ABSTRACT The potential harms of algorithmic management in the workplace are a significant concern within recent political theory of work. This article provides a critical account of the intuition that workplace democracy might ameliorate these harms. It develops an epistemic case for workplace democratisation presupposed by these claims and situates it within a non-ideal account of algorithmic management. Whilst participatory solutions to algorithmic management’s harms are appealing, I argue that the epistemic agency which is a condition of their success is undermined by algorithmic management. Through an account of what I call the ‘epistemic degradation’ problem, I show that two feasibility constraints undermine the epistemic agency that is a condition of transition from hierarchical to democratic firms: the information asymmetry constraint and the value deskilling constraint. Two conclusions follow. First, ideal arguments for workplace democratisation must justify the habituation required for participatory work, particularly under non-ideal conditions like labour processes in which algorithmic management is deployed. Second, this non-ideal account of algorithmic management justifies democratic control over its possible deployment due to its epistemic harms.

ABSTRACT The literature on global structural injustice demands that ordinary citizens take political responsibility for the global structural injustices in which they are implicated. In order to do so, it is argued that they join relevant political movements and engage in activism aimed at addressing unjust global structures. This paper argues that there is a limit to how much political participation can be expected from ordinary citizens. Not everyone can be an activist. This is not just for well-rehearsed demandingness concerns, but also due to individuals’ legitimate claims on their discretionary time, respect for pluralism, and the need for a division of labour within society and politics. In response to these concerns, the paper examines alternative ways in which ordinary citizens can fulfil their political responsibility to address global structural injustice, and recommends a novel account of scaffolding responsibilities.

In the new era, student affairs management in colleges and universities faces challenges such as diversified student demands, hidden conflicts and disputes, and issues with governance efficiency. As the backbone of ideological and polit-ical work in higher education, the traditional "administrative" and "fire-fighting" working modes of counselors are increasingly inadequate to meet current demands. Drawing on the classic wisdom of Chinese grassroots social governance—the "Fengqiao Experience"—this study explores the intrinsic alignment between its core principles and the work of counselors. It aims to construct a new counselor working model centered on "prevention first, grass-roots focus, and endogenous growth." This model emphasizes shifting the work focus from "post-incident handling" to "pre-incident warning," transforming the working subject from "individual effort" to "co-governance between teachers and students," and upgrading working methods from "management and re-straint" to "service and guidance." The paper systematically elaborates the the-oretical foundation of this model and constructs its practical framework, which includes creating an information early warning mechanism of "frontline pre-positioning," a conflict mediation mechanism of "multi-party collabora-tion," and a growth guidance mechanism of "infiltration and nurturing." Finally, specific implementation paths are proposed, such as enhancing the core compe-tencies of counselors, cultivating student backbone teams, leveraging digital tools, and improving institutional safeguards. These measures aim to advance the professionalization, refinement, and scientific level of counselor work, thereby fulfilling the fundamental task of fostering virtue and cultivating talent.

With webcasting becoming an important part of college students' daily life, how to effectively use this emerging media carrier to strengthen ideological and po-litical education in colleges and universities has become an important topic of ideological and political work in colleges and universities in the new era. In this paper, taking the "live group of eating light" in the School of Food Science and Engineering of Nanjing University of Finance and Economics as a case, the in-novative mode of ideological and political education in colleges and universities with the integration of "ideological and political education+specialty+practice" is discussed. By constructing the education mechanism with deep integration of ideological and political education, professional characteristics and practice platform, this model effectively solves the problems existing in traditional ideo-logical and political education, such as theory divorced from reality, low student participation and single educational carrier, and provides a reference path for the innovation of ideological and political education in colleges and universities in the new era. The research shows that the live broadcast education mode not only improves students' comprehensive quality and employment competitive-ness, but also strengthens the effectiveness and attractiveness of ideological and political education, and realizes the organic unity of knowledge transmission, ability training and value guidance.

