Pub Date : 2019-11-07DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190051686.003.0006
Thomas J. Donahue-Ochoa
Chapter 5 mounts the main argument of the book to show that oppression makes everyone unfree. The main ideas are that oppressions are despotic over their victims, that they can endure only if they try to suppress all actual or potential resistance, that any institutional feature of society that suppresses resistance has established authority, that institutional features with established authority are central social institutions, while suppressing resistance to central social institutions counts as authoritarian tactics used against everyone, that such tactics count as arbitrary power, and that to be subjected to such power is to be subjected to unfreedom of the kind theorized by neo-republicans and Hayekian competitive-order theorists. And since we all have a decent-life interest in freedom from arbitrary power, we are all harmed by such oppression, since it sets back this interest for everyone in society.
{"title":"How Injustices Harm You","authors":"Thomas J. Donahue-Ochoa","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190051686.003.0006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190051686.003.0006","url":null,"abstract":"Chapter 5 mounts the main argument of the book to show that oppression makes everyone unfree. The main ideas are that oppressions are despotic over their victims, that they can endure only if they try to suppress all actual or potential resistance, that any institutional feature of society that suppresses resistance has established authority, that institutional features with established authority are central social institutions, while suppressing resistance to central social institutions counts as authoritarian tactics used against everyone, that such tactics count as arbitrary power, and that to be subjected to such power is to be subjected to unfreedom of the kind theorized by neo-republicans and Hayekian competitive-order theorists. And since we all have a decent-life interest in freedom from arbitrary power, we are all harmed by such oppression, since it sets back this interest for everyone in society.","PeriodicalId":221809,"journal":{"name":"Unfreedom for All","volume":"93 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122933812","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-11-07DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190051686.003.0004
Thomas J. Donahue-Ochoa
Chapter 3 considers the received view’s answers to the book’s final two questions, as well as the answers given by rival theories to all five of its questions. It begins by challenging three rival theories of the responsibility to combat injustice. These ground it in a duty of universal altruism or equity, in duties we acquire if we could at least potentially harm the injustice’s victims, or in the theory that oppression makes both the oppressed and the oppressor unfree, so that both have reason to abolish it. The chapter then challenges the received view’s theory that only the victim group are made unfree by oppression, as well as the theory saying that the unfree are the oppressor and the oppressed. It concludes by challenging theories holding that oppression’s ultimate harm is that it alienates or dehumanizes victims, constrains them from achieving their potential, or prevents them from living as free equals.
{"title":"The Received View and Its Rivals","authors":"Thomas J. Donahue-Ochoa","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190051686.003.0004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190051686.003.0004","url":null,"abstract":"Chapter 3 considers the received view’s answers to the book’s final two questions, as well as the answers given by rival theories to all five of its questions. It begins by challenging three rival theories of the responsibility to combat injustice. These ground it in a duty of universal altruism or equity, in duties we acquire if we could at least potentially harm the injustice’s victims, or in the theory that oppression makes both the oppressed and the oppressor unfree, so that both have reason to abolish it. The chapter then challenges the received view’s theory that only the victim group are made unfree by oppression, as well as the theory saying that the unfree are the oppressor and the oppressed. It concludes by challenging theories holding that oppression’s ultimate harm is that it alienates or dehumanizes victims, constrains them from achieving their potential, or prevents them from living as free equals.","PeriodicalId":221809,"journal":{"name":"Unfreedom for All","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128202593","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-11-07DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190051686.003.0002
Thomas J. Donahue-Ochoa
Chapter 1 argues that careful diagnosis of injustices is central to understanding what to do about them. This requires differential diagnosis: the comparative assessment of different diagnoses of injustice. Yet present-day political theory treats such diagnostics as only a marginal task, even though past political theory considered it central. Chapter 1 undermines this marginalization, by tracing it to the tradition begun by John Rawls and its faulty practice of non-ideal theory. It argues that by the tradition’s own principles, non-ideal theory cannot succeed without such diagnostics. The chapter then recuperates such diagnostics by describing the leading theories of systematic injustice. These theories constitute the closest thing we have to a nosology (the classification of diseases) and pathology (the study of disease in general) of systematic injustice. If we wish to see political theory once again take seriously the differential diagnosis of injustices, then it will have to take these theories seriously.
