Care and the Pluriverse: A Review, by Maggie Fitzgerald

IF 1.1 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Kimberly Hutchings
{"title":"Care and the Pluriverse: A Review, by Maggie Fitzgerald","authors":"Kimberly Hutchings","doi":"10.1177/17550882231180646","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"From the early work on global justice by thinkers such as Singer and O’Neill in the 1970s to the most recent philosophical work on the ethics of climate change, the fields of International and Global Ethics have been dominated by moral theories and traditions based in the western academy (Caney, 2006; Hutchings, 2018; Nell, 1975; Singer, 1972; Widdows, 2011). In particular, the field has been fundamentally shaped by deontological, utilitarian and contractualist approaches, which can all be traced back to arguments originally developed in seventeenth and eighteenth century European thought. Alternative moral approaches have also predominantly drawn on western sources, including virtue, care and postmodernist ethics. Only in the last decade have we begun to see more arguments stemming from ethical traditions beyond the west. These have often drawn on alternative religious and spiritual traditions as a source of insight into how we should think about global relations between people and between people and their environment (Chimakonam, 2017; Metz, 2014; Schönfeld, 2011). In addition, we have begun to see work that brings decolonial insights to bear on questions of global justice, humanitarianism, climate change, migration, global health and so on (Bell, 2019; Graness, 2015; Lu, 2017). This includes some attempts to think through what it might mean for Global Ethics if we cannot take for granted the purported universalism of dominant moral paradigms (Dunford, 2017; Hutchings, 2019). However, Fitzgerald’s book is the first really sustained attempt to go beyond expressions of dissatisfaction with the parochialism of the resources on which much work in Global Ethics relies to develop a new way forward. In Care and the Pluriverse, she makes a novel argument that brings together literatures on the idea of the pluriverse with the critical ethics of care as a basis for developing a new direction for thinking in Global Ethics. Fitzgerald’s approach to rethinking Global Ethics starts from the mutual implication of a commitment to pluriversality and the critical ethics of care. The contemporary conception of the pluriverse, developed by decolonial and indigenous scholars and activists in Latin America, is that there is no single, universal world (ontology) in which all inhabitants of the world participate. The idea is explained most commonly by pointing to contrasts between modern and indigenous being (worlds), the former characterised by an oppositional ontological distinction between culture and nature, the latter by 1180646 IPT0010.1177/17550882231180646Journal of International Political TheoryBook Roundtable book-review2023","PeriodicalId":44237,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Political Theory","volume":"19 1","pages":"335 - 339"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International Political Theory","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17550882231180646","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

From the early work on global justice by thinkers such as Singer and O’Neill in the 1970s to the most recent philosophical work on the ethics of climate change, the fields of International and Global Ethics have been dominated by moral theories and traditions based in the western academy (Caney, 2006; Hutchings, 2018; Nell, 1975; Singer, 1972; Widdows, 2011). In particular, the field has been fundamentally shaped by deontological, utilitarian and contractualist approaches, which can all be traced back to arguments originally developed in seventeenth and eighteenth century European thought. Alternative moral approaches have also predominantly drawn on western sources, including virtue, care and postmodernist ethics. Only in the last decade have we begun to see more arguments stemming from ethical traditions beyond the west. These have often drawn on alternative religious and spiritual traditions as a source of insight into how we should think about global relations between people and between people and their environment (Chimakonam, 2017; Metz, 2014; Schönfeld, 2011). In addition, we have begun to see work that brings decolonial insights to bear on questions of global justice, humanitarianism, climate change, migration, global health and so on (Bell, 2019; Graness, 2015; Lu, 2017). This includes some attempts to think through what it might mean for Global Ethics if we cannot take for granted the purported universalism of dominant moral paradigms (Dunford, 2017; Hutchings, 2019). However, Fitzgerald’s book is the first really sustained attempt to go beyond expressions of dissatisfaction with the parochialism of the resources on which much work in Global Ethics relies to develop a new way forward. In Care and the Pluriverse, she makes a novel argument that brings together literatures on the idea of the pluriverse with the critical ethics of care as a basis for developing a new direction for thinking in Global Ethics. Fitzgerald’s approach to rethinking Global Ethics starts from the mutual implication of a commitment to pluriversality and the critical ethics of care. The contemporary conception of the pluriverse, developed by decolonial and indigenous scholars and activists in Latin America, is that there is no single, universal world (ontology) in which all inhabitants of the world participate. The idea is explained most commonly by pointing to contrasts between modern and indigenous being (worlds), the former characterised by an oppositional ontological distinction between culture and nature, the latter by 1180646 IPT0010.1177/17550882231180646Journal of International Political TheoryBook Roundtable book-review2023
《关怀与多元宇宙:评论》,作者:玛吉·菲茨杰拉德
从20世纪70年代辛格和奥尼尔等思想家关于全球正义的早期工作,到最近关于气候变化伦理的哲学工作,国际和全球伦理领域一直被西方学院的道德理论和传统所主导(Caney,2006;哈钦斯,2018;内尔,1975;辛格,1972年;Widdows,2011)。特别是,该领域从根本上受到义务论、功利主义和契约主义方法的影响,这些方法都可以追溯到最初在17世纪和18世纪欧洲思想中发展起来的论点。另类道德方法也主要借鉴了西方的来源,包括美德、关怀和后现代主义伦理。直到最近十年,我们才开始看到更多来自西方以外伦理传统的争论。这些往往借鉴了另类的宗教和精神传统,作为我们应该如何看待人与人之间以及人与环境之间的全球关系的见解来源(Chimakonam,2017;Metz,2014;Schönfeld,2011)。此外,我们已经开始看到在全球正义、人道主义、气候变化、移民、全球健康等问题上引入非殖民化见解的工作(Bell,2019;Graness,2015;鲁,2017)。这包括一些尝试,如果我们不能想当然地认为主流道德范式的所谓普遍主义,那么它对全球伦理可能意味着什么(Dunford,2017;哈钦斯,2019)。然而,菲茨杰拉德的书是第一次真正持续的尝试,超越了对资源狭隘性的不满,全球伦理学的许多工作都依赖于这种狭隘性来发展新的前进道路。在《护理与多元性》一书中,她提出了一个新颖的论点,将关于多元性思想的文献与护理的批判性伦理学结合在一起,作为发展全球伦理学新思维方向的基础。Fitzgerald重新思考全球伦理的方法始于对多重性的承诺和护理的批判性伦理的相互含义。由拉丁美洲的非殖民化和土著学者和活动家发展起来的多元宇宙的当代概念是,没有一个世界上所有居民都参与的单一、普遍的世界(本体论)。这一观点最常见的解释是指出现代存在和土著存在(世界)之间的对比,前者的特征是文化和自然之间对立的本体论区别,后者由1180646 IPT0010.1177/1750082231180646《国际政治理论杂志》图书圆桌会议书评2023
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
10.00%
发文量
11
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信