This is part III in the series of reading Dussel’s Ethics of Liberation. I have previously focused on the material criterion and the material principle for a universal ethics, specifically on the problem(s) of its anthropocentric extensionism, here. I then focused on victimhood and the plausible consequences of assimilating or subsuming all diverse kinds of victimhood under a single concept, here. Now, continuing the reading, I want to focus on another aspect of victimhood, concretely on what I shall preemptively call the Eternal Victim. 

Let us recap. The victim for Dussel is not a mere descriptive term, but a rich conceptual and analytical concept which allows the theoretician, social scientist, the victim themself, and anyone for that matter, to judge a system as evil. As Dussel notes: “[t]he existence of the victim is always a material refutation or ‘falsification’ of the truth of the system that produces such victims”.¹ Recall that the universal material principle of ethics states that: 

[T]he one who acts ethically ought (as an obligation) to produce, reproduce, and develop self-responsibly the concrete life of each human subject, in a community of life, and inevitably out of a cultural and historical ‘good life’ […] that is shared instinctually and solidaristically, having as ultimate reference all of humanity.² 

Hence, a falsification or negation of the system-as-truth entails that a system (institution, culture, society, group, etc.) is not “producing, reproducing, and developing self-responsibly the concrete life of each human subject […]”.³  The victim is thus the person whose life is not able to unfold. I shall use unfold in the remainder of this post to refer to the encompassing process of producing, reproducing, and developing the concrete life of a human subject. For example the poor, who cannot eat; the gay couple who cannot get married or buy a house together; the woman who is objectified; the elder who cannot buy medicines; etc., to name a few. In sum, anyone who cannot live life, to the most exhaustive understanding of living life, is a victim. I find this not to be controversial, and perhaps it is even a useful concept. 

Note that conceptualizing is a hard task. As per my training as a political scientist, we are taught for two semesters how to conceptualize correctly. Following Sartori’s (1970) ladder of abstraction, at the top of the ladder we have the most abstract, that is the most broad and encompassing concept. Take for example, the concept of life. Think of everything that the concept of life encompasses. At the bottom of the ladder of abstraction you find the most concrete. Think now of the Empire State building. There is only one. The ladder of abstraction is thus from the many to the few, and depending what is going to be analyzed one can choose what level of abstraction is most suitable. For example, if one is studying political violence in elections, one is not looking at pickpocket incidents during an election; one excludes phenomena in order to grasp what is at stake. Similarly, Dussel situates the victim at a level that is abstract enough in order to understand what a victim-as-such (das Opfer an sich) is, while there can still be below it more concrete cases of victimhood. Since Dussel is interested in the ethical-system-as-such, he cannot bother himself with the concreteness of the victim. Like Marx in his Grundrisse and the conceptualization of the production, we are looking for the “essential determinations common to all in an act of” victimhood.⁴ That is, “what is common to all things which are said to be the same”.⁵ If both the black people in America, and the poor in Latin America are victims, despite the contextual differences, what holds true in both cases is that their lives cannot unfold. 

Having established and expanded upon who the victim is, it is now pertinent to digress into what I call the Eternal Victim. Recall that a system creates victims whenever there is no “producing, reproducing, and developing self-responsibly the concrete life of each human subject”.⁶ What is key here is that the principle requires the unfolding for “the concrete life of each human subject”. That is, everyone individually and in community must have their life unfolding, or else the system is creating victims. Envision for a moment our current struggles: poverty, racism, sexism, environmental struggles, etc. For Dussel, rightly so, it is not enough that the system allows the unfolding of one dimension of victims. As such, it is not enough to eradicate racism if society is still patriarchal; it is not enough to eliminate poverty if islamophobia exists; etc. Again, this does not seem controversial and such a position has been supported and theoreticized by multiple critical theorists (see bell hooks, Benhabib, Iris Young, etc.). 

Victimhood is negativity. As Dussel recalls, the victim is suffering from “the impossibility of” the victim to unfold “their lives”.⁷ Ergo, to inverse the impossibility, to make the life of the victim possible, is the ethical task. Thus, it is a negation of the negation, or a dialectic procedure. Think of it this way: 

1. The victim has their life negated (as not being able to unfold). This is the original negation carried out by the system. Call it N(s).
2. To make the victim’s life possible we have to negate the impossibility; we have to negate the system or conditions which are making the impossible for the victim to unfold. This is the negation of the negation; or  N directed at N(s). 
3. Negating the original negation (N(s)) results in the possibility of the victim unfolding their life; otherwise stated, it is a negation of victimhood which transforms the victim into a full subject. 

To visualize this three step logical sequence let me illustrate it with rudimentary formal logic. 

If N(s) → V: If there is Negation by a system (N(s)) there is a victim (v).

If N(s) → (N directed at N(s)): If there is Negation by a system (N(s) ), we have to negate such negation (N directed at N(s) ). 

