S1: Welcome in San Diego , it's Jade Hindman. On today's show , we're talking about how we think about complicity and our role in the political process. This is KPBS Midday Edition connecting our communities through conversation. Welcome back to KPBS Midday Edition. I'm your host , Jade Hindman. I don't have to remind you that we have an election coming up , and it's coming fast. There's a lot of emotions associated with that. You might be thinking about your own role in politics and the political process. How much agency do you actually have ? How much is your responsibility ? And when those in power abused their authority , how often do you feel complicit ? Well , what should you do about that ? That is one of the many questions my next guest researches. That and much more. His name is Timothy Wyman McCarty , and he's associate professor of political science and international relations at the University of San Diego. Professor McCarty , welcome. Thank you for having me.
S2: And this was a part of my my research in graduate school. And one of the things that really interested me was how frequently people seem to associate moral responsibility or complicity with their identity as taxpayers. So you see this with people who refuse to pay war taxes , for example , they call it. They're called war tax resisters. There's a lot of public policy associated with ensuring that , quote unquote , taxpayer dollars do not go toward this or that. Uh , activity often what what is talked about in that is , uh , family planning , reproductive health , uh , things like abortion and contraception. And it is it is framed as allowing in the case of , of war , taxes , pacifist taxpayers. In the case of reproductive health , it's pro-life taxpayers and allowing them to avoid what they see as complicity in things that they believe are unjust or evil. And I , I found that fascinating , and it seemed peculiar to me , and I wanted to study it more and understand , uh , why it is that people understand themselves as complicit in this or that injustice and also how we respond to it as actors in a political community. So whether it makes sense to respond to feeling complicit by trying to petition the government to give you an opt out versus responding to feeling complicit by trying to , say , join a movement to oppose the injustice itself.
S1:
S2: And and lots of moral philosophers and political philosophers have been offering definitions of complicity for my for the purposes of my research. What matters to me less is an authoritative definition of complicity than a recognition that I think this is something that is a part of our moral intuitions that that we as citizens of a democratic society will come to conclusions , that we are morally entangled with things that feel evil or unjust or wrong in some way. And I think all definitions of complicity are about recognizing a moral entanglement with an injustice that you didn't directly cause or intend. And that's , that's , I think , the most , the broadest definition. And so you can see that that would cover things like paying taxes for something you don't agree with. It would also cover things like my entanglement with climate change or , you know , the fact that I am a white man in America , which entangles me with systems like patriarchy and white supremacy and , you know , but I'm also a , um , I am a citizen of. I'm a homeowner in San Diego , so I'm probably entangled with the housing crisis and that sort of thing. And and none of these things were things that I'm happy about. None of these things are things that I think are good. But but I'm in some way morally entangled with them in a way that makes me , when I really reflect on it , pretty uncomfortable.
S1: Well , let's talk about some historical examples. Yeah. Okay. Like you've studied the abolition movement in the 19th century. That was a time when complicity was really normalized.
S2: So in the in the period that's sometimes known as the , um , the second wave abolition movement , which starts in around the , the 1820s , uh , a lot of thinkers and activists like Frederick Douglass and William Lloyd Garrison and Henry David Thoreau , Angelina Grimshaw are all talking to northern audiences about how even though they are not slaveholders , they are complicit with this broader system that they called the slave power. By by the slave power , they meant the economic , political , and social system that props up and is propped up by slavery. So they would talk about things like being participating in the economy that is entangled with cotton production. They would talk about the fact that as a member of the Union of the United States , we are in a political partnership with these slaveholding states. And therefore , you were entangled in those ways and these these activists , these abolitionist activists worked really hard to get northerners to see that , that they have something to do with slavery. And that gave them a responsibility to act , to end slavery. And this is what I think is so interesting about this moment , some of these activists encouraged northerners to act in a way that would help them free themselves from complicity. So William Lloyd Garrison , for example , actually advocated for northerners the North to secede from the Union so that the North would no longer be complicit with slaveholding in the South. Uh , Frederick Douglass , on the other hand , argued that that that that move would leave the enslaved people to their own devices and suffer under slavery without relief. And so his argument was that , no , the North had to work actively to overturn slavery. But of course , what that what that meant is that they had to be more entangled. And and the garrison's accused , Frederick Douglass , of participating in politics in a way that allowed slavery to persist longer because he was trying to engage in partnerships with , say , moderate abolitionist politicians who were not in favor of immediate abolition or , you know , the politicians who said , well , yes , we'd like to eradicate slavery , but not yet. And Douglass , because he had a more pragmatic , uh , approach to it , had to deal with the challenge that he was allowing himself to continue to be complicit , which we can still see today in , uh , all kinds of controversies , whether you want to work within a system to try to change it , or whether you want to work radically outside the system to change it. Yeah.