{"title":"The Diagnostics of Injustice","authors":"Thomas J. Donahue-Ochoa","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190051686.003.0002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190051686.003.0002","url":null,"abstract":"Chapter 1 argues that careful diagnosis of injustices is central to understanding what to do about them. This requires differential diagnosis: the comparative assessment of different diagnoses of injustice. Yet present-day political theory treats such diagnostics as only a marginal task, even though past political theory considered it central. Chapter 1 undermines this marginalization, by tracing it to the tradition begun by John Rawls and its faulty practice of non-ideal theory. It argues that by the tradition’s own principles, non-ideal theory cannot succeed without such diagnostics. The chapter then recuperates such diagnostics by describing the leading theories of systematic injustice. These theories constitute the closest thing we have to a nosology (the classification of diseases) and pathology (the study of disease in general) of systematic injustice. If we wish to see political theory once again take seriously the differential diagnosis of injustices, then it will have to take these theories seriously.","PeriodicalId":221809,"journal":{"name":"Unfreedom for All","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126614561","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-11-07DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190051686.003.0003
Thomas J. Donahue-Ochoa
Chapter 2 examines the view that prevails among the world’s liberal elites on the book’s questions. Specifically, it examines this received view’s theories of the nature of systematic injustice, whether there are global systematic injustices, and the duty to challenge injustice. The received view argues that oppression or systematic injustice is mainly a form of political subjugation of a group, done chiefly by the state. It argues that there are no global systematic injustices, because a systematic injustice can implicate only those people over whom some agency claims political authority, and no agency claims political authority over the whole globe. And it argues that when groups have duties to challenge injustice, this does not imply that their individual members do, and vice versa. As a result, the view has nothing to say about when individuals should join in solidarity against injustice. Ironically, the view thereby sets groups free: rather than Leviathans composed of atomistic individuals jealous of their liberties, groups become Gullivers released from the Lilliputians’ bonds. The chapter then argues that this results in dangerously unchecked groups and a shortfall of responsible agents.
{"title":"Against the Received View","authors":"Thomas J. Donahue-Ochoa","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190051686.003.0003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190051686.003.0003","url":null,"abstract":"Chapter 2 examines the view that prevails among the world’s liberal elites on the book’s questions. Specifically, it examines this received view’s theories of the nature of systematic injustice, whether there are global systematic injustices, and the duty to challenge injustice. The received view argues that oppression or systematic injustice is mainly a form of political subjugation of a group, done chiefly by the state. It argues that there are no global systematic injustices, because a systematic injustice can implicate only those people over whom some agency claims political authority, and no agency claims political authority over the whole globe. And it argues that when groups have duties to challenge injustice, this does not imply that their individual members do, and vice versa. As a result, the view has nothing to say about when individuals should join in solidarity against injustice. Ironically, the view thereby sets groups free: rather than Leviathans composed of atomistic individuals jealous of their liberties, groups become Gullivers released from the Lilliputians’ bonds. The chapter then argues that this results in dangerously unchecked groups and a shortfall of responsible agents.","PeriodicalId":221809,"journal":{"name":"Unfreedom for All","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133795464","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-11-07DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190051686.003.0008
Thomas J. Donahue-Ochoa
Chapter 7 offers a differential diagnosis of global racial injustice. Against Charles W. Mills’s theory that we live under global white supremacy, the chapter argues that the white racial group no longer dominates all other racial groups in the world. In particular, those raced as yellow by global society—roughly, East Asians and their descendants—are no longer dominated by racial whites and whiteness. More than this, the supreme political and social status enjoyed by whites over all other racial groups is also waning. The chapter therefore argues that our global racial order is best understood as a system of “partitioned white primacy.” In this system, racial whites exert racial primacy over racial reds, browns, and blacks; but the system is partitioned, because whites do not exert such primacy over those raced as yellow. Moreover, such primacy as whites do exert over other racial groups is less than supremacy, and it is even now being challenged. The chapter then shows how such primacy still suppresses resistance and thereby makes all unfree.
