower and the use of force, however laudable, is not building peace. In a forthcoming volume, Peacebuilding: Catholic Theology, Ethics, and Praxis, I argue that peacebuilding is the only sustainable path for protecting civilians in the long term. The United States must enlarge the policy tool box and go beyond the current heavy emphasis on the use of force to place greater attention on peacebuilding norms and practices, particularly participation and reconciliation.

Current U.S. government peacebuilding ideas and practices are inadequate. When U.S. and international military leaders discuss splitting off and working with Taliban fighters “who can be reconciled,” they are not talking about genuine reconciliation, which is the repair of relationships to build sustainable peace. Rather, they have in mind a process of demobilization, disarmament and reintegration. This is necessary in Afghanistan and elsewhere, but it is not reconciliation. Genuine peacebuilding requires talking with the Taliban, but U.S. officials are reluctant to do so, and a recent Supreme Court decision equates talking with adversaries to providing illegal material support to terrorists.

A higher moral standard

Protecting civilians requires more than restrictive tactical directives. The U.S. government must learn how to build peace. Operating on a higher moral plain than enemies who deliberately kill civilians is difficult but necessary for military and political success. To prevent noncombatant deaths and advance the norm of civilian protection, the U.S. must hold to a higher moral standard and create new norms of just peace.

Maryann Cusimano Love is associate professor of international relations at the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C. This essay, titled “From Civilian Immunity to Just Peace,” and others investigating violent conflict can be found at the webzine Peace Policy, published by Notre Dame’s Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies.

TV or Not TV: Work of Reality TV

2010-09-07T15:51:00-04:00

My previous essay for Notre Dame Magazine addressed two of the most respected, critically acclaimed dramas on television (Mad Men and Breaking Bad), yet the piece generated a few comments dismissive of the mere idea of taking television seriously. Are only the “legitimate arts” worth our analytical attention? What about a TV show about art? What about a reality TV show about art? Now I’ve certainly lost even more of you.

The show I’m referring to is Work of Art: The Next Great Artist, a reality TV competition program that finished up its first season on Bravo a few weeks ago and whose winner, Abdi Farah, is currently enjoying his prize, a showing at the Brooklyn Museum. Across 10 episodes, the 14 contestants painted, sculpted and assembled their way through time-limited challenges, such as creating a piece of outdoor art for a New York City park and constructing an artwork from broken electronics equipment. The finished work was assessed by a panel of judges that included art critic Jerry Saltz and gallery owner Bill Powers. Each week the artist deemed to have created the least effective piece was eliminated, sent off by host China Chow with a signature line: “Your work of art did not work for us.”

More generally, Work of Art was a collision between two vastly different cultural worlds, one usually dismissed as driven by crass commercialism, exploitative voyeurism and abject manipulation, and the other usually praised as embodying the best of humanity, beholden to no force other than an individual’s muse (reality TV is the former, in case you weren’t certain). The artistic ideal is in nearly every way the antithesis of what reality TV strives for, so the very idea of bringing these worlds together seems misguided at best.

Accordingly, art mavens were mostly scornful of Work of Art because of the contrivances inherent to reality TV: the imposition of strict rules, simplistic trials and time limits on the artistic process. Also the perversion of turning the subjective appreciation of art into a facile elimination process; overt commercialism (one challenge involved creating a work inspired by driving an Audi); stereotyping reinforcing clichés about pretentious artists; false drama, underscored by an absurd promotional slogan (“In the war of art, there can be only one winner.” The war of art?!); and the inevitable manipulations of actuality through editing and overdubbing. More concisely, L.A. Times art critic Christopher Knight described the show as “vacant television piddle.”

Conversely, supporters of Work of Art viewed it as an intriguing experiment that exposed art to a wider audience and in turn challenged the art world’s insularity. The winner, Farah, pointed out that art has its own contrived pressures and conventions, some of which were productively overturned here by introducing the foreignness of reality TV: “To me it was all so fresh and alive and new and exciting because it was nothing that we would ever have made in our own studios, given all of our crutches that we lean upon, all of the comforts we have around us, the time to do whatever we want. With some of those challenges, I don’t even know what I was thinking, but something subconscious spit out onto the canvas, and sometimes it was good and sometimes it was bad, but it was always really revelatory.”

More than one million viewers a week watched this revelatory process, the likes of which the masses are rarely exposed to. Along those lines, Saltz, who defended his involvement in the show via weekly blog entries, stated in his final recap, “For me the deep content of being on Work of Art was to see if art criticism could find new ways to expose itself to the world so that more of the world might expose itself to it.”

Indeed, perhaps even more so than on television, the real productivity of Work of Art was online, as art and TV blogs alike exploded with discussion of the show, either decrying or justifying the intrusion of reality TV cameras into the art world.

In the end, I believe Work of Art’s scorners and supporters were both right: Work of Art was both abominable and admirable. Art shouldn’t be produced in such a way, and yet if art is about truly exploring the creativity within us regardless of external circumstances, there’s no reason for television to be automatically discounted from that pursuit.

In that sense, Work of Art did work for me in one primary way: it forced observers to think about how we categorize and define concepts like art and popular culture, high culture and low culture, good objects and bad objects. The assumption that art is always pure and TV is always trash is itself a crutch that we could stand to have kicked out from under us every now and then.