Abstract
Demands calling for reparations for historical injustices—injustices whose original victims and perpetrators are now dead—constitute an important component of contemporary struggles for social and transnational justice. Reparations are only one way in which the unjust past is salient in contemporary politics. In my book, Injustice and the Reproduction of History: Structural Inequalities, Gender and Redress, I put forward a framework to conceptualise the normative significance of the unjust past. In this article, I will engage with the insightful comments and try to address the concerns of the contributors to the symposium on my book. I will discuss (i) whether and in what sense my framework incorporates past-regarding duties, (ii) how it is different from causal interpretations of the relationship between past and present injustice, (iii) whether it can carve out a greater place for blame in our thinking about responsibility for (historical) structural injustice, (iv) whether such a responsibility needs to hinge upon an account of solidarity, and (v) how de-temporalising injustice can cast new light on immigration politics. In particular, I will stress and further clarify the importance that the notion of ‘structural debt’, which my book develops to reflect on historical responsibility, can play in thinking about what is owed to an unjust history.
Highlights
Between Past and PresentI built on some insights into philosophy of history offered by Reinhart Koselleck to argue that we should de-temporalise injustice, that is, when it comes to certain types of injustices, we should avoid the conceptual separation between the past and the present and think of unjust history as newly reproduced (Nuti 2019, pp. 13–29)
Demands calling for reparations for historical injustices—injustices whose original victims and perpetrators are dead—constitute an important component of contemporary struggles for social and transnational justice
Notwithstanding widespread scepticism about reparations for historical injustices, it is hard to deny that the unjust past still profoundly shapes our present reality
Summary
I built on some insights into philosophy of history offered by Reinhart Koselleck to argue that we should de-temporalise injustice, that is, when it comes to certain types of injustices, we should avoid the conceptual separation between the past and the present and think of unjust history as newly reproduced (Nuti 2019, pp. 13–29). I contended that ‘[d]e-temporalising injustice is necessary to capture (1) the relation between past and present injustice, and (2) the complex interplay between persistence and change’ The framework of the de-temporalisation of injustice aims to overcome the long-standing (but—I think—not necessarily highly productive) divide between so-called ‘backward-looking’ and ‘forward-looking’ considerations about why past injustices are normative significant. In their thought-provoking articles, Daniel Butt and Megan Blomfield challenge my framework by, respectively, stressing the importance of pure past-regarding duties of justice and suggesting that ‘causal’ interpretations of the link between past wrongs and present inequalities should not be rejected but, instead, complemented by the de-temporalisation framework.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