第7章提供了全球种族不公正的鉴别诊断。针对查尔斯·w·米尔斯(Charles W. Mills)关于我们生活在全球白人至上主义下的理论，本章认为，白人种族群体不再主宰世界上所有其他种族群体。特别是那些被全球社会视为黄种人的人——大致说来就是东亚人和他们的后代——不再被白人和白人所统治。不仅如此，白人比其他种族享有的最高政治和社会地位也在减弱。因此，本章认为，我们的全球种族秩序最好被理解为一种“被分割的白人至上”的体系。在这一体系中，白人凌驾于黑人、棕色人种和黑人之上;但是这个体系是分裂的，因为白人并不像黄种人那样凌驾于种族之上。此外，白人对其他种族群体所施加的这种首要地位算不上至高无上，甚至现在还在受到挑战。然后，本章展示了这种首要地位如何仍然压制抵抗，从而使一切不自由。
{"title":"The Global Racial Order","authors":"Thomas J. Donahue-Ochoa","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190051686.003.0008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190051686.003.0008","url":null,"abstract":"Chapter 7 offers a differential diagnosis of global racial injustice. Against Charles W. Mills’s theory that we live under global white supremacy, the chapter argues that the white racial group no longer dominates all other racial groups in the world. In particular, those raced as yellow by global society—roughly, East Asians and their descendants—are no longer dominated by racial whites and whiteness. More than this, the supreme political and social status enjoyed by whites over all other racial groups is also waning. The chapter therefore argues that our global racial order is best understood as a system of “partitioned white primacy.” In this system, racial whites exert racial primacy over racial reds, browns, and blacks; but the system is partitioned, because whites do not exert such primacy over those raced as yellow. Moreover, such primacy as whites do exert over other racial groups is less than supremacy, and it is even now being challenged. The chapter then shows how such primacy still suppresses resistance and thereby makes all unfree.","PeriodicalId":221809,"journal":{"name":"Unfreedom for All","volume":"55 2","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121004744","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-11-07DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190051686.003.0007
Thomas J. Donahue-Ochoa
Chapter 6 begins the task of diagnosing global injustices. It argues that we are witnessing both the decline of national systems of patriarchy and the rise of a system of global male supremacy. The chapter argues that the latter is a global systematic injustice in which (i) men are not subjected to high degrees of economic exploitation or economic marginalization by other groups in that society, while women are; (ii) women’s political voices are marginalized in world society, while men’s are centered; (iii) men are not subject to systematic violence or predation in world society, while women are; and (iv) the dominant norms of global society unjustly favor men, so that men are exalted by satisfying them and women degraded by failing to meet them; this happens both through a male-centered cultural imperialism and the effects of an ideology of gender inferiority. The chapter then shows how this system suppresses anyone’s actual or potential resistance to it and thus subjects everyone to arbitrary power.
{"title":"The Decline of National Patriarchy and the Rise of Global Male Supremacy","authors":"Thomas J. Donahue-Ochoa","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190051686.003.0007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190051686.003.0007","url":null,"abstract":"Chapter 6 begins the task of diagnosing global injustices. It argues that we are witnessing both the decline of national systems of patriarchy and the rise of a system of global male supremacy. The chapter argues that the latter is a global systematic injustice in which (i) men are not subjected to high degrees of economic exploitation or economic marginalization by other groups in that society, while women are; (ii) women’s political voices are marginalized in world society, while men’s are centered; (iii) men are not subject to systematic violence or predation in world society, while women are; and (iv) the dominant norms of global society unjustly favor men, so that men are exalted by satisfying them and women degraded by failing to meet them; this happens both through a male-centered cultural imperialism and the effects of an ideology of gender inferiority. The chapter then shows how this system suppresses anyone’s actual or potential resistance to it and thus subjects everyone to arbitrary power.","PeriodicalId":221809,"journal":{"name":"Unfreedom for All","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130119255","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-11-07DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190051686.003.0010
Thomas J. Donahue-Ochoa
What should be our main reason for resisting oppression? In answer, chapter 9 argues that the universal unfreedom caused by oppression should be that reason, because we should seek a reason that will maximally appeal to the oppression’s non-victims, inducing them to resist and challenge it. For robust solidarity among a critical mass of the victims, the bystanders, and the perpetrators is necessary for abolishing systematic injustice and thus also for ending universal unfreedom. And because of the suspicion and mistrust that are likely to obtain in such a mixed resistance, we need a reason for challenging injustice that describes a shared harm the injustice does them all. The reason is that only a sense of such a shared harm could underwrite the robust and mutual solidarity needed to abolish oppression. Hence those non-victims who join in such solidarity are not allies but rather fellows who are also harmed: they are the scathed.
