If Michael Walzer's relentlessly expository book can be said to have a dominant theme, it is the theme of domination. How do we achieve a society without domination? Simple equality is impossible; people differ in skill, strength, wisdom, courage, and energy. The root meaning of the egalitarian demand, according to Walzer, is negative. It aims at aristocratic privilege, capitalist wealth, bureaucratic power, and racial and sexual supremacy; in short, at the ability of people to dominate others. It's not the fact (...) that there are rich and poor that generates the egalitarian impulse, he continues, but the fact that the rich grind the faces of the poor, impose their poverty on them, command their deferential behavior. The popular demand for the abolition of social and political differences results, he says, from what aristocrats do to commoners, what office holders do to ordinary citizens, what people with power do to those without it. Behind the vision of equality is the experience of subordination. "No more bowing and scraping, fawning and toadying; no more fearful trembling, no more high and mightiness; no more masters, no more slaves." The modern society in which these putative activities take place is not identified. Surely he cannot mean his own society? (shrink)

J. van den Hoven suggested to analyse privacy from the perspective of informational justice, whereby he referred to the concept of distributive justice presented by M. Walzer in “ Spheres of Justice ”. In “privacy as contextual integrity” Helen Nissenbaum did also point to Walzer’s approach of complex equality as well to van den Hoven’s concept. In this article I will analyse the challenges of applying Walzer’s concept to issues of informational privacy. I will also discuss (...) the possibilities of framing privacy from the point of the “art of separation” by looking at the intersection of information infrastructures and institutions. (shrink)

Various arguments have been provided for drawing non-humans such as animals and artificial agents into the sphere of moral consideration. In this paper, I argue for a shift from an ontological to a social-philosophical approach: instead of asking what an entity is, we should try to conceptually grasp the quasi-social dimension of relations between non-humans and humans. This allows me to reconsider the problem of justice, in particular distributive justice . Engaging with the work of Rawls, I show (...) that an expansion of the contractarian framework to non-humans causes an important problem for liberalism, but can be justified by a contractarian argument. Responding to Bell’s and Nussbaum’s comments on Rawls, I argue that we can justify drawing non-humans into the sphere of distributive justice by relying on the notion of a co-operative scheme. I discuss what co-operation between humans and non-humans can mean and the extent to which it depends on properties. I conclude that we need to imagine principles of ecological and technological distributive justice. (shrink)

In this article I will argue that there are two theories of distributive justice hidden in Walzer's Spheres of Justice. The first one emphasises the separation of distributive spheres. It tries to formulate distributive criteria by sticking faithfully to sphere‐specificity. I shall refer to this theory as ‘pure pluralism’. The second theory downplays the separation of spheres and emphasises ‘across spheres’ or ‘between spheres’ criteria instead. I shall call this theory ‘mitigated pluralism’. Mitigated (...) pluralism has become popular among Walzer's friendly critics who apparently do not want to charge him with a distributive theory as clear and rigid as pure pluralism. Although I consider myself another friendly critic, I shall argue in favour of pure pluralism. (shrink)

This book illustrates the specificities and interconnections of major spheres of global justice. It analyzes the diverse kinds of global ethical obligations in relation to the diversity of global causal relationships. It presents a multidisciplinary spectrum by leading scholars that combines empirical analysis with theoretical approaches.

Spheres of Global Justice analyzes six of the most important and controversial spheres of global justice, each concerning a specific global social good. These spheres are democratic participation, migrations, cultural minorities, economic justice, social justice, and intergenerational justice. Together they constitute two constellations dealt with, in this collection of essays by leading scholars, in two different volumes: Global Challenges to Liberal Democracy and Fair Distribution. These essays illustrate each of the spheres, (...) delving into their differences, commonalities, collisions and interconnections. Unlike many writings on global justice, Spheres of Global Justice does not content itself with describing the painful and advantageous effects of the globalization process as being inches per secondo facto a global injustice or a just global order. Rather, this multidisciplinary collection of essays, from a pluralist inspiration, combines empirical analysis with theoretical approaches and ethical principles, paying close attention to two aspects of the effects of the globalization process. These aspects are the causal relationships that lead to such effects and the kinds of obligations, or of normative relationships between global rights and correlative duties, that applies to each specific individual case. This volume illustrates how diverse global obligations are, and how they can be, grounded in diverse relationships (identity, ability to provide help, causal responsibility, past injustices, protection of agency and promotion of independence, et cetera). These essays also demonstrate that an ethical global approach has not only international or transnational, but also domestic, local and interpersonal dimensions. (shrink)

