Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/17449626.2022.2073702
C. Koggel, A. Harbin, Jennifer J. Llewellyn
Accounts of human beings as essentially social have had a long history in philosophy as reflected in the Ancient Greeks; in African and Asian philosophy; in Modern European thinkers such as Mary Wollstonecraft, David Hume, Adam Smith, and Karl Marx; in continental philosophy; in pragmatism; in Indigenous thought, and in contemporary communitarian theories. It can be said, then, that the language of relational theory has taken a variety of forms. That relational theory is broad and captures various threads in the history of philosophy is captured in the main title of this special issue, Relational Theory. That this special issue zeroes in on the distinctive features and contributions of feminist relational theory is captured in the subtitle, Feminist Approaches, Implications, and Applications, and explained in this introduction. This special issue of Journal of Global Ethics is devoted to exploring, extending, applying, and deepening relational insights emerging from today’s feminist relational theory. In general terms, relational theory can be contrasted with Modern and especially Western liberal accounts of the human being that take the primary unit of analysis to be the individual, who is owed certain rights and freedoms to pursue a rational plan of life without undue interference from the state or others. Along with other anti-oppression theorists, feminist relational theorists have entered these debates about the ontological status of human beings by offering relational accounts of people as necessarily born into and shaped by and acting in and through relationships. By using relationships as the focal point for description and the unit of analyses for moral and political theory, these relational theorists have provided critical perspectives on accounts that have focused on either sociality as such or on individualism to describe human beings and they have teased out moral and political implications and applications. We begin this introduction with a word on how this collection came together. Encouraged by fellow co-lead editor of the journal, Eric Palmer, this special issue is a credit to the vision of one of its guest editors Christine Koggel. Koggel has been a significant force in the development of the field of feminist relational theory and has brought particular attention to its transformative significance for global ethics. Koggel brought Ami Harbin and Jennifer Llewellyn on board as guest editors to give additional content and substance to contemporary accounts of relational theory and, more specifically, to articulate what is distinctive and important about contemporary feminist relational theory. Our experience of one
{"title":"Feminist relational theory","authors":"C. Koggel, A. Harbin, Jennifer J. Llewellyn","doi":"10.1080/17449626.2022.2073702","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449626.2022.2073702","url":null,"abstract":"Accounts of human beings as essentially social have had a long history in philosophy as reflected in the Ancient Greeks; in African and Asian philosophy; in Modern European thinkers such as Mary Wollstonecraft, David Hume, Adam Smith, and Karl Marx; in continental philosophy; in pragmatism; in Indigenous thought, and in contemporary communitarian theories. It can be said, then, that the language of relational theory has taken a variety of forms. That relational theory is broad and captures various threads in the history of philosophy is captured in the main title of this special issue, Relational Theory. That this special issue zeroes in on the distinctive features and contributions of feminist relational theory is captured in the subtitle, Feminist Approaches, Implications, and Applications, and explained in this introduction. This special issue of Journal of Global Ethics is devoted to exploring, extending, applying, and deepening relational insights emerging from today’s feminist relational theory. In general terms, relational theory can be contrasted with Modern and especially Western liberal accounts of the human being that take the primary unit of analysis to be the individual, who is owed certain rights and freedoms to pursue a rational plan of life without undue interference from the state or others. Along with other anti-oppression theorists, feminist relational theorists have entered these debates about the ontological status of human beings by offering relational accounts of people as necessarily born into and shaped by and acting in and through relationships. By using relationships as the focal point for description and the unit of analyses for moral and political theory, these relational theorists have provided critical perspectives on accounts that have focused on either sociality as such or on individualism to describe human beings and they have teased out moral and political implications and applications. We begin this introduction with a word on how this collection came together. Encouraged by fellow co-lead editor of the journal, Eric Palmer, this special issue is a credit to the vision of one of its guest editors Christine Koggel. Koggel has been a significant force in the development of the field of feminist relational theory and has brought particular attention to its transformative significance for global ethics. Koggel brought Ami Harbin and Jennifer Llewellyn on board as guest editors to give additional content and substance to contemporary accounts of relational theory and, more specifically, to articulate what is distinctive and important about contemporary feminist relational theory. Our experience of one","PeriodicalId":35191,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Global Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45516280","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 : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/17449626.2022.2053562
Sarah C. Miller
ABSTRACT My aim in this paper is to move toward a relational moral theory of harm through examination of a common yet underexplored form of child maltreatment: childhood psychological abuse. I draw on relational theory to consider agential, intrapersonal, and interpersonal ways in which relational harms develop and evolve both in intimate relationships and in conditions of oppression. I set forth three distinctive yet interconnected forms of relational harm that childhood psychological abuse causes: harm to the relational agency of individuals, harm to the relationships individuals hold with themselves, especially with regard to how they respect, know, and trust themselves, and harm to interpersonal relationships of both a direct and indirect nature in present and future timeframes. I close by noting that while relationships can be the site of human brutality that destroys the relational self, paradoxically and promisingly, they also can be a primary means of the relational reconstitution of the self. Ultimately, relational analyses of the harms of childhood psychological abuse reveal several key elements of a relational theory of harm and demonstrate the significance of relational harms for moral philosophy.
