Individualistic Premises Research Articles

A Free Market of Morals: Boycotting, Liberalism, and Property

The development of the practice of boycotting during the Irish Land War (1879–82), and its subsequent spread beyond Ireland to the United States, sparked outrage and concern. This was prompted by the specific intellectual challenges the practice posed for liberals on both sides of the Atlantic. In relying on a liberal defense of free speech and freedom of association, early boycotters in the 1880s were able to demonstrate the dependence of property rights on social sanction while also remaining initially impervious to legal censure. As a result, the definition and extent of property rights came under scrutiny because of the ease and simplicity by which they could be curtailed through social force. It is observed here that consequent legislation to insulate commercial wealth from boycotting’s parallel moral economy required the reinforcement and development of political justifications of the state’s right to manage economic interactions in the name of social stability and public welfare. The paper argues that boycotting was so threatening to classical visions of liberal individualism precisely because it was so firmly grounded in individualistic premises. It observes not only that boycotters used the language of “free trade” to defend the practice but also that the practice itself contained latent political assumptions about social organization. The argument also suggests that, contrary to much current academic opinion, rights-based popular resistance can be directed toward egalitarian ends.

The October 2021 Term and the Challenge to Progressive Constitutional Theory

This Essay examines the ways in which the Supreme Court’s October 2021 Term challenges core theoretical commitments of progressive constitutional theory. Progressive constitutional theory originated in the progressive political theory of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Accordingly, progressive constitutional theory shares progressive political theory’s commitments to two propositions: rationalism and individualism. These commitments lead to an understanding of history as moving in a particular direction—one that is generally in line with progressive ideology. The originalist and traditionalist approaches of the Court’s October 2021 decisions call into question the progressive confidence in the direction of history while simultaneously rejecting the rationalistic and individualistic premises of progressivism. This helps explain why many progressive constitutional theorists have found the Court’s decisions so disorienting and confounding. The October 2021 Term challenged—even though it did not definitively refute—the progressive narrative of constitutional redemption through history. The implications of the Court’s decisions will reverberate through American constitutional theory for decades to come.

Who cares? Neoliberalism, informal labour, and life-making

In this paper we develop a Marxist-feminist intervention into the phenomena of informal labour and life-making through a social reproduction lens. In order to approach these issues in a more consistent manner, we structure the argumentation in two parts. After taking a few necessary theoretical and methodological notes on neoliberal abolition of society and on Social Reproduction Theory, in the second part of the paper we elaborate the problem of informal labour and we link it to the recent crisis of care work. We assert that this ?care crisis? arises from the neoliberal need for a reconfiguration of reproduction, deepened by reassigning the responsibility of care from welfare state to personal initiative and charity. Suggested thematic inclination of the paper evokes the concept of ideological formalization of family as a fundamentally ?anti-social unit? and critically approaches the ideology of ?familialisation?. When it comes to the matter of context and method, we depart from the premise that economic liberalism, grounded in individualist premises, represents an ideological expression of capitalism, and that family as a system for governing social reproduction within households depends not only upon naturalisation, but also upon individuation.

Value-Based Reimbursement in Collectively Financed Healthcare Requires Monitoring of Socioeconomic Patient Data to Maintain Equality in Service Provision

Value-based purchasing is increasingly discussed in association with efforts to develop modern healthcare systems. These models are the most recent example of models derived from health economics research intended to reform collectively financed healthcare. Previous examples have ranged from creation of pseudo-markets to opening these markets for competition between publicly and privately owned enterprises. Most value-based purchasing models tend to ignore that health service provision in collectively financed settings is based on an insurance with political, social obligations attached that challenge the notion of free market and individualist premises which these models rest on. Central social issues related to healthcare in any modern complex society, such as inequality in service provision, can all too easily “disappear” in value-based reform efforts. Based on an analysis of Swedish policy development, we contend that management information systems need to be extended to allow routine monitoring of socioeconomic data when models such as value-based purchasing are introduced in collectively financed health services. The experiences from Sweden are important for health policy in Europe and other regions with collectively financed healthcare plans.

Independence and individualism: conflated values in farmer cooperation?

Social scientists have long examined the changing role of the individual, and the influence of individualism in social and economic arrangements as well as behavioral decisions. With respect to co-operative behavior among farmers, however, the ideology of individualism has been little theorized in terms of its relationship to the longstanding virtue of independence. This paper explores this relationship by combining analysis of historical literature on the agricultural cooperative movement with the accounts of contemporary English farmers. I show that the virtue of independence is deployed to justify a variety of cooperative (formal and informal) and non-cooperative practices and that, despite apparently alternative interpretations, independence is most often conflated with individualistic premises. That conflation, I argue, leads farmers to see their neighbors as natural competitors: as those from whom which independence must be sought. This has the effect of masking the structural dependencies which farmers face (such as lenders and large purchasers) and limits the alternatives available to them to realize a view of independence that is maintained, rather than opposed, by interdependent collective action. Thus perceived, individualism is an ideological doctrine that succeeds by appealing to the virtue of independence, while simultaneously denying its actual realization.

