{"title":"深思熟虑与话语不公正:集体失败。","authors":"Moisés Barba","doi":"10.5209/ltdl.77037","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this paper is to expand the theoretical field of discursive injustice by identifying a specific kind of discursive injustice, namely, the kind we are subject to when we are unjustly prevented from exchanging reasons with others. Broadly speaking, discursive injustice is the kind of injustice we suffer when we are unjustly harmed as language users, most notably when we are prevented from using language in ways we are entitled to. The dominant approach to discursive injustice has focused on the corruption of the illocutionary force of a speech act due to the hearer’s improper uptake. I claim that there is a genuinely distinct kind of discursive injustice, which I label as deliberative injustice, that cannot be accounted for by the dominant approach to discursive injustice. In my view, what makes deliberative injustice discursively unjust is that it amounts to denying someone a normative position that she is entitled to as a language user, which I understand in terms of being a source of reasons. Moreover, I explore two ways of trying to illuminate deliberative injustice by appealing to the social level of analysis, namely, by resorting to a structural explanation (Ayala, 2018) to explain how it comes about, and by asking what it signifies for the collective life of groups. In this regard, I show that the structural explanation has some explanatory limitations, and that deliberative injustice essentially constitutes a collective failure.","PeriodicalId":40567,"journal":{"name":"Torres de Lucca-Revista Internacional de Filosofia Politica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Deliberation and Discursive Injustice: A Collective Failure.\",\"authors\":\"Moisés Barba\",\"doi\":\"10.5209/ltdl.77037\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The purpose of this paper is to expand the theoretical field of discursive injustice by identifying a specific kind of discursive injustice, namely, the kind we are subject to when we are unjustly prevented from exchanging reasons with others. Broadly speaking, discursive injustice is the kind of injustice we suffer when we are unjustly harmed as language users, most notably when we are prevented from using language in ways we are entitled to. The dominant approach to discursive injustice has focused on the corruption of the illocutionary force of a speech act due to the hearer’s improper uptake. I claim that there is a genuinely distinct kind of discursive injustice, which I label as deliberative injustice, that cannot be accounted for by the dominant approach to discursive injustice. In my view, what makes deliberative injustice discursively unjust is that it amounts to denying someone a normative position that she is entitled to as a language user, which I understand in terms of being a source of reasons. Moreover, I explore two ways of trying to illuminate deliberative injustice by appealing to the social level of analysis, namely, by resorting to a structural explanation (Ayala, 2018) to explain how it comes about, and by asking what it signifies for the collective life of groups. In this regard, I show that the structural explanation has some explanatory limitations, and that deliberative injustice essentially constitutes a collective failure.\",\"PeriodicalId\":40567,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Torres de Lucca-Revista Internacional de Filosofia Politica\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Torres de Lucca-Revista Internacional de Filosofia Politica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5209/ltdl.77037\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Torres de Lucca-Revista Internacional de Filosofia Politica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5209/ltdl.77037","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Deliberation and Discursive Injustice: A Collective Failure.
The purpose of this paper is to expand the theoretical field of discursive injustice by identifying a specific kind of discursive injustice, namely, the kind we are subject to when we are unjustly prevented from exchanging reasons with others. Broadly speaking, discursive injustice is the kind of injustice we suffer when we are unjustly harmed as language users, most notably when we are prevented from using language in ways we are entitled to. The dominant approach to discursive injustice has focused on the corruption of the illocutionary force of a speech act due to the hearer’s improper uptake. I claim that there is a genuinely distinct kind of discursive injustice, which I label as deliberative injustice, that cannot be accounted for by the dominant approach to discursive injustice. In my view, what makes deliberative injustice discursively unjust is that it amounts to denying someone a normative position that she is entitled to as a language user, which I understand in terms of being a source of reasons. Moreover, I explore two ways of trying to illuminate deliberative injustice by appealing to the social level of analysis, namely, by resorting to a structural explanation (Ayala, 2018) to explain how it comes about, and by asking what it signifies for the collective life of groups. In this regard, I show that the structural explanation has some explanatory limitations, and that deliberative injustice essentially constitutes a collective failure.
期刊介绍:
The scientific scope of Las Torres de Lucca (International Journal of Political Philosophy) will be to comprehend the characteristics of political philosophy, in line with the interdisciplinary character that has operated in this field during the last several years. We welcome contributions from the areas traditionally linked directly to political philosophy (moral philosophy, philosophy of law, political theory), as well as from those that have been incorporated up to the present day (political economy, philosophy of history, psychology, neurophysiology and, to a lesser extent, other sciences) as long as their scope is focused on the treatment of public affairs and sheds light on contemporary political reflections. In the same way, the reference to classic problems should be brought to bear on contemporary questions. The journal does not commit itself to any school of thought, style or ideology. However, we do commit ourselves to argumentative rigor and expositive clarity. Thus, the new publication is directed towards the academic environment and designed for the specialized reader; but the publication also aspires to awake interest in the reader who is not technically formed in these disciplines, but is interested by the public questions that inevitably affect him or her. We expect that the scope of the journal will be international. Thus, articles will be published in Spanish and English, and original articles in French, Portuguese, Italian, or German will be accepted as exceptions (depending on their quality and relevance), translated into Spanish and published in a bilingual format. We are particularly interested in covering the Spanish/Latin American realm, particularly lacking in specialized publications of this type. With this in mind, we count on experts from the distinct countries included in this geographic area.