{"title":"Toward a relational theory of harm: on the ethical implications of childhood psychological abuse","authors":"Sarah C. Miller","doi":"10.1080/17449626.2022.2053562","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449626.2022.2053562","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT My aim in this paper is to move toward a relational moral theory of harm through examination of a common yet underexplored form of child maltreatment: childhood psychological abuse. I draw on relational theory to consider agential, intrapersonal, and interpersonal ways in which relational harms develop and evolve both in intimate relationships and in conditions of oppression. I set forth three distinctive yet interconnected forms of relational harm that childhood psychological abuse causes: harm to the relational agency of individuals, harm to the relationships individuals hold with themselves, especially with regard to how they respect, know, and trust themselves, and harm to interpersonal relationships of both a direct and indirect nature in present and future timeframes. I close by noting that while relationships can be the site of human brutality that destroys the relational self, paradoxically and promisingly, they also can be a primary means of the relational reconstitution of the self. Ultimately, relational analyses of the harms of childhood psychological abuse reveal several key elements of a relational theory of harm and demonstrate the significance of relational harms for moral philosophy.","PeriodicalId":35191,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Global Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43246830","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 : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/17449626.2022.2054844
Jennifer Szende
ABSTRACT This article draws on the insight that people and communities have fundamental relationships with place. People are defined and shaped by place; and place is, in turn, defined and shaped by communities of people. Insofar as climate change changes the nature and experience of place, it can undermine the relationship between people and place, and thereby has the potential to affect the identity of either or both. A place, or the land, may change any one of its fundamental characteristics in a variety of ways, and in so doing, may fundamentally transform its identity. Whereas the paradigmatic injustice of climate change has often been described primarily in terms of spaces that cease to be habitable such as island nations lost to rising sea levels, changing climatic characteristics are also known to result in desertification, destabilized rainfall patterns, shifts in migratory patterns, extinction of species, loss of biodiversity, erosion, increased fire risk, and other large-scale changes to the land that remains. A relational understanding of climate change reveals the harms of climate change to be both much more fundamental, and much more ubiquitous.
{"title":"Relational value, land, and climate justice","authors":"Jennifer Szende","doi":"10.1080/17449626.2022.2054844","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449626.2022.2054844","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article draws on the insight that people and communities have fundamental relationships with place. People are defined and shaped by place; and place is, in turn, defined and shaped by communities of people. Insofar as climate change changes the nature and experience of place, it can undermine the relationship between people and place, and thereby has the potential to affect the identity of either or both. A place, or the land, may change any one of its fundamental characteristics in a variety of ways, and in so doing, may fundamentally transform its identity. Whereas the paradigmatic injustice of climate change has often been described primarily in terms of spaces that cease to be habitable such as island nations lost to rising sea levels, changing climatic characteristics are also known to result in desertification, destabilized rainfall patterns, shifts in migratory patterns, extinction of species, loss of biodiversity, erosion, increased fire risk, and other large-scale changes to the land that remains. A relational understanding of climate change reveals the harms of climate change to be both much more fundamental, and much more ubiquitous.","PeriodicalId":35191,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Global Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43924093","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 : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/17449626.2022.2052155
S. Murphy
ABSTRACT In this paper I use a feminist relational approach to critically examine contemporary mainstream assumptions in the field of development concerning the relationship between poverty and prosperity. I show how these assumptions underpin the policies and practices of poverty alleviation within international development institutions. I argue that when prosperity is understood as a condition of independence actualized through processes of maximum extraction, exploitation, and accumulation, the persistence of poverty and continued exploitation of social and ecological systems seems inevitable. This analysis reveals how the processes of defining and measuring poverty and prosperity as discrete conditions, binary opposites on a development spectrum masks the relational nature of poverty and prosperity whereby the pursuit of prosperity in global capitalist systems drives the production of poverty across spaces and places. Further, it ignores the ecological embeddedness and social interdependence of human beings for existence, survival, and well-being. The paper provides insights from a feminist relational perspective on the possibilities of thinking about prosperity beyond extractionism.