{"title":"Solidarity, Universal Unfreedom, and You","authors":"Thomas J. Donahue-Ochoa","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190051686.003.0010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190051686.003.0010","url":null,"abstract":"What should be our main reason for resisting oppression? In answer, chapter 9 argues that the universal unfreedom caused by oppression should be that reason, because we should seek a reason that will maximally appeal to the oppression’s non-victims, inducing them to resist and challenge it. For robust solidarity among a critical mass of the victims, the bystanders, and the perpetrators is necessary for abolishing systematic injustice and thus also for ending universal unfreedom. And because of the suspicion and mistrust that are likely to obtain in such a mixed resistance, we need a reason for challenging injustice that describes a shared harm the injustice does them all. The reason is that only a sense of such a shared harm could underwrite the robust and mutual solidarity needed to abolish oppression. Hence those non-victims who join in such solidarity are not allies but rather fellows who are also harmed: they are the scathed.","PeriodicalId":221809,"journal":{"name":"Unfreedom for All","volume":"46 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126684071","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-11-07DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190051686.003.0005
Thomas J. Donahue-Ochoa
Chapter 4 begins the defense of Unfreedom for All by laying out its theory of the nature of systematic injustice and of the harm it does its victims. The theory maintains that systematic injustice can be either the political subjugation described by the received view or structural injustice. Structural injustice is an institutional arrangement in which one group is unjustly privileged and another unjustly harmed by centering or marginalizing of the group’s political voice, exploitation of the victims that benefits the privileged, systematic violence done the victims but not the privileged, and society’s having dominant norms that unjustly favor the privileged and harm the victims. The chapter then offers an account of how systematic injustices compare to other injustices in what it calls “the scale of wrong-doing” and then argues that the harm oppression does its victims is that it sets back one of their fundamental welfare interests.
{"title":"Systematic Injustice and the Scale of Wrong-doing","authors":"Thomas J. Donahue-Ochoa","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190051686.003.0005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190051686.003.0005","url":null,"abstract":"Chapter 4 begins the defense of Unfreedom for All by laying out its theory of the nature of systematic injustice and of the harm it does its victims. The theory maintains that systematic injustice can be either the political subjugation described by the received view or structural injustice. Structural injustice is an institutional arrangement in which one group is unjustly privileged and another unjustly harmed by centering or marginalizing of the group’s political voice, exploitation of the victims that benefits the privileged, systematic violence done the victims but not the privileged, and society’s having dominant norms that unjustly favor the privileged and harm the victims. The chapter then offers an account of how systematic injustices compare to other injustices in what it calls “the scale of wrong-doing” and then argues that the harm oppression does its victims is that it sets back one of their fundamental welfare interests.","PeriodicalId":221809,"journal":{"name":"Unfreedom for All","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124334078","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-11-07DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190051686.003.0009
Thomas J. Donahue-Ochoa
What is the severest harm suffered by the global poor? Against theories saying that it is social exclusion, corrosive disadvantage, or humiliating personal failure, chapter 8 argues that the harm is that such poverty entangles the poor in a web of crises. The poor are caught up in a spider’s web of agonizing decisions and moral dilemmas, brought on by their poverty. Day in and day out, they face these crises. If they make good decisions, it is probable that their only reward is to continue in their deprived state. If they make poor decisions, then disaster will likely strike. And they know that the next day will bring more crises, and the next yet more. It is this, along with knowing that there are many others in the world who are not so entangled, because they are not poor, that is the severest harm of the injustice of global poverty. The chapter then shows how that injustice suppresses everyone’s potential resistance to it, and thus makes all unfree.
{"title":"Global Poverty’s Harm","authors":"Thomas J. Donahue-Ochoa","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190051686.003.0009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190051686.003.0009","url":null,"abstract":"What is the severest harm suffered by the global poor? Against theories saying that it is social exclusion, corrosive disadvantage, or humiliating personal failure, chapter 8 argues that the harm is that such poverty entangles the poor in a web of crises. The poor are caught up in a spider’s web of agonizing decisions and moral dilemmas, brought on by their poverty. Day in and day out, they face these crises. If they make good decisions, it is probable that their only reward is to continue in their deprived state. If they make poor decisions, then disaster will likely strike. And they know that the next day will bring more crises, and the next yet more. It is this, along with knowing that there are many others in the world who are not so entangled, because they are not poor, that is the severest harm of the injustice of global poverty. The chapter then shows how that injustice suppresses everyone’s potential resistance to it, and thus makes all unfree.","PeriodicalId":221809,"journal":{"name":"Unfreedom for All","volume":"98 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127098478","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：