Given that N(s) → V, and that we have negated N(s), then V no longer exists. 

As such:

N directed at N(s) → not V. 

In simpler words, if a system does not allow anyone to unfold  their lives, then there are victims. Given that there are victims, we have to deny or revert or disrupt that system which creates victims. Once we have denied the system which creates victims, the former victim is now transformed into a subject able to unfold. Again, this is not controversial nor difficult to see. 

However, Dussel establishes that “the victims are inevitable […]” because “it is empirically impossible that any norm, action, institution, or system of ethnicity could be perfect in its implementation and consequences”.⁸ That is, a system is ethically supposed (ought) to supersede victims by allowing all to unfold. However, any system, in doing so, because there is no perfect implementation or consequences, creates other victims or perhaps continues the victimhood of already existing victims. To illustrate this, think of literally any country and any public policy they have implemented. While some good may be derived from such policy, it nonetheless either: (1) leaves others as victims, (2) creates more victims, or (3) deepens the state of victimhood. Hence, a comprehensive negation of the original negation is never factually possible. As such, there will always be victims, victims are eternal. Call this problem or paradox the Eternal Victim.

One can then question Dussel’s system as not being attentive to ought implies can. If we are morally responsible for all victims, and yet, no system is perfect, which entails that victims will exist, why are we responsible for victims? That is, if there is no perfect way to solve victimhood, why do anything? If we cannot do something why are we obligated to do it? How does one decide between transforming some victims and leaving other victims be? 

Any public policy is a trade off. Public policy 101 establishes this. Whenever you enact a public policy you will have to give up on some things. For example, a program which gives money to people directly will entail that such money can no longer be used for other things which could help those same people (hospitals, schools, roads, etc.). The problem is not that trade offs exist, but how we calculate trade offs. 

Similarly, Dussel’s system has this problem. The problem is not that a perfect system does not exist, or that in transforming the lives of some we leave Others on their own. Rather, the problem is on how do we or anyone chooses who is to be helped at a certain time? Again, there is no perfect system and no way to calculate all possible consequences, hence, how are we able to calculate if a given policy, norm, institution, will create more or less victims, will transform the lives of more or less victims. Even more so, are we not falling into utilitarianism? Are not falling into statements like: “we choose policy X because it created 100 victims but it transformed the lives of 1000 victims”. Or, more bluntly, “we solved poverty but we increased racism”. 

It all returns to an everlasting discussion or problem in left or revolutionary politics. If we cannot know what the consequences of our purported liberating movement will be, why do we even participate in it? How do we not fall into nihilism or inaction? 

I do not have answers for all the problems posed here. It is perhaps a task beyond my capabilities and time. I do, however, have some intuitions as to how to solve or how to guide action. Take everything Dussel says as true. We can never stop victims from existing. The Eternal Victim is a human condition; if there are humans, if there are societies, institutions, victims will exist. The only empirically possible way to erase victims is to erase humanity. Doing so, however, is not possible. We are self-responsible not only for ourselves, but for everyone, including future generations. What is then possible is the management of victims. I do not mean this as a Rawlsian second principle. Rather, it is the human task to always be conscious of the victim. Think of it this way. Our body is always in contact with bacteria, viruses, and other pathogens. It is a necessary condition that to live entails to live with things that could kill us. Nonetheless, in order for the body to survive it has to have a continuous process of managing such pathogens. Equally so, but differently in many dimensions, any society will have victims.

Victims require that we act positively, that we affirm their dignity and life. We need to do so, even while knowing that we can never truly erase the status of victims. Because we can all be victims, because we have all been victims, and because we will all be victims, our task as humans is to organize ourselves to tend to victims everywhere, every new time they appear, and in every form they may do so. Because in looking at the eyes of the other I see someone who I can never understand fully, and because in doing so I discover the beauty of the human, because I see into the eyes of the other and see myself and all of humanity in them, I will always look at the victim and give them a hand, because I know my task and theirs is to help whenever, wherever, and forever. 

This entails, perhaps obviously, that systems ought to be structured bottom-up. It is only us who will be able to carry on with this task which is humanity. Because if we do not, as the current system is doing, we risk a collective suicide in which not only do victims not exist, but no one.  

1. Dussel, E. (2013). Ethics of Liberation: In the Age of Globalization and Exclusion. Duke University Press: Durham, p. 282. ↩︎
2. Idem, p. 104. ↩︎
3. Ibid. ↩︎
4. Dussel, E. (1985). La Producción Teórica de Marx: un comentario a los Grundrisse. Siglo XXI: Mexico City, p. 31. ↩︎
5. Idem, p. 32. ↩︎
6. Dussel, E. (2013). Ethics of Liberation: In the Age of Globalization and Exclusion. Duke University Press: Durham, p. 104. ↩︎
7. Idem, p.281. ↩︎
8. Idem, p.279. ↩︎