{"title":"The relationship between poverty and prosperity: a feminist relational account","authors":"S. Murphy","doi":"10.1080/17449626.2022.2052155","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449626.2022.2052155","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In this paper I use a feminist relational approach to critically examine contemporary mainstream assumptions in the field of development concerning the relationship between poverty and prosperity. I show how these assumptions underpin the policies and practices of poverty alleviation within international development institutions. I argue that when prosperity is understood as a condition of independence actualized through processes of maximum extraction, exploitation, and accumulation, the persistence of poverty and continued exploitation of social and ecological systems seems inevitable. This analysis reveals how the processes of defining and measuring poverty and prosperity as discrete conditions, binary opposites on a development spectrum masks the relational nature of poverty and prosperity whereby the pursuit of prosperity in global capitalist systems drives the production of poverty across spaces and places. Further, it ignores the ecological embeddedness and social interdependence of human beings for existence, survival, and well-being. The paper provides insights from a feminist relational perspective on the possibilities of thinking about prosperity beyond extractionism.","PeriodicalId":35191,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Global Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44958873","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 : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/17449626.2022.2052152
Felicity Gray
Abstract The direct protection of civilians from the violence and harms of armed conflict is most often understood in fixed, identity-centred terms: of what protection is, where it is located, of who provides it, who receives it. Such analyses often conceal the relational nature of civilian protection: how it is co-created by actors in and through their relationships with one another and the protection architectures they operate within. In this article, I explore how a feminist relational approach helps to illuminate these underacknowledged dynamics of civilian protection. Using protection of civilians in the context of the civil war in South Sudan as an example, I highlight how relationships shape protection, and how a relational approach can illuminate a richer view of protection actors, action, and spaces. Drawing from the example of United Nations police mass cordon and search activities, I also demonstrate how relationships between peacekeepers and displaced communities are shaped by protection architectures. I argue that a relational approach can illuminate unjust structures, create important opportunities for new research, and assist in questioning and reorienting dominant peacekeeping strategies.
{"title":"Protection as connection: feminist relational theory and protecting civilians from violence in South Sudan","authors":"Felicity Gray","doi":"10.1080/17449626.2022.2052152","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449626.2022.2052152","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The direct protection of civilians from the violence and harms of armed conflict is most often understood in fixed, identity-centred terms: of what protection is, where it is located, of who provides it, who receives it. Such analyses often conceal the relational nature of civilian protection: how it is co-created by actors in and through their relationships with one another and the protection architectures they operate within. In this article, I explore how a feminist relational approach helps to illuminate these underacknowledged dynamics of civilian protection. Using protection of civilians in the context of the civil war in South Sudan as an example, I highlight how relationships shape protection, and how a relational approach can illuminate a richer view of protection actors, action, and spaces. Drawing from the example of United Nations police mass cordon and search activities, I also demonstrate how relationships between peacekeepers and displaced communities are shaped by protection architectures. I argue that a relational approach can illuminate unjust structures, create important opportunities for new research, and assist in questioning and reorienting dominant peacekeeping strategies.","PeriodicalId":35191,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Global Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41920467","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 : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/17449626.2022.2052154
Lara K. Schubert
ABSTRACT Feminist relational theory can provide a theoretical framework for understanding and affirming the agency of women Cambodian religious leaders; an agency that can be overlooked if one assumes it comes from an individual whose core essence can be found apart from her relationships. In this paper, I draw on ethnographic fieldwork to spotlight the lives and values of two Cambodian women. These women are recognized as acting subjects in their communities due to their multiple relationships on interpersonal, institutional, and structural levels. Through analysis of participant observations and interviews with these women, I show the power of employing feminist relational theory’s explanation of the agential subject while affirming the possibility of non-oppositional agency. The move to the latter is characteristic of postsecular feminist scholarship, which decouples resistance from agency. Using these two theoretical lenses to analyze Cambodian women’s experience reveals how these women are flourishing apart from hegemonic structures and logics. This flourishing has been named ‘re-existence’ in decolonial thought, and it might also be thought of as a postsecular analogue to a secular resistance.
