Journal of Social Philosophy最新文献_第5页

Subsidiarity, States, and Intermediate Groups: Maintaining Subsidiarity's Distinct Contribution to Moral Philosophy 辅助性、国家和中间群体：维持辅助性对道德哲学的独特贡献

IF 1.2 3区哲学

Journal of Social Philosophy Pub Date : 2025-06-29 DOI: 10.1111/josp.70002

Michael Da Silva

{"title":"Subsidiarity, States, and Intermediate Groups: Maintaining Subsidiarity's Distinct Contribution to Moral Philosophy","authors":"Michael Da Silva","doi":"10.1111/josp.70002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/josp.70002","url":null,"abstract":"Subsidiarity typically refers to the presumption that issues should be addressed at the most “local” level capable of addressing them. The nature of the presumption, how to specify the “local” and the entities with valid claims, and how to interpret “capability” remain contested. Yet these basic features figure in most accounts of subsidiarity.1 Subsidiarity so-understood is asked to play numerous roles in numerous contexts.2 Yet dominant historical and contemporary accounts thereof can be broadly distinguished along two types detailed below: those seeking to use subsidiarity as a guide to constitutional ordering within legal systems and those seeking to use it as a guide to the appropriate relationship between groups each claiming domains of authority. These purposes are distinct even where related. Whether uses of the term “subsidiarity” for each consistently refer to the same concept, let alone one historically continuous concept, is debatable.This article argues that subsidiarity is more likely to make a distinct contribution to moral ontology when addressing the relationship between groups claiming distinct domains of authority, particularly as between states and intermediate groups like churches and universities. Deflationary critiques suggest that subsidiarity cannot play its intended constitutional ordering roles. Continuing to use the term in constitutional debates threatens confusion, which is exacerbated where the same term is frequently and aptly used to refer to a distinct concept operating in another normative domain. The term should be reserved for that other domain.My argument proceeds as follows. First, I outline intended historical and contemporary uses of “subsidiarity.” Next, I detail why subsidiarity is unlikely to play a distinct role in constitutional ordering. Then, I explain how subsidiarity can play its intended role outside constitutional contexts. A conclusion outlines some implications of my findings. The mix of historical and conceptual/normative analyses throughout is non-standard in analytic political philosophy but appropriate here for at least three reasons. First, it places the piece in conversation and continuity with existing scholarship. Subsidiarity is a social, rather than natural, phenomenon. Most contemporary work thereon accordingly contains historical and normative components.3Second, attending to historical and normative considerations better fulfills relevant conceptual desiderata. A theory of a political concept should, plausibly, identify its distinct contribution to moral ontology and licit and illicit uses of the term. It should also offer a means of evaluating whether the concept can play its intended normative role(s). Attending to the specific problems subsidiarity has been asked to play helps identify its possible normative roles and referents, thereby providing a target for analysis. A theory will be better, all else being equal, if the","PeriodicalId":46756,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social Philosophy","volume":"56 3","pages":"412-426"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2025-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/josp.70002","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145297632","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Issue Information - NASSP Page 发行信息- NASSP页面

IF 1.1 3区哲学

Journal of Social Philosophy Pub Date : 2025-06-09 DOI: 10.1111/josp.12572

引用次数: 0

Subsidiarity and Public Reason: Two Cheers Are Quite Enough 辅助与公共理性：两声欢呼就足够了

IF 1.2 3区哲学

Journal of Social Philosophy Pub Date : 2025-03-25 DOI: 10.1111/josp.12607

Andreas Follesdal

引用次数: 0

Issue Information - NASSP Page 发行信息- NASSP页面

IF 1.1 3区哲学

Journal of Social Philosophy Pub Date : 2025-03-17 DOI: 10.1111/josp.12569

引用次数: 0

Issue Information - NASSP Page 发行信息- NASSP页面

IF 1.1 3区哲学

Journal of Social Philosophy Pub Date : 2024-12-25 DOI: 10.1111/josp.12536

引用次数: 0

Contributors 贡献者

IF 1.1 3区哲学

Journal of Social Philosophy Pub Date : 2024-12-25 DOI: 10.1111/josp.12534

引用次数: 0

Introduction to Special Issue “Nonideal Theory and Critical Theory” 《非理想理论与批判理论》特刊导论