Recent guidelines from the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) mandate the inclusion of adequate numbers of women in clinical trials. Ought such standards to apply internationally? Walzer's theory of justice is brought to bear on the problem, the first use of the theory in research ethics, and it argues for broad application of the principle of adequate representation. A number of practical conclusions for research ethics committees (RECs) are outlined. Eligibility criteria in clinical trials ought to be justified (...) by trial designers. Research ethics committees ought to question criteria that seem to exclude unnecessarily women from research participation. The issue of adequate representation should be construed broadly, so as to include consideration of the representation of the elderly, persons with HIV, mental illness and substance abuse disorders in clinical research. (shrink)

There are two questions with regard to money: What can it buy? and, How is it distributed? The two must be taken up in that order, for only after we have described the sphere within which money operates, and the scope of its operations, can we sensibly address its distribution. We must figure out how important money really is. It is best to begin with the naive view, which is also the common view, that money is all-important, the root of (...) all evil, the source of all good. "Money answereth all things," as Ecclesiastes says. According to Marx, it is the universal pander, arranging scandalous couplings between people and goods, breaching every natural, every moral barrier. Marx might have discovered this by looking around in nineteenth-century Europe, but in fact he found it in a book, Shakespeare's Timon of Athens, where Timon, digging for buried gold, interrogates his object: Gold? yellow, glittering, precious gold? No, gods. (shrink)

U ovom tekstu razmatra se Walzerova pozicija u odnosu na liberalisticka shvatanja pravde, nejednakosti, gradjanstva i etnokulturalne pripadnosti. Za razliku od liberala, Walzer pridaje znacaj nedobrovoljnim udruzenjima i duznostima proisteklim iz takvog udruzivanja, kao i socijalnoj nejednakosti koja je posledica pripadanja etnokulturalnoj grupi. Tekst takodje razmatra Walzerove odgovore na primedbe da njegova pozicija podrazumeva moralni relativizam. Na planu politike, iz Walzerove pozicije proistice da su eticki sistemi na kojima se zajednice u jednom liberalnom drustvu zasnivaju dovoljno liberalizovani, sa usvojenim principima (...) nepristrasnosti tolerancije i medjugrupne pravde. Ovi sistemi odgovaraju politickom "liberalnom konsenzusu", koji se ne moze izvesti iz same pretpoliticke obicajnosti. (shrink)

Iris Marion Young accepts the concepts of the private and the public, but denies the social division between public and private spheres, each with different kinds of institutions, activities, and human attributes. Young defines “private” as that aspect of a person’s life and activity that he or she has a right to exclude others from. The private in this sense is not what public institutions exclude, but what the individual chooses to withdraw from public view. According to Young the (...) public in a democratic society is heterogeneous. “Indeed, in open and accessible public spaces and forums, they should expect to encounter and hear from those who are different, whose social perspectives, experience, and affiliations are different.” An important characteristic of a developed democratic society is a developed civil society. Civil society is voluntary associational life that is distinguished from the state and economy, and helps with the transfer of private problems to the public agenda. They are voluntary, in the sense that they are neither mandated nor run by state institutions, but spring from the everyday lives and activities of the communities of interest. Distinguishing voluntary associational life from economy as well as state helps refine the role of civil society in promoting social justice. (shrink)

The datafication and digitalization of health and medicine has engendered a proliferation of new collaborations between public health institutions and data corporations like Google, Apple, Microsoft and Amazon. Critical perspectives on these new partnerships tend to frame them as an instance of market transgressions by tech giants into the sphere of health and medicine, in line with a “hostile worlds” doctrine that upholds that the borders between market and non-market spheres should be carefully policed. This article seeks to outline (...) the limitations of this common framing for critically understanding the phenomenon of the Googlization of health. In particular, the mobilization of a diversity of non-market value statements in the justification work carried out by actors involved in the Googlization of health indicates the co-presence of additional worlds or spheres in this context, which are not captured by the market vs. non-market dichotomy. It then advances an alternative framework, based on a multiple-sphere ontology that draws on Boltanski and Thevenot’s orders of worth and Michael Walzer’s theory of justice, which I call a normative pragmatics of justice. This framework addresses both the normative deficit in Boltanski and Thevenot’s work and provides an important emphasis on the empirical workings of justice. Finally, I discuss why this framework is better equipped to identify and to address the many risks raised by the Googlization of health and possibly other dimensions of the digitalization and datafication of society. (shrink)