ABSTRACT In light of its epochal significance, academics from many disciplines have wrestled with the implications of China’s rise. Political philosophers have, however, been slow to join the fray. They have said little, in particular, about how we ought to (re)conceive of the demands of international justice in light of China’s increasing influence, or about the theoretical and practical challenges which it requires us to confront. I highlight three reasons that China’s rise generates such challenges. First, it is likely a harbinger of a broader change in the international order, as developing countries come to rival developed countries in international power. Second, China’s vast population, its unique brand of authoritarianism and economic governance, and its central role in the global economy make it a truly unique state worth analysing in detail. Finally, as China increasingly competes with the United States, its rise forces us to deal with questions about global order that will become increasingly pressing in the coming decades. After outlining these three challenges, I go on to discuss several questions concerning China’s international role which philosophers are well placed to explore, including the demands of distributive justice, the moral significance of demographic size, and the ethics of superpower competition.

ABSTRACT According to a widespread interpretation of John Rawls’s Liberal Principle of Legitimacy, political legitimacy requires justifiability to all reasonable citizens, but not to the unreasonable. A highly influential attempt at justifying this exclusion of the unreasonable – one first formulated by Jonathan Quong, and later endorsed by many others – is to appeal to the project of solving the problem of inherent stability. Since this is a problem that arises in a just and well-ordered society, and such a society is populated by reasonable citizens only, it is only these citizens, so the reasoning goes, that are relevant for questions of legitimacy. In this paper, I show that this justification of the exclusion of the unreasonable depends on an implicitly assumed connection between stability and legitimacy. We have good reasons, I argue, to doubt that there is this kind of connection. Stability does not determine to whom justification is owed, but it might contribute to determining what is justifiable to citizens.

ABSTRACT This article proposes a new model of bicameral sortition democracy that rethinks the division of labor between elected and randomly selected bodies. Existing bicameral proposals either give sortition chambers weak or co-equal authority, limiting their ability to realize the epistemic promise of deliberative democracy. By contrast, I propose a model in which an elected chamber sets the legislative agenda and oversees deliberative fairness, while a sortition chamber holds exclusive authority to deliberate and decide policy. This design preserves the communicative and authorization functions of elections, while securing the epistemic advantages of cognitively diverse citizen deliberation. I evaluate this model against three alternatives, pure sortition, co-equal bicameralism, and subordinate sortition bicameralism, along four normative dimensions: resistance to elite capture, representation and inclusion, epistemic quality, and legitimacy and accountability. I argue that only a model that empowers citizens in their ‘post-learning’ capacity, while grounding decisions in a democratically visible and contestable process, can deliver a political system that is both legitimate and epistemically robust.

ABSTRACT Liberal political theory typically holds that injustice can corrupt legitimacy. Realists critique such views as ‘moralist,’ arguing that justice and legitimacy are not the same thing. For realists, even profoundly unjust states can satisfy basic legitimation criteria. While realism may appear hostile to the thesis that injustice corrupts legitimacy, this paper demonstrates that realist theory is more hospitable to that claim than one might expect.

ABSTRACT Crises furnish opportunities for political change. This fact raises neglected normative questions. How should the various possible ways of taking advantage of crises be evaluated? And should such an evaluation be ‘special?’ Namely, should strategies that take advantage of crises, like deliberately playing on people’s fears or rushing through policy changes, be evaluated differently from when essentially the same strategies are used independent of any crisis? To clarify the terrain, we provide an analysis of the concept of taking advantage of a crisis. We then set out an evaluative framework that specifies the different respects in which various strategies that take advantage of crises are pro tanto good and bad. Finally, we argue that strategies that take advantage of crises are normatively special. For they are worse across certain normative dimensions – in virtue of the additional vulnerabilities that crises induce – than essentially the same strategies used independent of any crisis.

ABSTRACT Democratic politics requires the democratic subject’s identifiability to enable accountability. This requirement, stabilizing identities’ classificatory categories of race, sexuality, class and gender, entails essentialist tendencies and invites stereotyping. This essay conjures an imaginary of a democratic politics beyond recognition, a democracy powered by the actions of perceptible yet unidentifiable subjects. This form of democratic engagement allows the subject to show up * * any way * * , a concept signifying the agency but also the confusion of unrecognizability. In doing so, the essay expands the politics of becoming from democratizing the construction of the self to cultivating democratic relations with the other. It makes the case for (1) unrecognizing, (2) sustaining and (3) co-constructing the other in order to (4) generate ‘other spaces’ or democratic heterotopias.