S1: Yeah. Well , and the example that you give , I mean , we can bring that up to today where there are a number of were a number of bills working their way through the legislature , uh , formed from the recommendations from the California Reparations Task Force. Mhm. Um , so while people would look at , uh , you know , our period of time where people were enslaved and say , you know , that was morally Really wrong. Um , there's still this reluctance in California and across the nation , um , to sort of right the ship on that , to repair the damage done by that. No one wants their tax dollars used , uh , for reparations.
S2: I think that's a that's a perfect example that connects , uh , the the fight over slavery to , uh , the fight over the legacy of slavery. And as , as , you know , people in the contemporary United States , you can see that some people , uh , really balk at the idea that they are complicit with the legacy of an institution that was eradicated 150 years ago. Uh , and on the other hand , people say , well , no , we're still living in the world. That was , uh , that that was conditioned by this institution. And people's lives are still being affected by that legacy. And this is a historical wrong that hasn't yet been fully addressed. And so this in many ways , I see the fight over something like reparations as being about how do we respond politically to this idea of complicity and , and whether someone is willing to recognize their own complicity is one step.
S1: We're back after the break. Welcome back to KPBS Midday Edition. I'm your host , Jade Hindman , here with Timothy McCarty. He's an associate professor of political science at USC , focusing on theories of complicity and moral responsibility. And we are talking about how that shapes our political involvement. We're in such an interesting place Now , um , in terms of how complicity plays out in politics. Um , and a lot of the with the disinformation and misinformation that is so easily circulated. Mhm.
S3: You know.
S1: When I think about it , I feel like , you know , when someone feels complicit in something that is unjust , for example , they're usually moved to do something about that to fix the injustice. But what happens and what we're seeing happen is when disinformation and misinformation is entered into the psyche , they're somehow this justification , um , in someone's mind for being complicit in something unjust. Can you talk a bit about that ? Yeah.
S2: So I think that , um , one of the one of the ways that that complicity gets maybe weaponized a little bit , uh , is , is if you if you can convince people of a conspiracy theory and make them think you're complicit in this. Um , a conspiracy theory that that there's a somehow children are being abused at a at a pizzeria in in Washington , DC. And if you you are not doing anything about this and you are complicit in allowing this to happen , well , this is what gets , um , this was the Pizzagate conspiracy that got a man to go into Comet Ping Pong Pizzeria and fire a gun , uh , because he thought , well , I need to I need to stand up and do something about this. But unfortunately , that wasn't a thing. And and I think there's that there's that danger in , in drawing on people's moral intuition that they ought to do something about something they're complicit in. This is a way that you can you can drum up a moral panic about about a non problem. You can you can make people think we need to take action about this , when in fact it's it's not a major issue. Uh , on on the other hand. Things that are that are , in fact , serious issues. Uh , it can be hard to get people to to act because they feel so overwhelmed by it.
S1: Right ? Of course , as a journalist , um , and thinking about the current moment , too , because we can certainly point to , um , current instances where , uh , immigrants , for example , are dehumanized. We hear it coming from the mouth of , of former of a former president. Um , as a journalist , I'm thinking about when the media can be complicit. Um , that happens when misinformation is spread. You know , when journalists amplify violent rhetoric , news organizations and such in the name of fairness , um , both sides thing.