Purpose. The article is aimed to study the anthropological, socio-philosophical and philosophical-legal dimensions of the ontological sphere of human life within the discourse of restricting human rights during pandemic threats. To do this, one should solve a number of tasks, among which are the following: 1) to explore the anthropological and praxeological understanding of fear as a primary component of human existence in a pandemic, which prevents people from changing their lives for the better and healthier, having fun and happiness; (...) 2) to put a focus on the habituation of fear as a two-dimensional adaptation to risks and threats from pandemics; 3) to reflect the anthropological features of changes in human life experience under the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic in the discourse of human rights and public health measures. Theoretical basis. Today, international guiding principles on human rights response to global natural threats have been updated. However, there are still no specific legal recommendations concerning measures on human rights protection during outbreaks of various infectious diseases. However, the influence of unexpected global challenges causes a change in the anthropological component of society and the state, so it requires immediate comprehensive research. Originality. It was substantiated a systematic approach to the implementation of modern healthcare policy towards the recognition of human life as the highest value, increasing the level of psychological preparedness for pandemic challenges and approximation of statutory provisions of human rights protection to modern challenges and threats to the health of the individual, society and state. The study of anthropological, socio-philosophical and philosophical-legal dimensions of human existence in the discourse of pandemic threats made it possible to reveal the profound influence of fear on human life, social justice and, consequently, identify the moral and legal dependence of the development level of society and the state on the level of axiological and anthropological concept of human dignity. Conclusions. Based on the study of statistical reports, international analysis and the use of personal authorial methods, the following can be stated: the methods of combating the modern pandemic have directly affected everyone on national and international level. Their influence is significant because it changes the rules of coexistence and life of people in all spheres. However, the influence on the consciousness and other intentions of the individual has mostly temporally insignificant limits. (shrink)

"Contexts of Justice is a study that covers and definitely exhausts the whole range of ten years of one of the most important recent philosophical discussions, that between liberals and communitarians."--Jurgen Habermas, author of Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere "Forst addresses with great insight and acuity the debates over justice between liberals and communitarians that animated the late '80s and '90s...He uses no jargon, he reasons well, his arguments are strong, clear, and accesssible, and he avoids political (...) correctness as well as its opposite."--Andrew Arato, author of Civil Society, Constitution, and Legitimacy. (shrink)

A correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-021-10018-3.

This paper examines the intrinsic relation between institutions and social justice. Its starting point is that processes of institutionalization invoke societal groups to articulate justice demands which, in their turn, give rise to processes of institutional redesign. In liberal democracies, demands for justice are articulated as a pursuit for emancipation and empowerment of groups that feel excluded by dominant categorizations. The imminent presence of this twin pursuit for justice can be explained by the conceptual inconsistencies that (...) characterize the distinction between the public and private sphere. These inconsistencies also explain why demands for emancipation and empowerment are intrinsically ambiguous and inconsistent. In order to reconsider the question how institutions are to be adapted to allow for social justice while acknowledging the plurality, ambiguity and volatility of justice demands, the paper will propose an empirical and normative research agenda. (shrink)

The debate over the applicability of the concept of (distributive) justice to the international sphere appears to focus on practicalities in the agent of redistribution. The agency objection says there is no appropriate agent of (the equivalent of societal distributive) justice and its aims for the international sphere. A common response is that the agency question is merely a matter of practicality, the concepts of justice and injustice can apply to circumstances in which distributive justice may (...) not currently be practically achievable. The paper argues that this response is based on a particular and contentious (in the debate) understanding of distributive justice as focused on outcomes rather than treatment by specific types of agents. A number of problems with that concept of justice are adduced and the alternative concept set out. Rejecting the agency objection based on an assumed concept of justice to which those making it would not obviously subscribed begs the question against them. (shrink)

International in scope and featuring a diverse group of contributors, The Borders of Justice investigates the complexities of transitional justice that emerge from its “social embeddedness.” This original and provocative collection of essays, which stem from a collective research program on social justice undertaken by the Calcutta Research Group, confronts the concept and practices of justice. The editors and contributors question the relationship between geography, methodology, and justice—how and why justice is meted out differently (...) in different places. Expanding on Michael Walzer's idea of the “spheres of justice,” the contributors argue that justice is burdened with our notions of social realities and expectations, in addition to the influence of money, law, and government. Chapters provide close readings of Pascal, Plato and Marx, theories on global justice, the relationship between liberalism and multiculturalism, struggles of social injustice, and how and where we draw the borders of justice. (shrink)