{"title":"‘Re-existence’ of women Cambodian religious leaders: decolonial possibilities using insights from feminist relational theory and postsecular feminism","authors":"Lara K. Schubert","doi":"10.1080/17449626.2022.2052154","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449626.2022.2052154","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Feminist relational theory can provide a theoretical framework for understanding and affirming the agency of women Cambodian religious leaders; an agency that can be overlooked if one assumes it comes from an individual whose core essence can be found apart from her relationships. In this paper, I draw on ethnographic fieldwork to spotlight the lives and values of two Cambodian women. These women are recognized as acting subjects in their communities due to their multiple relationships on interpersonal, institutional, and structural levels. Through analysis of participant observations and interviews with these women, I show the power of employing feminist relational theory’s explanation of the agential subject while affirming the possibility of non-oppositional agency. The move to the latter is characteristic of postsecular feminist scholarship, which decouples resistance from agency. Using these two theoretical lenses to analyze Cambodian women’s experience reveals how these women are flourishing apart from hegemonic structures and logics. This flourishing has been named ‘re-existence’ in decolonial thought, and it might also be thought of as a postsecular analogue to a secular resistance.","PeriodicalId":35191,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Global Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48843478","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 : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/17449626.2022.2052153
Leonie Schlüter
ABSTRACT In this paper, I consider what one might call a negative-critical turn in egalitarian political theorizing, according to which egalitarians should not begin with a positive account of how a society of equals would supposedly look, but with the identification and critical analysis of existing hierarchical relations. Subsequently, these relational egalitarians proceed by asking what kind of political actions are needed to combat these hierarchies. For this egalitarian critique to be successful, however, it is crucial that unjust hierarchies can actually be identified. Yet, because many hierarchies perform their deadly operations at the margins of societal life, operate subtly and silently, or are disguised by hegemonic epistemic frameworks, they tend to be invisible to powerfully situated subjects. While critical race and feminist relational theories tend to be well aware of this problem, mainstream relational egalitarian theory often ignores the existence of these sorts of inequalities. This paper asks what relational egalitarian political theory can learn from critical race and feminist relational theories with respect to the operation of hidden hierarchies.
{"title":"Revealing invisible inequalities in egalitarian political theory","authors":"Leonie Schlüter","doi":"10.1080/17449626.2022.2052153","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449626.2022.2052153","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In this paper, I consider what one might call a negative-critical turn in egalitarian political theorizing, according to which egalitarians should not begin with a positive account of how a society of equals would supposedly look, but with the identification and critical analysis of existing hierarchical relations. Subsequently, these relational egalitarians proceed by asking what kind of political actions are needed to combat these hierarchies. For this egalitarian critique to be successful, however, it is crucial that unjust hierarchies can actually be identified. Yet, because many hierarchies perform their deadly operations at the margins of societal life, operate subtly and silently, or are disguised by hegemonic epistemic frameworks, they tend to be invisible to powerfully situated subjects. While critical race and feminist relational theories tend to be well aware of this problem, mainstream relational egalitarian theory often ignores the existence of these sorts of inequalities. This paper asks what relational egalitarian political theory can learn from critical race and feminist relational theories with respect to the operation of hidden hierarchies.","PeriodicalId":35191,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Global Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44823675","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 : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/17449626.2022.2053187
Duncan P. Mercieca, D. Mercieca
ABSTRACT This paper focuses on the issue of the death of migrants and invites us to recognise bodily vulnerability and precariousness when confronted with the faceless and nameless dead migrant. It explores mourning and grief as a political relational act between strangers (us and the dead migrant) in very difficult moments. There is an obliteration of identity which is furthered by the responses of receiving countries, whose struggle with masses of need causes them to deny individual stories of suffering and to respond with the opening and closing of borders, a large-scale system response that means nothing to the individual migrant story. Westernised societies have developed a ‘forgetful memory.’ We turn to the work of Judith Butler to help us start thinking of the possibility of a relational theory based on Butler’s theory of grief and mourning.