Human Rights and the Liberal Democratic State -- Revisiting Rights Through a Lockean Lens

John Locke’s account of political legitimacy begins from universalist and individualist premises but ends by tying individual rights recognition under the law of the state to political membership. I argue that Locke’s theory has partisan implications in relation to rights recognition and the standing of political communities that are not justified by his founding premises. I conclude by suggesting there are significant parallels between Locke’s account of political legitimacy and how individual rights are conceptualized within contemporary liberal democracies, as well as in the international human rights system. As in Locke, there is a tension in liberal democracies and in the international system between universal individualism and political sovereignty. This tension is widely recognized, but its roots in classical liberalism have not been fully acknowledged or explored. As a result, we are yet to engage adequately with its implications for how we think about human rights and about individuals as the bearers of rights.

The lion and the lamb: ecological implications of Martha Nussbaum's animal ethics

Martha Nussbaum's translation of her list of human capabilities into one for animals is based on controversial assumptions and results in controversial prescriptions. Here one of Nussbaum's arguments – that, other things being equal, the promotion of animal capabilities implies a duty to prevent harm to animals – is taken to its logical extremes. The consequences of such a duty are immense, yet perfectly consistent with Nussbaum's conviction that ‘the natural’ must be replaced by ‘the just’. Surprisingly, this duty to politicise nature is based on individualistic premises that are not specifically Nussbaumian but are instead widely shared. From the point of view of classical political ecologists, the implication is that caring for animals on individualist grounds may well be bad for nature.

Locke on Punishment, Property and Moral Knowledge

AbstractLocke's admittedly 'very strange' sounding doctrine of natural executive power, according to which the individual has the right to execute the law of nature, has long been one of the most controversial features of his moral philosophy. In contrast to the many commentators who deny its theoretical innovation and challenge its individualist premises, this study proposes that the philosophical significance of Locke's natural right to punish derives from its critical departure from earlier moral and political theory. It also argues that the individualist political and religious implications of the natural punishment doctrine are only fully intelligible in light of Locke's theory of property and the assessment of the epistemological limits and possibilities for acquiring moral knowledge in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding.

On the Critique of the Subject of Development: Beyond Proprietary and Methodological Individualism

Contemporary development discourse remains framed substantially and methodologically in terms of individualist premises. The advancement of individual well-being, even in more heterodox accounts, serves as a normative backdrop to policy recommendations, in which development discourse unquestioningly reproduces core tenets of liberal thought—tenets which, this paper argues, need to be critically interrogated. The paper conducts this interrogation in three steps. First, it reconstructs some of the basic motifs of liberal thought and the establishment of methodological individualism, as well as the substantive conception of proprietary subjectivity. Second, it retraces C. B. MacPherson's critique of the latter, and his substantive exploration of ‘developmental freedom’ as an alternative to the proprietary conception of liberalism's ‘freedom of choice’. I argue that MacPherson's critique succeeds in a way, which poses a continuing challenge to contemporary development discourse's affinity towards disciplinary economics. However, while MacPherson's substantive critique of proprietary individualism remains cogent, I show that his approach remains tied to methodological individualism, with problematic implications. In the third part of the paper, I outline a remedy for these shortcomings with reference to intersubjectivist critical social theory, by drawing on the example of Axel Honneth's recognition theoretic approach. The latter offers, I argue, the best prospect for integrating concerns typically framed in terms of the ‘politics of identity and difference’, and those under the ‘politics of inequality’. El tema contemporáneo sobre el desarrollo continúa siendo formulado substancial y metodológicamente en términos de premisas individualistas. El avance del bienestar individual (inclusive en hechos más heterodoxos), sirve como un escenario normativo para recomendaciones políticas, en las cuales el tema del desarrollo reproduce incondicionalmente dogmas fundamentales del pensamiento liberal, dogmas que según este documento, deben cuestionarse críticamente. El documento conduce este interrogatorio en tres pasos, en primer término, reconstruyendo algunos de los motivos básicos del pensamiento liberal, y el establecimiento del individualismo metodológico, así como la concepción considerable de la subjetividad de propiedad; en segundo término, reconstruye la crítica de esta última por C.B. MacPherson y su exploración substancial de la ‘libertad de desarrollo’ como una alternativa a la concepción de propiedad del liberalismo, ‘la libertad de elección’. Yo planteo que la crítica de MacPherson acierta de una manera, lo cual presenta un desafío continuo a la afinidad con el tema del desarrollo contemporáneo hacia una economía disciplinaria. Sin embargo, en tanto que la crítica substancial de MacPherson sobre el individualismo posesivo continua siendo convincente, yo demuestro que este enfoque permanece ligado al individualismo metodológico, con implicaciones problemáticas. En la tercera parte del documento, esbozo un remedio para estas deficiencias con referencia a la teoría social crítica intersubjetivista extrayendo el ejemplo del método teórico de reconocimiento de Axel Honneth. Sostengo que este último ofrece el mejor prospecto para integrar los asuntos típicamente enmarcados en términos de ‘política de identidad y diferencia’ y aquellos bajo ‘la política de la desigualdad’.