This paper argues that the future of capabilities approach lies on the theoretical development of the democratic political structure. For this purpose, we take into account Martha Nussbaum’s late theoretical works. Firstly, we argue that the capability approach can be divided into two main models: the top down and the bottom up. Nussbaum, for example, endorses a top-down model, which it begins from an abstractive theory of partial justice and then draws the issue of institutional implementation. On the other (...) hand, Amartya Sem advocates the bottom-up model, which starts from the immanent demands of justice from public sphere and then up to normative and abstract questions (like his “idea of justice”). In the second part of this paper, we present Nussbaum’s partial theory of justice, arguing that it is mainly composed by four issues: (a) the elaboration of the list of capabilities, (b) the process of normative evaluation, (c) arguments for stability, (d) the implementation of the model. About this last topic, we argue in the third part that the current theoretical advance of the capabilities approach lies on the issue of the democratic political structure. In other words, the future of capabilities approach depends on the interaction between its own theory and a theory of democracy. Finally, in the last section we provide a re-elaboration of Nussbaum’s threshold level of capabilities (the list) in order to make it more adherent with the democratic political structure. (shrink)

In this article, I argue that Gadamer's hermeneutics of historical tradition does not imply a conservative stance on ethical and political issues. My essay seeks to show that Gadamer's philosophy leaves ample room for normative criticism, objectivity, and theories of justice at odds with conventional common sense. I critically examine Walzer's Spheres of Justice, reading it as an attempt to obtain a normative account of justice based on a hermeneutical framework of interpretation. I make several criticisms (...) of Walzer's method and results, which I use to develop my own critical model for interpreting, criticizing, and revising traditional understandings, and common sense meanings. My conclusion is that we need to extend Gadamer's philosophy, in order to identify the ways that established traditions of understanding and common sense can result from, or produce, inconsistency, irrationality, hermeneutical incoherence, and meaningless deprivations or suffering. This essay thus seeks to develop an influential continental philosophy in a direction that makes fruitful contact with Anglo-American theories of justice, and normativity. (shrink)

The volume gathers theoretical contributions on human rights and global justice in the context of international migration. It addresses the need to reconsider human rights and the theories of justice in connection with the transformation of the social frames of reference that international migrations foster. The main goal of this collective volume is to analyze and propose principles of justice that serve to address two main challenges connected to international migrations that are analytically differentiable although inextricably linked (...) in normative terms: to better distribute the finite resources of the planet among all its inhabitants; and to ensure the recognition of human rights in current migration policies. Due to the very nature of the debate on global justice and the implementation of human rights and migration policies, this interdisciplinary volume aims at transcending the academic sphere and appeals to a large public through argumentative reflections. Challenging the Borders of Justice in the Age of Migrations represents a fresh and timely contribution. -/- IN A TIME when national interests are structurally overvalued and borders increasingly strengthened, it’s a breath of fresh air to read a book in which migration flows are not changed into a threat. We simply cannot understand the world around us through the lens of the ‘migration crisis’-a message the authors of this book have perfectly understood. Aimed at a strong link between theories of global justice and policies of border control, this timely book combines the normative and empirical to deeply question the way our territorial boundaries are justified. Professor Ronald Tinnevelt, Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands.- -/- THIS BOOK IS essential reading for those frustrated by the limitations of the dominant ways of thinking about global justice especially in relation to migration. By bringing together discussions of global justice, cosmopolitan political theory and migration, this collection of essays has the potential to transform the way in which we think and debate the critical issues of membership and movement. Together they present a critical interdisciplinary approach to international migration, human rights and global justice, challenging disciplinary borders as well as political ones. Professor Phil Cole, University of the West of England, UK.-. (shrink)

The founding premise of this book is that the nimbus of prestige which once surrounded the idea of justice has now been dimmed to such a degree that it is no longer sufficient to secure the possibility of a good conscience for those who undertake, in good faith, to make the world a better place in the spheres of politics and law. The many decent human beings who have noticed and experienced this diminishment of justice’s prestige find (...) themselves in a thoroughly disenchanted_ _existential situation. For them the attempt to do justice without the illusion of being grounded in something beyond the sheer facticity of their own performances is a distinctly ethical theme which cries out to be investigated in its own right. Heeding the cry, this book asks and attempts to answer the following fundamental ethical question_: Is a life in the law – even one spent in the pursuit of justice – worth living, and if so, how can a disenchanted person come to bear the living of it without constantly having to engage in self-deception?_ If Nietzsche is right that living without illusions is impossible for human beings, then the most important ethical implication of this essentially anthropological fact goes far beyond the question of what illusions we ought to choose. It must also include the question whether we should succumb to that most seductive and pernicious of all illusions: namely, the belief that exercising great care and responsibility in choosing our illusions – which we might then call our ‘principles of justice’ – excuses us ethically for what we do to others in their name. The culmination of a 10 year legal-philosophical project, this book will appeal to graduate students, scholars and curious non-academic intellectuals interested in continental philosophy, critical legal theory, postmodern theology, the philosophy of human rights, and the study of individual ethics in the context of law. (shrink)

