Corrective Justice and the Narrative Construction of the Past for Present Purposes: A Proposal for Rethinking Postcolonial Reparation

The argument that the former colonial powers in the global north owe the former colonies in the global south reparative payments has gained much traction recently. Its defenders urge us to look backward and focus on the past acts that led to the establishment of the current global order, as well as the reparative duties that these actions may now give rise to. I do not think that this provides us with a promising new answer to the question what we owe the global poor. I argue against the claim that past colonial wrongs give rise to duties of corrective justice today and, more specifically, against two arguments that have been made in support of the claim. First, that some present states have inherited a) corrective duties (Daniel Butt) or b) associative duties (Robert Goodin, Lea Ypi, Christian Barry). Second, that some present states continue to benefit from past injustice, which gives rise to compensatory duties today (Butt, Maeve McKeown). The problem with approaches that defend duties of international reparative payment is, as Catherine Lu and others have pointed out, that they fail to identify the holders of rights to and duties of postcolonial reparation. Nevertheless, we should not jettison the idea that the postcolonial nature of the current global order ought to be taken seriously. The question is, however, exactly in which way we ought to take it seriously. I urge us to consider a different answer to this question than the one favored by those who defend reparative payments between states. I argue that the normative significance of past colonial wrongs lies not in the wrongs themselves and the duties of corrective justice they may give rise to but rather in the way representations of the colonial past serve political purposes today. More specifically, I argue that existing group conflicts and hierarchies may be perpetuated by the representation of the colonial past through public narratives as well as commemorations, such as monuments, holidays or names on public buildings and street signs. Such processes of defining group relations through the narration of the shared past may occur in the transnational or intranational sphere. The struggle to overcome problematic forms of such narration, that is, the struggle to repair postcolonial relations has to take place in both of them. In the last part of the paper, I draw on two examples to show how this is the case. First, I take a look at the developmental discourse that has long dominated scientific and practical work within the area of international development aid as an example for how a narrative construction of the colonial past may serve to perpetuate group hierarchy today. I then turn to the role that monuments, such as those depicting colonial exploiter Cecil Rhodes in Oxford and Capetown, may play in perpetuating intrastate group hierarchy.