1. For Reich, what is the common good? Here consider especially chapter two. 
2. How does Reich think that honor and shame can be means of recovering the common good? Do you agree? Here consider especially chapter eight.

Source: Robert Reich, The Common Good, chapter 1-4, 8-9

 

1. For Reich, what is the common good? Here consider especially chapter two. 

(Chapter 2 definitely is able to answer this question. However, you may need to read Chapter 1, which is a very brief chapter, to understand some references that Reich uses when showing an image of what is against the common good.)

Summarizing the contents of chapter two, Reich considers the common good as a fundamental in the survival and development of a society. Especially as a democratic society, common good is needed to establish a general agreement (which is manifested by the law) and create a system that lets us build up on a common notion that we can trust each other, and that we are political equals. Reich starts off the chapter by defining common good as "shared values about what we owe one another as citizens who are bound together in the same society," and that without it, "there is no society."

At its core, society functions through civility, and civility is supported by an existing notion of the common good. Without morals and principles (based on the common good) to abide by, people would not be able to trust each other, therefore, working with each other is also not possible. Common good is there as a general agreement for all of us to be able to have trust to work with each other, rather than be individuals with mindsets pitted against each other. People being civil and voluntarily abiding to laws is also a manifestation of the belief in common good. Without common good, we would assume that no one could be trusted and everyone would be exploitative, including those who make and implement the law. Decisions of systems, such as the government, is believed to be based on norms for the common good, since those in position are trusted to decide for others rather than only for their own personal benefit.

Reich expounds on the common good as something about "inclusion [wherein society joins] together to achieve common goals," and as something that is discerned by having "an educated populace." Reich explains that "moral choices logically involve duties to others, not just calculations about what's best for ourselves," and that ultimately would depend on the common good that we have established as a society.

2. How does Reich think that honor and shame can be means of recovering the common good? Do you agree? Here consider especially chapter eight.

(Chapter 8 provides a vast amount of specific examples of personalities who should be shamed/dishonored and honored and their corresponding circumstances.)

Chapter eight is started off with contextualizing honor and shame as traditional enforcement of the common good in societies. By understanding how humankind seeks to belong to their societies, they are influenced to refer to what their community considers as their agreement of what is right or wrong (public morality), and by extension, reinforcing the common good.

Reich expresses throughout the chapter that in contemporary times, people have confused the meaning of honor and shame, as well as misused them. This progresses as the meaning of what the common good continues to grow muddled within the society. To recover the proper common good, we should fix how shame and honor is used. To quote, he wrote that "[i]f we're serious about reestablishing the moral foundation of our life together, we must change how and whom we honor or shame, and reconnect these practices to the good we hold in common."

The way Reich explains honor and shame as means to recover the common good is agreeable and concrete. Collective action would be needed, such as recognizing proper personalities to honor, rather than honoring the wealthy, famous, and powerful just because of the funding and support they provide. In fact, we should question the system that lets them grow into the power they have to be in a superior position. To further explain this, Reich wrote in chapter eight, "[t]hose who are honored should have shown the courage to stand up for the common good against the forces of greed, corruption, and abuse of power." More concretely, Reich discusses how honoring should be appropriately used: "to continually remind us of what it means to work for the common good, to offer examples of civic behavior we want to encourage, and to raise public consciousness of what we owe each other as members of the same society. Such public honoring could be a corrective to what we now do--blindly and automatically bestow honors on rich philanthropists because they're rich, and celebrities because they're celebrated."

When it comes to shame, beyond the public show, it should be done with proper corrective action afterwards, recognizing that shame works on individuals and by condemning and pointing out what is wrong. This means implementing legislation and proper changes to correct what is wrong to begin with. To quote Reich, "[w]ielded appropriately, shame can also be a powerful motivator for the common good. It can illuminate the gap between the ideals we profess and the reality we tolerate, mobilizing us into action." However, we must remember that shame must be used carefully and accurately if we want to revive the common good.

By taking a stand, whether to properly shame or honor people, the public is awakened and citizens realize the disconnection of their morals, what is being enacted, and the common good. Both honoring and shaming could be means of recovering the common good by further propagating and highlighting the shared values the society must have. By correcting the wrongness of who we honor and shame, we implement a social criteria of public morality that abides to the true common good. To wrap up the message of the chapter, this quote from Reich summarizes the chapter: "If we're to revive the common good, we must use honor and shame appropriately, bringing public attention to virtuous behavior and public condemnation to behavior that erodes public trust."

Step-by-step explanation

1. For Reich, what is the common good? Here consider especially chapter two. 

Here are some direct quotes from the book (chapter two) that could be good bases of the answer:

