Search results

Cover -- Half Title -- Series -- Title -- Copyright -- Dedication -- Contents -- Figures -- Acknowledgements -- Chapter 1 From global justice to structural injustice -- Chapter 2 What is structural injustice? -- Chapter 3 Power and structural injustice -- Chapter 4 Structural injustice in practice -- Chapter 5 Moral responsibility -- Chapter 6 Political responsibility -- Chapter 7 Corporate responsibility and historical injustice -- Chapter 8 Acting on political responsibility -- Bibliography -- Index.

Contemporary political theory is a game. Individuals compete to publish in 'top' journals, to amass greater numbers of publications than their peers; then journal-ranking is combined with number of publications generating scores. The aim is to get the most points. Whoever gets the most points wins: they get the best jobs and the most prestige. This Hunger Games–like contest has serious consequences for people's lives, determining who can make a living from academia, who will be relegated to the academic precariat or forced out of the profession. In this article, I argue that, aside from the chilling effect that job insecurity and the gamification of academia has on the precariat, these conditions are stifling intellectual creativity, diversity, and dissent in political theory/philosophy. I discuss how privatization and deregulation of universities has created unbearable working conditions, why academics are forced to publish in so-called top journals and why this is detrimental to our field, marginalizing people, topics, and methodologies these journals do not support (which usually align with already structurally marginalized peoples and modes of knowledge). I explain why we are engaging in this game and how it perpetuates itself. I conclude with some suggestions for breaking this vicious cycle, as well as a discussion of who is really benefitting from it, namely, the corporate elites who run many universities and most academic publishers.

Upon what empirical basis did Hobbes make his claims about the 'state of nature'? He looked to 'the savage people in many places of America' (Hobbes, 1976: 187). Most people now recognize Hobbes's assertions about Native Americans as racist. And yet, as Widerquist and McCall argue in their book Prehistoric Myths in Modern Political Philosophy, the myth that life outside the state is unbearable and that life under the state is better remains the essential premise of two of the most influential Western political philosophies in the modern world – social contract theory (contractarianism) and property rights theory (propertarianism). Critiques of these philosophies are not new. But what is new, and exciting, about this book is that a political philosopher (Karl Widerquist) enlists an anthropologist (Grant S. McCall) to systematically debunk this founding myth on the basis of empirical evidence. Despite some confusion about the book's aims, the lack of attention to women and the risk of epistemic injustice, the results are fascinating and, I will argue, should prompt a methodological crisis for some schools of political philosophy.

What is Structural Injustice? is the first edited collection to bring together the voices of leading structural injustice scholars from politics, philosophy and law to explore the concept of structural injustice which has now become a central feature of all three disciplines and is considered by many to be a 'field of study.' The volume features specially selected original and essential works on structural injustice. The volume provides a range of disciplinary, ontological and epistemological perspectives on what structural injustice is and includes feminist and post-colonial theories to interrogate how structural injustice exacerbates and reproduces existing inequalities and relations of power. This book aims to become a touchstone text for those interested in the different ways we can understand structural injustice, how it manifests, how it relates to other forms of injustice, who is responsible for its redress and the different ways we might go about it. This book will appeal to a wide audience of students, both undergraduate and postgraduate, as well as the general academic population, experts on structural injustice, interested practitioners in politics and members of the public.