{"title":"Thinking through the death of migrants crossing the Mediterranean Sea: mourning and grief as relational and as sites for resistance","authors":"Duncan P. Mercieca, D. Mercieca","doi":"10.1080/17449626.2022.2053187","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449626.2022.2053187","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper focuses on the issue of the death of migrants and invites us to recognise bodily vulnerability and precariousness when confronted with the faceless and nameless dead migrant. It explores mourning and grief as a political relational act between strangers (us and the dead migrant) in very difficult moments. There is an obliteration of identity which is furthered by the responses of receiving countries, whose struggle with masses of need causes them to deny individual stories of suffering and to respond with the opening and closing of borders, a large-scale system response that means nothing to the individual migrant story. Westernised societies have developed a ‘forgetful memory.’ We turn to the work of Judith Butler to help us start thinking of the possibility of a relational theory based on Butler’s theory of grief and mourning.","PeriodicalId":35191,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Global Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49432202","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 : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/17449626.2022.2052151
Katharina Hunfeld
ABSTRACT Differences between, and struggles over, plural forms of time and temporal categories is a crucial yet underexplored aspect of debates about global justice. This article aims to reorient the global justice debate towards the question of time by, first of all, critically problematising the coloniality of the Western temporal assumptions underlying the literature, and furthermore by stressing the need to account for the plurality of time. I argue that in the global justice debate, the implicitly racialised teleological narrative of linear time is particularly prevalent in the discourse on development as well as the debate on historical injustices. In order to avoid the epistemic violence resulting from the uncritical acceptance of Western temporal frameworks as universally valid, global normative theorising needs to move reflections on time to the centre of their considerations. This article suggests that relational theory offers pertinent resources for making sense of alternative ways of narrating, conceptualising, and experiencing temporality. The article encourages a conversation between Western and non-Western relational approaches, proposing the temporal dimension of feminist as well as African ubuntu thought as particularly promising starting points for contesting the epistemological privilege of analytic approaches dominating the global justice literature.
{"title":"The coloniality of time in the global justice debate: de-centring Western linear temporality","authors":"Katharina Hunfeld","doi":"10.1080/17449626.2022.2052151","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449626.2022.2052151","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Differences between, and struggles over, plural forms of time and temporal categories is a crucial yet underexplored aspect of debates about global justice. This article aims to reorient the global justice debate towards the question of time by, first of all, critically problematising the coloniality of the Western temporal assumptions underlying the literature, and furthermore by stressing the need to account for the plurality of time. I argue that in the global justice debate, the implicitly racialised teleological narrative of linear time is particularly prevalent in the discourse on development as well as the debate on historical injustices. In order to avoid the epistemic violence resulting from the uncritical acceptance of Western temporal frameworks as universally valid, global normative theorising needs to move reflections on time to the centre of their considerations. This article suggests that relational theory offers pertinent resources for making sense of alternative ways of narrating, conceptualising, and experiencing temporality. The article encourages a conversation between Western and non-Western relational approaches, proposing the temporal dimension of feminist as well as African ubuntu thought as particularly promising starting points for contesting the epistemological privilege of analytic approaches dominating the global justice literature.","PeriodicalId":35191,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Global Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42696026","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 : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/17449626.2022.2053188
Élaina Gauthier-Mamaril
ABSTRACT Despite extensive theoretical debate, concrete efforts to overcome paternalism and unbalanced power relations between patients and doctors have produced limited results. In this article, I examine and build on the concept of relational autonomy to reframe the patient-doctor relationship. Specifically, I argue for an alternate form of autonomy anchored in Spinozism that recognises the relation between rationality and affectivity and moves away from the model of Cartesian dualism. I then use Filipino conceptions of individuality to explore treating autonomy as a systemic virtue, where ‘virtue’ is understood as a strength that requires support from systems of agency. In other words, autonomy as a systemic virtue is a practice of focusing on one’s power of acting that is sustained by supportive relationships between individuals and social institutions.
{"title":"Reframing patient-doctor relationships: relational autonomy and treating autonomy as a virtue","authors":"Élaina Gauthier-Mamaril","doi":"10.1080/17449626.2022.2053188","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449626.2022.2053188","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Despite extensive theoretical debate, concrete efforts to overcome paternalism and unbalanced power relations between patients and doctors have produced limited results. In this article, I examine and build on the concept of relational autonomy to reframe the patient-doctor relationship. Specifically, I argue for an alternate form of autonomy anchored in Spinozism that recognises the relation between rationality and affectivity and moves away from the model of Cartesian dualism. I then use Filipino conceptions of individuality to explore treating autonomy as a systemic virtue, where ‘virtue’ is understood as a strength that requires support from systems of agency. In other words, autonomy as a systemic virtue is a practice of focusing on one’s power of acting that is sustained by supportive relationships between individuals and social institutions.","PeriodicalId":35191,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Global Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41751649","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：