• "The common good consists of our shared values about what we owe one another as citizens who are bound together in the same society"
• "A concern for the common good--keeping the common good in mind--is a moral attitude. It recognizes that we're all in it together. If there is no common good, there is no society."
• "Not only does the common good exist, but it is essential for a society to function. Without voluntary adherence to a set of common notions about right and wrong, daily life would be insufferable. We would be living in a jungle where only the strongest, cleverest, and most wary could hope to survive. This would not be a society. It wouldn't even be a civilization, because there would be no civility at its core."
• "It's our agreement to these principles that connects us, not agreement about where these principles lead."
• "we depend on people's widespread and voluntary willingness to abide by laws"
• "Without a shared sense of responsibility to the common good, we would have to assume that everybody--including legislators, judges, regulators, and police--was acting selfishly, making and enforcing laws for their own benefit."
• "Without norms for the common good, officials have no way to make these decisions other than their own selfish interests."
• "Truth itself is a common good."
• "Most basically, the common good depends on people trusting that most others in society will also adhere to the common good, rather than lie or otherwise take advantage of them. In this way, civic trust is self-enforcing and self-perpetuating."
• "History has shown that the more commitment to the common good there is within a society, the more willing are its inhabitants to accept disruptions that inevitably accompany new ideas, technologies, opportunities, trade, and immigration. That's because these inhabitants are more likely to trust that the disruptions won't unfairly burden them, and that they stand to gain more than lose by them. This sort of virtuous circle is more likely in societies that promote political equality and equal opportunity, because people who have an equal voice in setting the rules and an equal chance to get ahead naturally feel more assured that their concerns will be addressed and that changes can work to their advantage."
• "the common good is about inclusion--joining together to achieve common goals."
• "Patriotism based on the common good does not pander to divisiveness. True patriots don't duel racist or religious or ethnic divisions. They aren't homophobic or sexist or racist. To the contrary, true patriots confirm the good that we have in common. They seek to strengthen and celebrate the "We" in "We the people." A love of country based on the common good entails obligations to other people, not to national symbols. Instead of demanding displays of respect for the flag and the anthem, it requires that all of us take on a fair share of the burdens of keeping the nation going--"
• "Education is a public good that builds the capacity of a nation to wisely govern itself, and promotes equal opportunity. Democracy depends on citizens who are able to recognize the truth, analyze and weigh alternatives, and civilly debate their future, just as it depends on citizens who have an equal voice and equal stake in it. Without an educated populace, a common good cannot even be discerned. This is fundamental."

2. How does Reich think that honor and shame can be means of recovering the common good? Do you agree? Here consider especially chapter eight.

Here are some direct quotes from the book (chapter eight) that could be good bases of the answer:

• "religious communities have informed people's understandings of what they owe to one another as participants in the same community. These influences can be powerful because one of humankind's deepest needs is to belong. Through most of human history, survival has depended on extended families, clans, and tribes. To be highly respected has meant strong support from the group. Historically, to be ostracized has often meant death."
• "If we're to revive the common good, we must use honor and shame appropriately, bringing public attention to virtuous behavior and public condemnation to behavior that erodes public trust."
• "Honor and shame can be dangerous sentiments in the wrong hands or if used for the wrong purposes. Dictators and demagogues throughout history have bestowed honors on those loyal to them and sought to disgrace those with the courage to stand up to them."
• "In contemporary America, the meaning of honor has become confused partly because those who bestow honors often have ulterior motives."
• "In return for their donation, they are imbued with moral approval. The subtle message is that the common good doesn't really count. Wealth and power do."
• "the intentional unawareness that conservative writer and former education secretary William Bennett had once warned about. "Nonjudgmentalism...has permeated our culture," he wrote, "encouraging a paralysis of the moral faculty."
• "Public honors are similarly lavished on celebrities--people sufficiently well known that the act of honoring them generates positive publicity for the institution and assures current and prospective donors of its importance."
• "No over harm is done. But in the process, the idea of "honor" is debased. The celebrity is already celebrated, by definition. He or she is being honored for being celebrated, a tautology that displaces any intervening thought about the common good."
• "Honors should matter, especially when they appear to convey social judgement."
• "Those who are honored should have shown the courage to stand up for the common good against the forces of greed, corruption, and abuse of power."
• "Why doesn't the United States, as does Britain, issue honors to a thousand citizens each year who have made significant contributions to the common good? Their purpose would be to continually remind us of what it means to work for the common good, to offer examples of civic behavior we want to encourage, and to raise public consciousness of what we owe each other as members of the same society. Such public honoring could be a corrective to what we now do--blindly and automatically bestow honors on rich philanthropists because they're rich, and celebrities because they're celebrated."
• "Wielded appropriately, shame can also be a powerful motivator for the common good. It can illuminate the gap between the ideals we profess and the reality we tolerate, mobilizing us into action."
• "Shame may have evolved as a way to maintain social trust necessary for the survival of a group and, therefore, of its members."
• "Instead of deterring behavior that undermines the common good, shame is too often deployed against people who don't fit in--to ostracize them even further. That has happened on social media through "cyberbullying." Even when it comes to truly shameful acts, the ability of anyone to use social media to accuse anyone else of committing them can have unfair and destructive consequences."
• "If common good is to be revived, shame must be used carefully and accurately. Even when the right people are shamed, there must be appropriate consequences. Members of Congress often make demonstrations of shaming CEOs who have harmed the common good, but they're typically no more than shaming rituals for the cameras."
• "If we're serious about restoring the common good, congressional shaming must be followed by legislation and criminal prosecutions that confirm the standard of behavior we expect."
• "Private morality concerns what people do in private, often involving sex--sex between unmarried people or gay people, adultery, contraception, abortion, gay marriage, even which bathroom a transgendered person must use. Public morality involves what people do when they hold positions of power and public trust."
• "The erosion of the common good over the past decades, however, suggests that such moral consciousness has waned. Society must buttress it, and in so doing remind others of acceptable limits."
• "Setting the kind of limits society depends on requires public moral judgment. Just as we shouldn't be reluctant to celebrate behavior that exemplifies public morality, we shouldn't be reticent in condemning behavior that undermines it."
• "Moral guidance about what is right or decent can be found both in religious teachings and in our contemporary understanding of what we owe one another as members of the same society."
• "A public morality that protects our democratic institutions, cherishes the truth, accepts our differences, ensures equal rights and equal opportunity, and invites passionate engagement in our civic life gives our own lives deeper meaning. It enlarges our capacities for attachment and love. It informs our sense of honor and shame, It equips us to be virtuous citizens."
• "America still bestows lots of honors and wields heaps of shame, but they're too often disconnected from the moral basis of society. If we're serious about reestablishing the moral foundation of our life together, we must change how and whom we honor or shame, and reconnect these practices to the good we hold in common. And what we do in our own society should be a guide for what we do in the world."