Suchergebnisse

Frontmatter -- CONTENTS -- Acknowledgmen -- INTRODUCTION -- CHAPTER I. Gender as Seriality: Thinking about Women as a Social Collective -- CHAPTER II. Asymmetrical Reciprocity: On Moral Respect, Wonder, and Enlarged Thought -- CHAPTER III. Communication and the Other: Beyond Deliberative Democracy -- CHAPTER IV. Punishment, Treatment, Empowerment: Three Approaches to Policy for Pregnant Addicts -- CHAPTER V. Reflections on Families in the Age of Murphy Brown: On Justice, Gender, and Sexuality -- CHAPTER VI. Mothers, Citizenship, and Independence: A Critique of Pure Family Values -- CHAPTER VII. House and Home: Feminist Variations on a Theme -- Notes -- Index -- About the Author

In 'Responsibility for Justice', Young discusses our responsibilities to address 'structural' injustices in which we - among many - are implicated, but not to blame. Young argues that addressing these structural injustices requires a new model of responsibility, which she calls the 'social connection' model

Neste artigo, Iris Young discute o papel dos protestos e da ação direta na democracia. Sua estratégia para avaliar os argumentos a favor e contra a ação direta é o diálogo hipotético entre duas personagens, uma ativista e uma democrata deliberativa. Considerando como ambas lidam com os conflitos e desigualdades nas democracias e como definem a boa cidadania, ela discute os limites e potenciais dessas abordagens teóricas e práticas. Revelando conflitos que não podem ser ultrapassados e possíveis continuidades entre elas, a autora destaca que os protestos são tão necessários às democracias quanto o diálogo e a persuasão. Faz, assim, a crítica ao potencial paralisante da democracia deliberativa, em sua busca por consensos amplos.

This is the text of The Lindley Lecture for 2003, given by Iris Marion Young (1949-2006), an American philosopher.

Résumé Il semble exister une contradiction insurmontable entre deux conceptions du changement social : celle portée par les militants et reposant sur l'action collective et la critique, et celle portée par les théoriciens de la délibération, reposant sur la formulation d'un accord après une discussion rationnelle. En faisant dialoguer ces deux positions, l'article met en lumière certaines limites des normes de la démocratie délibérative, en particulier dans le cadre de sociétés marquées par des inégalités structurelles importantes qui rendent la discussion difficilement équitable. Ce faisant, il éclaire certaines vertus démocratiques des pratiques politiques non délibératives de protestation. Ce n'est qu'en s'ouvrant à des formes critiques et non-argumentatives d'expression que la délibération peut dès lors véritablement être à la hauteur de son idéal d'inclusion et de transformation sociale.

It seems there is an insuperable contradiction between two conceptions of social change -- one rooted in collective action and critique by activists, the other based on the construction of a collective agreement after a fair deliberation, as argued by deliberative democrats. Through a dialogue between these two positions, this essay casts a new light on certain limitations of deliberative democratic norms, especially in a context of wide structural inequalities, making public discussion hardly ever equitable. In so doing this essay emphasizes the democratic virtues of non-deliberative and contentious political practices. It is only by opening deliberation to non-argumentative and critical forms of expression that it can achieve its ideal of inclusion and social change. Adapted from the source document.