S2: And a lot of times that goes critics of the media will talk about platforming , uh , a problematic ideas , hateful voices , misinformation , that sort of thing , and that , that makes , uh , a media outlet complicit. And you can you can think anytime you , you play a clip of someone lying in , in politics in order to , uh , fact check that lie. Some of the scholarship in media studies has demonstrated that that fact checking a lie has the perverse effect of amplifying it. And and so how do you how do you wiggle out of that ? And I think this is a perfect case of thinking about complicity as a starting point and recognizing that if you are going to participate in democratic discourse , you're going to be complicit with the parts of democratic discourse that you don't like that might be unjust , and there's no way to wiggle out of that. There's no way to avoid complicity , other than to just turn off your microphone and stop broadcasting to to disengage totally from democratic discourse , which might be a way to avoid complicity , but from a journalist perspective is pretty irresponsible. And that's one of those cases where we can see that , um , avoiding complicity can be a form of irresponsibility. And so I think instead , and I'm certainly not an expert and not a member of the media , so I don't want to tell anyone how to do their jobs. But I do think that that what's helpful about thinking about complicity is that that gives us a positive responsibility if we are participating in democratic discourse to to ask , am I entangled with these injustices in a way that is more likely to ameliorate those injustices , to oppose those injustices ? Or am I entangled in a way that is supporting them ? That is , that is propping them up ? I'm never going to not be entangled , but what am I going to do with my entanglement ? And I think that's to my mind , it's not a solution for sure. It's a different way of asking the question. Sure. And I and I don't think that in this issue and in almost every issue , I don't I don't think there is a solution to the problem of complicity. I think that complicity is a a way of orienting ourselves and our thinking about all the problems that we are associated with.
S1:
S2: The biggest danger is apathy. A great example of this is climate change. When someone becomes aware that climate change is a problem that that they're entangled with , often the first thing they start to think of is , well , how can I reduce my climate footprint ? What can I do to be less complicit with climate change ? And then the more you learn about climate change , the more you're likely to discover that no matter what you try to do with your climate footprint , um , number one , you are still going to be contributing in some way , shape or form. And number two , it's a bigger problem than can be solved by your climate footprint. And often people will respond to that and think , uh , well , gosh , then what's what's the point of doing anything ? I might as well just go buy a big SUV and and make all of the emissions I can because there's nothing I can do personally. And that that sense of despair or apathy is a real danger. And so one of the things that I think we can do is if we realize that what what we're aspiring toward should not be personal moral purity , uh , that that we don't live in a world where moral purity is a possibility. Um , we we live in a deeply imperfect world as deeply imperfect people. Uh , and so instead of aspiring toward a purity that we'll never get to , uh , if we think , well , I only have so much time , and I only have so much attention , and I only have , you know , so much energy. I have so many other things to worry about. Um , am I devoting the the amount of energy I have to think about climate change ? Am I devoting my energy to something that is just about making myself feel more morally pure , or am I devoting it to something that I think might have an impact ? And if if it turns out to be that something that you can do that will make you feel more morally pure will also have an impact ? Well , that's great. It's a win win for you in there. Uh , but a lot of times , uh , as you mentioned , that the things that we , that we seek for that sense of purity , uh , are ultimately unsatisfying , then they can that can lead to us feeling apathetic. And also , they might be ineffective. One way that I like to think about this problem is that , um , complicity is about realizing how close you stand to problems in the world , like injustice and evil and in , uh , in realizing your complicit , realizing that you're standing right near an injustice can give you the agency to do something about that injustice. And and that could be a really useful thing. But if if all you do when you realize you're standing near an injustice is try to find a new place to stand , then you're probably not doing the right thing.
S1: That's very interesting. Anything else that you want to say or add that I might not have touched on ? I know I feel like this subject could go in so many different directions. Um , it really can. Yeah.
S2: Yeah. One thing I'd like to to say about , about complicity is that when I talk to people about complicity , it it's a thing that often leads people to a sense of sort of doom or apathy or despair or or they just feel overwhelmed by it because it's something that we only tend to talk about in a really negative sense. But I think there's a there's another side to it , which is that one of the things that thinking about complicity can make you realize is how deeply entangled we are with other people's lives and how really Connected we are , and how the actions we take in the world are not just about ourselves. They're about , uh , they're about how we are connected to every other person in the world. And I really love a line from Martin Luther King Jr. S letter from Birmingham Jail , where in trying to motivate the white moderates to get involved in the civil rights struggle , he says , uh , we are I'm imperfectly quoting here , but we are woven into a mutual garment of destiny. Uh , and and this , that image of being woven together is , I think , a powerful one , that , that even as we think about complicity as associated with all of the evils and harms in the world , it is a concern that comes from our recognition that none of us is really alone , that we're all in this together. And I think that's the really positive vision that can come out of thinking about complicity.
S1: Well , there's plenty to think about there. I've been speaking with Timothy Wyman McCarty. He's associate professor of political science and international relations at the University of San Diego. Professor McCarty , thank you so much for being on the show.
S2: Thank you for having me.
S1: That's our show for today. I'm your host , Jade Hindman. Thanks for tuning in to Midday Edition. Be sure to have a great day on purpose , everyone.