Within the framework of the contemporary discussions of the presuppositions of democracy, the author of this paper poses the question whether discussing justice primarily from the social rather than the personal aspect and level is, perhaps, more appropriate. This ties in with the question of the primary object of justice – is justice the trait of social institutions or individuals? Thus the question of what kind of justice matches democracy. The author explicates this network of questions (...) through three underlying models of the theory of justice – Plato, Aristotle and Rawls’s model. Plato’s model is about the realisation of a good life in a political community in view of the idea of justice that one should do that which is proper to one. Aristotle’s understanding of justice sets forth from a systematic analysis of the concepts that differentiate between the levels of general and particular justice. Rawls’s model of distributive justice rests on the mechanism of the forces of the institutional functional frameworks in well-organised societies. The author’s conclusion is that both forms of justice correspond well to the realisation of democracy. It is best when one’s personal disposition to justice provides strength and support to the social institutions of democracy. Without an adequate institutional framework there is, most certainly, no democracy. Without the personal support of citizens, which issues from fundamental consent, democracy can neither be sustained nor developed. In a democratic system, the private sphere of citizens cannot be fully separated from their public actions. Democracy always and necessarily contains in itself some of the political ideals, which citizens cannot, in their worldviews, relate to neutrally. The questions of the institutional and political shaping of relations, and the questions of the good and just life should be in the interest of the citizens. If they do not accomplish their democratic ideals through their own belief and virtue, then there is no substance that would shape identity for a just system of social institutions. If they do not relate to it as to their own common sense and good to be preserved, democracy has no prospects. (shrink)

The tension between liberalism and democracy is very likely to become one of the major confliction fields of the early twenty-first century. Those conflicts include the redefinition of the relationship between ethics, morality, and law—in all the three spheres of modernity: the intimate, the private and the public. It turns out that all three aspects of the relationship once described by Hegel (law, morality and Sittlichkeit) remain equally decisive to maintain or regain the balance of freedoms in the modern (...) world. There is no justice, nor is there equity—unless this balance is maintained. Law—in this context—is not just the defender of the “universal” aspect, but preferably also that of the balance of freedoms (both through interfering, and through the denial of interference in “ethical life”). (shrink)

In this article I present some implications for a concept of transitional justice through the comparison of two approaches: retributive vs. restorative theories. Notwithstanding their profound differences in perspective, both models are grounded upon a strong notion of the public sphere. Accordingly, after showing why neither of the two approaches exhausts the problems of transitional justice, I will demonstrate how a ‘complete’ justification requires a certain view of public reason based upon rights as truth-constraints of the public sphere.

The cardinal role that notions of respect and self-respect play in Rawls’s A Theory of Justice has already been abundantly examined in the literature. In contrast, it has hardly been noticed that these notions are also central to Michael Walzer’s Spheres of Justice. Respect and self-respect are not only central topics of his chapter “Recognition”, but constitute a central aim of a “complex egalitarian society” and of Walzer’s theory of justice. This paper substantiates this thesis and (...) elucidates Walzer’s criticism of Rawls that we need to distinguish between “self-respect” and “self-esteem”. (shrink)

The one sphere of life where a claimed right to privacy is most sympathetically received is in the inner realm of the mind. I will look briefly at Joseph Tussman’s claim that a government is not only entitled but morally required to be concerned with and involved in the minds of the nation’s citizens. I then further explore reasons why the realm of the mind matters not only morally but politically. There are consequentialist reasons, but more interestingly there are non-consequentialist (...) reasons on the basis of which I introduce the concept of “authentic social justice.” In particular, there are relevant insights to be gainedby reflecting on forms of oppression that are subtle but serious in nature, forms that involve neither violence nor the use of law. (shrink)

