Skyboxification and Emmanuel Levinas

Skyboxification and Levinas
by Rabbi David

 In the May 12 New York Times, Tom Friedman comments on Michael Sandel’s new book, What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets. The part of Friedman’s comments that most jumped out at me is Sandel’s invention of the word “skyboxification,” as in “the skyboxification of American society.”

 What Sandel means by the term, if it doesn’t immediately jump out at you, is that the rich (the 1%) have enabled themselves to be so removed from the rest of society so as not to have to rub shoulders with it or see it. Where ballparks did indeed have preferred seating in the past, that seating was not so removed so as to make impossible the mingling between classes. Skyboxification can also be seen in the many ways that the rich insulate themselves such as by gated communities.

 I believe that Emmanuel Levinas, the French-Jewish philosopher, would have had some things to reflect about this phenomenon – or perhaps I’m just projecting.

 Levinas proposed that the moment of ethical responsibility arises when one becomes aware of the Other. That once the Other is perceived, the perceiver has an ethical obligation in regard to the one perceived. One can always disregard this obligation, but that act of disregard is itself a choice with ethical implications. To extricate oneself from a sense of responsibility to the Other is only possible before one has perceived the Other.

 This is one way to understand the effort by the rich to self-insulate as a means not to have to perceive the reality of the 99% and to enable themselves to formulate and actuate policies that enrich themselves without the burden of a sense of responsibility for the damage caused to others by those policies. But the very effort to extricate oneself of responsibility by self-insulation is itself a choice that despite every effort to not see the Other, is a choice taken while fully cognizant of the existence of the other in a vain hope to avoid responsibility. In short, making oneself not to see can only be understood as happening after one has already seen.

1 Comment

  1. Marc Winokur
    May 18, 2012

    The 1%, 5% (whatever) have constructed a very clever window. It is a one-way view. We are bombarded with the commercial manifestation of those values that characterize not only this inordinately powerful minority, but begin to mirror our own sensibilities, as well, whether we like it or not. The ‘window’ is a one-way view of what the media mongers want us to be…namely, inane consumers with happy-go-lucky, phoney presentations of ourselves, and the world we live in.
    The overwhelming stupidity, nihilism and violence that we are subjected to in the name of entertainment becomes the normative expectation from a culture that just doesn’t know any better, and is not likely to, as the information regarding the reality of our sustainability is so corporately disseminated that we become obsessed with all the nonsense and pretenses to our putative well being.
    Just check out the pyscho-sensibilities of our most popular shows…like “The View” and “American Idol.”…etc…. total hysteria, punctuated by occasional intelligence and talent, but basically devoid of anything resembling a reality check on the devastatingly critical problems that we are not even beginning to truly solve!
    Of course, there are enclaves of ‘spirituality’ and ‘sacredness’ that we construct, but there is no escape from the tentacles and consequences of the corporate beast behind that window. Ethical, and spiritual choices are fine and dandy, but ultimately, the one-way window must come down, and as with everything made of glass, it will be coming down with a CRASH….one way or another!

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.