Does the Arc of the Moral Universe Really Bend Toward Justice?
Martin Luther King Jr.'s oft-quoted phrase isn't that simple
A holistic consideration of suffering in the United States (and many other places) requires wrestling with the complexities of racial discrimination, injustice, and progress in general. It seems appropriate to devote some thought to it especially today as we Americans observe Martin Luther King Jr. Day, and my mind goes to his oft-quoted phrase, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”
It’s a popular phrase, due in part to former U.S. President Barack Obama’s fondness for it. Obama liked it so much that in the late summer of 2010, he included it as one of five quotes woven into a new rug in the Oval Office.
Obama frequently invoked the quote (which apparently was originally said by 19th-century abolitionist Theodore Parker), and I don’t blame him necessarily. In some ways, I really like it and the hopeful, optimistic vision it paints of the future. And yet both in King’s usage and in reality, the idea of the arc of the moral universe bending toward justice is both more profound and more complex than those who quote King (or Parker) typically imply.
In this essay, I suggest two sets of ways in which we might consider “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice” beyond simply those words in isolation. First, we must be careful to not confuse the bending of the arc of the moral universe toward justice as implying inevitability or to use the phrase as a cudgel to assert that we ourselves are necessarily on the “right side of history.” Second, King’s usage of this idea is one that is profoundly spiritual in nature—we must not forget that he was Baptist minister who held a Ph.D. in systematic theology from Boston University—and considering the quote in that context can be a thought-provoking exercise.
Inevitability and the Nature of “Progress”
A first set of problems to consider regarding “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice” involves the implication (or perhaps the inference by some) of inevitability and the fraught nature of “progress.” When I set aside the rhetorical beauty of the phrase and its emotional appeal to my instincts, I find myself thinking about several questions, including: What is the “moral universe”? How long is the “arc” that we’re talking about? What is “justice” and who decides?
Regarding the nature of the “moral universe,” it seems to me that the answer is better situated in the spiritual realm than in the sociopolitical arena, which I unpack briefly in the next section. Regarding the length of the arc, it raises the question of how long might that arc be? Will there come a point at which all creation enjoys perfect justice? These too are perhaps questions of a spiritual nature.
I will not attempt here to offer a definition of “justice” (not to mention “Justice”), but I do suggest that it’s a tremendously important idea for society. At the same time, deciding what constitutes “justice” or “progress” is fraught. If I say that something is fair or the best way forward but you think the opposite, who wins? Similarly, some people are quick to assert that policy positions or ideas are on the right or wrong “side of history.” Even if I granted that some things are definitively right or wrong, saying that something should be done because it’s on the “right side of history” often serves as a way to shut down debate or to denigrate alternative viewpoints—because who wants to be on the “wrong” side of history?
Writing in The Atlantic specifically about this King quote and Obama’s use of it, David Graham asserts: “The problem with this kind of thinking is that it imputes an agency to history that doesn’t exist. Worse, it assumes that progress is unidirectional. But history is not a moral force in and of itself, and it has no set course.”
Setting aside the question of how we as a society decide what constitutes “progress,” it seems important to remind ourselves that making life better—whatever that means—requires effort.
As Mychal Denzel Smith wrote,
This use of the quotation, though, carries the risk of magical thinking. After all, if the arc of the moral universe will inevitably bend toward justice, then there is no reason for us to work toward that justice, as it’s preordained. If it is only a matter of cosmic influence, if there is no human role, then we are off the hook. This isn’t how King meant it, as evidenced by the work to which he dedicated his own life.
What might we do instead? Take thoughtful action. Seek to understand the world and its people. Change how we see the world in our own minds, and then work for positive change in our close relationships, our workplaces, our communities, and beyond. I’m fairly certain King would agree. As Mother Teresa said in her speech accepting the 1979 Nobel Peace Prize:
And so, my prayer for you is that truth will bring prayer in our homes, and the fruit of prayer will be that we believe that in the poor, it is Christ. And if we really believe, we will begin to love. And if we love, naturally, we will try to do something. First in our own home, our next door neighbor, in the country we live, in the whole world.
The Moral Universe is Profoundly Spiritual
Understanding most things requires context. And although I’m neither a King scholar nor a historian, it appears that he used the “arc of the moral universe” phrase on several occasions, and at least some of those occasions were within a speech titled, “Remaining Awake Through a Great Revolution.” One instance in which he delivered that speech was in his commencement address at Oberlin College in June 1965. Here’s what he said leading up to that famous quote:
We sing a little song in our struggle - you've heard it - We Shall Overcome. And by that we do not mean that we shall overcome the white man. In the struggle for racial justice the Negro must not seek to rise from a position of disadvantage to one of advantage, to substitute one tyranny for another. A doctrine of black supremacy is as dangerous as a doctrine of white supremacy. God is not interested in the freedom of black men or brown men or yellow men. God is interested in the freedom of the whole human race, the creation of a society where every man will respect the dignity and worth of personality. So when we sing We Shall Overcome, we are singing a hymn of faith, a hymn of optimism, a hymn of faith in the future.
I can still sing that song because I have faith in the future. I believe that we, as Negroes, are going to gain our freedom in America because the goal of America is freedom. Abused and scorned though we may be, our destiny is tied up with the destiny of America. Before the Pilgrim fathers landed at Plymouth we were here; before Thomas Jefferson etched across the pages of history the majestic words of the Declaration of Independence we were here; before the words of the Star-Spangled Banner were written we were here. For more than two centuries our forbears labored here without wages. They made cotton king; they built the homes of their masters; in the midst of the most oppressive conditions they continued to grow and develop. Certainly if the inexpressible cruelties of slavery couldn't stop us, the opposition that we now face will surely fail. We will win our freedom because both the sacred heritage of our nation and the eternal will of God are embodied in our echoing demands.
Yes, we shall overcome because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.
The full quote above is rich with ideas and imagery, but two that seem relevant to the question at hand are (1) the “sacred” heritage of America and (2) the “eternal will of God.”
The “Sacred” Heritage of America
What might King have meant by referring to the heritage of the United States as “sacred?” I don’t know for sure, but drawing from the context, it appears to refer to having faith in the special, self-correcting nature of the American experiment—something that calls us to something better than our often-profane default. That “sacred heritage” is “embodied” in his demand for civil rights. Namely, he connects his fight with what America fundamentally stands for “because the goal of America is freedom.”
Certainly, King also recognizes “the expressible cruelties of slavery.” And in doing so he draws a contrast between those cruelties including the injustices under their shadow and America’s values. The moral universe in this way, therefore, is one that extends from those stated values toward one in which those values are both stated and lived.
The “Eternal Will of God”
Even more obviously spiritual in nature is King’s appeal to the “eternal will of God” as a bulwark for his demands. In so doing, he evokes the idea that morality itself has a root in the divine. One could argue that King is suggesting that God is the reason for the moral arc of the universe. I’m sympathetic to that view, although I do not think one necessarily needs to be a theist in order to have ethical principles.
Furthermore, if the moral arc of the universe is something connected with the sacred and divine, then it implies that this arc eventually bends toward justice because that is indeed the Christian story of suffering and redemption. It does not abdicate personal effort or responsibility, but it provides hope—assurance that those efforts will not be in vain, even if they seem like it in the short run.
My aim here is not to reconcile, compare, nor contrast these ideas with those in the current zeitgeist. Rather, as a reflection on Martin Luther King Jr. Day, I find value in considering his words in context, and in so doing, to have bit more motivation and a bit more hope when it comes to the future of our world.
So does the arc of the moral universe really bend toward justice? I’d like to think so. But it requires work, and faith helps.