公共辩论中的占有、退出和共同利益:基督教伦理论证分析

IF 0.6 0 RELIGION
Shannon Dunn
{"title":"公共辩论中的占有、退出和共同利益:基督教伦理论证分析","authors":"Shannon Dunn","doi":"10.1017/jlr.2023.21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article examines anti-mask protests in the United States in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, I look at the cultural (mis)appropriation of slogans by anti-mask protestors, such as “I can’t breathe” and “My body, my choice.” Noting that this is at first glance a bit of a puzzling phenomenon, I show that there is a relationship between the anti-mask protest, white Christian grievance politics, and the disintegration of the public sphere. Drawing on the work of Bonnie Honig, I argue that the anti-mask protests represent a mode of opting out of public engagement, hence opting out of the practice of using rational argumentation to explain why things ought to be a certain way, as well as listening to the reasons of others. Insofar as this has become a popular mode of engagement among a significant number of Americans, it needs to be understood in the language of foregoing responsibility for others in US pluralistic democracy. Indeed, further explication of the relationship between responsibility and freedom is absolutely necessary. I maintain that opting out is ethically untenable because of the nature of interdependence with others and the necessity of adhering to the rule of law. An ethic of reciprocity properly grounds an understanding of embodied freedom, resisting the extremes of grievance politics.","PeriodicalId":44042,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law and Religion","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Appropriation, Opting Out, and the Common Good in Public Debates: An Analysis of Christian Ethical Arguments\",\"authors\":\"Shannon Dunn\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/jlr.2023.21\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article examines anti-mask protests in the United States in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, I look at the cultural (mis)appropriation of slogans by anti-mask protestors, such as “I can’t breathe” and “My body, my choice.” Noting that this is at first glance a bit of a puzzling phenomenon, I show that there is a relationship between the anti-mask protest, white Christian grievance politics, and the disintegration of the public sphere. Drawing on the work of Bonnie Honig, I argue that the anti-mask protests represent a mode of opting out of public engagement, hence opting out of the practice of using rational argumentation to explain why things ought to be a certain way, as well as listening to the reasons of others. Insofar as this has become a popular mode of engagement among a significant number of Americans, it needs to be understood in the language of foregoing responsibility for others in US pluralistic democracy. Indeed, further explication of the relationship between responsibility and freedom is absolutely necessary. I maintain that opting out is ethically untenable because of the nature of interdependence with others and the necessity of adhering to the rule of law. An ethic of reciprocity properly grounds an understanding of embodied freedom, resisting the extremes of grievance politics.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44042,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Law and Religion\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Law and Religion\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/jlr.2023.21\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"RELIGION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Law and Religion","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/jlr.2023.21","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文以 COVID-19 大流行为背景,探讨了美国的反口罩抗议活动。具体而言,我研究了反口罩抗议者对 "我无法呼吸 "和 "我的身体,我做主 "等口号的文化(错误)挪用。我注意到这一现象乍一看有点令人费解,但我指出反面具抗议、白人基督教怨恨政治和公共领域的解体之间存在着某种关系。借鉴邦妮-霍尼格(Bonnie Honig)的研究成果,我认为反面具抗议活动代表了一种选择退出公共参与的模式,因此也代表了一种选择退出使用理性论证来解释为什么事情应该以某种方式发展以及倾听他人理由的做法。鉴于这种参与模式已在相当多的美国人中流行开来,我们需要从美国多元民主制度中放弃对他人负责的角度来理解这种模式。事实上,进一步阐明责任与自由之间的关系是绝对必要的。我认为,由于与他人相互依存的性质以及遵守法治的必要性,选择退出在伦理上是站不住脚的。互惠伦理是理解具身自由的恰当基础,它抵制了极端的申诉政治。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Appropriation, Opting Out, and the Common Good in Public Debates: An Analysis of Christian Ethical Arguments
This article examines anti-mask protests in the United States in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, I look at the cultural (mis)appropriation of slogans by anti-mask protestors, such as “I can’t breathe” and “My body, my choice.” Noting that this is at first glance a bit of a puzzling phenomenon, I show that there is a relationship between the anti-mask protest, white Christian grievance politics, and the disintegration of the public sphere. Drawing on the work of Bonnie Honig, I argue that the anti-mask protests represent a mode of opting out of public engagement, hence opting out of the practice of using rational argumentation to explain why things ought to be a certain way, as well as listening to the reasons of others. Insofar as this has become a popular mode of engagement among a significant number of Americans, it needs to be understood in the language of foregoing responsibility for others in US pluralistic democracy. Indeed, further explication of the relationship between responsibility and freedom is absolutely necessary. I maintain that opting out is ethically untenable because of the nature of interdependence with others and the necessity of adhering to the rule of law. An ethic of reciprocity properly grounds an understanding of embodied freedom, resisting the extremes of grievance politics.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
55
期刊介绍: The Journal of Law and Religion publishes cutting-edge research on religion, human rights, and religious freedom; religion-state relations; religious sources and dimensions of public, private, penal, and procedural law; religious legal systems and their place in secular law; theological jurisprudence; political theology; legal and religious ethics; and more. The Journal provides a distinguished forum for deep dialogue among Buddhist, Confucian, Christian, Hindu, Indigenous, Jewish, Muslim, and other faith traditions about fundamental questions of law, society, and politics.
×
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