The cardinal role that notions of respect and self-respect play in Rawls’s A Theory of Justice has already been abundantly examined in the literature. However, it has hardly been noticed that these notions are also central for Michael Walzer’s Spheres of Justice. Respect and self-respect are not only central topics of his chapter on “recognition”, but constitute a central aim of his whole theory of justice. This paper substantiates this thesis and elucidates Walzer’s criticism of Rawls’s (...) that we need to distinguish between “self-respect” and “self-esteem”. (shrink)

This dissertation serves as a monograph on the moral and social implications of a utilitarian-based system of health care which recognizes and takes rights seriously. Though the design and claims are stated primarily in terms of utilitarianism, admittedly, there are elements of communitarian, deontological, and rights theories which have been incorporated. ;Such a commingling of theoretical elements, under the claim of being utilitarian, may seem ambiguous, however, it is my contention that such inclusions only serve to enhance the plausible nature (...) of this sphere-specific form of utilitarianism and the adjudication of rights. Additionally, though there are other components of theories included, the basis of utilitarianism still serves as the foundation by which all other actions, decisions, and values are judged. ;While it is true that utilitarianism offers a standard for all areas of life, the idea of examining a sphere or environment of utility, in this case, the utility associated with the sphere of health care, allows for the good to be clearly defined. One primary weakness of classical utilitarianism is that it ignores, or at least does not do full justice to, the notion of personal responsibility or sense of obligation. If the only duty or requirement is to produce some obscure sense of the "greatest good" or the "greatest happiness," the question of how the good is identified and who is to have the good remains unanswered by the traditional utilitarian construct. ;The classical view of utilitarianism is too broad in its scope of defining "the greatest good" or realm of value. But to narrow the area of value to a particular sphere or environment allows for the utility and associated rights in question to be identified, the value measured, and the success more easily interpreted. ;While maintaining the general premise of utilitarianism, that is, "the greatest good for the greatest number," the notion is not from some nebulous concept or subjective position about life or feelings in general. This sphere-specific position also acknowledges and defines the "rights" of the individual within the particular sphere being considered, in this case, the sphere of health care. (shrink)

The interrelated causes and consequences of environmental degradation, poverty, and war are creating a dangerous snowball effect that poses a real threat to people in every nation. While moral arguments for cosmopolitanism may be subject to nationalist objections, the practical argument becomes more convincing as the long-term consequences of global injustice unfold. Contemporary conditions demand a critical re-examination of what is at stake in the question of global justice: when understood as highly influential to all national spheres, the (...) global sphere of justice may turn out to be just as relevant to nationalists as it is to cosmopolitans. Given the pressing nature of the practical demands posed by poverty, war, and environmental destruction, it may well be in the best interest of everyone's co-nationals to prioritise global duties of justice, at least for the time being. (shrink)

This essay presents the normative foundation of W.E.B. Du Bois’s constructivist theory of justice in three steps. First, I show that for Du Bois the public sphere in Anglo-European modern states consists of a dialectical interplay between reasonable persons and illiberal rogues. Second, under these nonideal circumstances, the ideal of autonomy grounds reasonable persons’ deliberative openness, an attitude of public moral regard for others which is necessary for constructing the terms of political rule. Though deliberative openness is the essential (...) vehicle of construction, reasonable persons only have a pragmatic political obligation to forge ties of deliberative reciprocity with likeminded persons whom they trust will listen and not harm them. Finally, I present Du Bois’s defense of black suffragists’ support of the 19th Amendment to illustrate pragmatic political obligation in action. I sketch successful democratic engagement that reconstitutes a nonideal public sphere. (shrink)

In his most recent voluminous work Das Recht der Freiheit (2011) Axel Honneth brings his version of the recognition paradigm to full fruition. Criticizing Kantian theories of justice, he develops a Hegelian alternative which has at its core a different conception of freedom. In this paper, I will scrutinize Honneths latest work to see whether he offers a promising alternative to mainstream liberal theories of justice. I will focus on two key differences with Kantian theories of justice. (...) Substantively, Honneth criticizes the Kantian concept of ‘reflexive freedom’ and proposes instead as the core of his own theory the concept of ‘social freedom’. Methodologically, he proposes a method of ‘normative reconstruction’, and explicitly develops this in contrast to Kantian constructivism. I investigate the robustness of these shifts by seeing how they are actually used in Honneth’s reconstruction of the market sphere. I conclude that his method of normative reconstruction does not provide the kind of guidance Honneth thinks it does. His conception of social freedom fares slightly better but can either be reduced to the mainstream’s idea of reflexive freedom, or else faces some serious challenges. (shrink)