IF 1.1 3区哲学

Journal of Social Philosophy Pub Date : 2024-10-28 DOI: 10.1111/josp.12590

Kristina Lepold, Mirjam Müller

{"title":"Introduction to Special Issue “Nonideal Theory and Critical Theory”","authors":"Kristina Lepold, Mirjam Müller","doi":"10.1111/josp.12590","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/josp.12590","url":null,"abstract":"Nonideal theory and critical theory are two approaches to social critique. Nonideal theory has become increasingly popular in post-Rawlsian political philosophy over the last 15 years (for an overview, see Valentini 2012). It is a broad church, but is often thought to be motivated by a dissatisfaction with ideal theory's lack of practical relevance (Swift 2008, 368). Issues that have preoccupied proponents of nonideal theory are partial compliance (see Rawls 1971, 8–9; Cullity 2004; Chahboun 2015), or the question of how to translate principles of justice into concrete policy recommendations (see, among others, Phillips 1985; Robeyns 2008). Critical theory, on the other hand, is often associated with the Frankfurt School (see Held 1980; Gordon, Hammer, and Honneth 2019), but also refers, more broadly, to work done by critical race theorists and feminist scholars (Mills 1997; Haslanger 2021). It shares with nonideal theory an orientation to real-world circumstances and a commitment to being relevant to action in the face of those circumstances. In the light of this, it is surprising that the relationship between nonideal theory and critical theory has not received more attention in the literature, for instance in the way that the relation between realism and nonideal theory has (for discussions of the latter see Cozzaglio and Favara 2022; Favara 2022; Sleat 2016; Rossi and Sleat 2014). This special issue seeks to fill this gap. The four contributions, while each developing a distinct understanding of this relationship, all agree that critical theory offers important insights which could strengthen the real-world relevance of the nonideal theory enterprise.The first contribution “Should nonideal theory rely on ideal theory? Lessons from the Frankfurt School,” by Kristina Lepold, addresses the question posed in the title that has been the subject of some debate among nonideal theorists. Drawing inspiration from the Frankfurt School, Lepold argues that if nonideal theory relies on ideal theory to identify injustices, it is a matter of chance whether nonideal theory can help members of the social world to understand the injustices they face. This, however, should give nonideal theorists pause for thought, for the ability of nonideal theory to successfully guide collective action to overcome injustice depends on its ability to contribute to such self-reflection. Lepold concludes by suggesting that nonideal theory should not rely on ideal theory, if it does not want to risk having no practical relevance.In the second contribution, “Non-ideal theory and critical theory and their relationship to standpoint theory,” Hilkje Hänel demonstrates that there is a methodological overlap between critical theory and some variants of nonideal theory when it ","PeriodicalId":46756,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social Philosophy","volume":"56 1","pages":"5-6"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2024-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/josp.12590","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143639210","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Contributors 贡献者

IF 1.1 3区哲学

Journal of Social Philosophy Pub Date : 2024-09-27 DOI: 10.1111/josp.12531

引用次数: 0

Issue Information - NASSP Page 发行信息 - NASSP 页面

IF 1.1 3区哲学

Journal of Social Philosophy Pub Date : 2024-09-27 DOI: 10.1111/josp.12533

引用次数: 0

Introduction for special issue on “Excellence, diversity, and the philosophy exception” 卓越、多样性与哲学例外 "特刊导言

IF 1.1 3区哲学

Journal of Social Philosophy Pub Date : 2024-09-15 DOI: 10.1111/josp.12588

Fiona Jenkins, Amandine Catala

{"title":"Introduction for special issue on “Excellence, diversity, and the philosophy exception”","authors":"Fiona Jenkins, Amandine Catala","doi":"10.1111/josp.12588","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/josp.12588","url":null,"abstract":"The lack of diversity in philosophy has been of particular concern to the profession in recent years, and much has been done in response to track, interpret, and remedy this longstanding problem. Contributing to that ongoing effort, this special issue opens new avenues for theoretical reflection and practical transformation. Together, the papers investigate the factors that contribute to the discipline's persistent lack of diversity, including common assumptions, ordinary practices, and customary arrangements that are often taken for granted in the profession and tend to remain unquestioned. Each paper explores in a distinctive way the dynamics of exclusion that structure philosophy's institutional life while suggesting specific measures and concrete actions to address these issues and to effectively bring about greater diversity.The aspiration that “philosophy should be among the most diverse of the academic disciplines, not among the least diverse” (Schwitzgebel, 2020) may arise from appreciating that injustice, whether stemming from epistemic, social, institutional, or practical obstacles, is preventing full or equal participation in the discipline. In addition, a substantive diversity of social backgrounds and philosophical approaches among participants seems essential to both realizing and guaranteeing the open-ended, open-minded, and critical project that philosophy aspires to be. Yet recognizing this to be the case in theory is often at odds with deeply held forms of practice.Indeed, it has been striking to us as guest editors how otherwise typical, perfectly ordinary editorial processes may come at a cost both for marginally situated individuals and the profession as a whole, resulting in our finding the same sorts of faces, body-minds, and perspectives in the room or on the page. There are telling experiences among those who had taken the time, care, and energy to write and revise papers for this special issue, only to withdraw them later in response to reviewers' comments; or in response to the need to strategically and carefully ration their time and energy as they navigated the kind of precarious employment that falls so hard on those without the material or social capital to cushion their career aspirations. It is important to note that our observations do not apply to this journal specifically; nor do they seek to impugn any reviewer's or editor's intentions or character. Rather, the observations that follow reflect more structural issues. We know that the notorious yet all-too-common gatekeeping question “how is this paper philosophy?,” which captures what Kristie Dotson (2012) has called the culture of justification, is one that looms large in the experience of underrepresented groups in philosophy, who report being repeatedly and disproportionately asked to justify the relevance of their research questions and approaches, and thereby arguably their very presence in the field (more on thi","PeriodicalId":46756,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social Philosophy","volume":"55 3","pages":"360-367"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2024-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/josp.12588","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142324416","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0