‘How we think they think’: thought styles in the management of international aid

AbstractAid administration is characterised by high moral objectives and often frustratingly low achievements. This article explores the idea that the problem lies not in inadequate policy or instruments as such but in the thinking processes that emerge within policy circles, at delivery levels within aid administration and at the interface between donor and recipient, to which the trade likes to apply the notion of ‘partnership’. Cultural Theory identifies three distinct and often contradictory ways of thinking that reflect individualist, group and hierarchical value premises. It is adopted here to explore how these types of thinking apply within aid administration, finding that the policy process is a surprisingly ‘groupie’ kind of activity, emphasising the sharing of values and understandings within donor circles. Delivery agents (donor field offices) by contrast are under hierarchical pressure to turn the outcomes into packaged deliverables, whether the ‘good’ is packageable or not. Supported by NPM orthodoxies, these agents seek control through linear programming and performance monitoring. A third contradiction is revealed when the donor attempts to bring such packages into a partnership relationship with recipient governments. Partnership is about sharing and dealing. But what the recipient is offered is a package with Henry Ford type characteristics: ‘any colour you like (social aspiration), as long as it is black (PRSP formula)’. The article is biased; from the perspective of a consultant caught in the middle; but if there is truth in the findings it might just open the door to new styles of aid relationship and novel delivery vehicles. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Public Policy and the Ethics of Care

Considered here are Eva Feder Kittay's Love's Labor (1999) and Mona Harrington's Care and Equality (1999). Although these books are written from very different disciplinary perspectives, Kittay and Harrington share conviction that public policy in United States must be altered to give more support not only to recipients of care-the young, old, ill, or disabled-but also to those who take care of them. Each presents a thoughtful critique of individualistic premises of classical liberal philosophy, and offers a persuasive reformulation that incorporates an understanding of human dependency. Each also presents concrete policy prescriptions rooted in that new understanding. Harrington and Kittay create a wonderfully paired set of books because they support their similar perspectives with radically different materials, a diversity that makes their arguments all more thought-provoking and convincing. Kittay is a philosopher; Harrington trained as a political scientist and lawyer. At core of Kittay's work is her contention that John Rawls's theory of justice is deficient because it does not understand that dependency and need to care for dependents are inescapable aspects of human condition. The heart of Harrington's work is a provocative interpretation of many of domestic policy initiatives and political crises of Clinton administration. Despite their different focuses, authors share conviction that philosophy matters to public policy. How we understand nature of human beings and principles of justice is reflected in law and social practice, and one of ways to improve policy is to improve our understanding of principles of justice. Kittay argues that condition of dependency affects not only those persons who are weak, ill, or disabled, but also those who take care of them. Rawls's depiction of original position fails to recognize that the conditions of human development, disease, and decline are . . . unalterable, as are

Towards a Gestalt Development Model

"Abstract: Traditional models of development have emphasised developmental stages of the individual self as powered from within, in varying degrees of isolation from the experiential and social field Even models such as Erikson's, which attempt to consi&r the sucial surround, rest on the individualistic premises of a reifled and autonomous self model. As a result, clinicians and o'thets who work with children and adolescents have long expemed a split between theory and actual practice, which &Iy rests on seeing and working with their clients in their social context. The use of a Gestalt lens sewes to =integrate the false dichotomy in this field, nwving us toward a whole-field view of self and development that re1ate-s the inner and outer worlds of the child as a unitary dynamic process. Thematic implications of hs view are discw, with emphasis on intersubjectivity and intimacy, support and shame, gender and identity, and voice and nmtivdl as developmental dynamics and issues. Key words: development, Gestalt, self, individualism, field model, intersubjectivity, intimacy, support, shame, gender, identity, voice, narrative."

Maternal Bodies and Nationalism

Mothering, in its radically multifarious forms, is central for the cultural reproduction of societies. As such, mothering activities convey values and create identities that are rooted in the specific politics of societies whether they be the politics of slavery and racism in American society, or the politics of nationalism in Western and Eastern European countries. Taking the political parameters of mothering seriously as a subject for philosophical discussion generates a revision of both traditional discussions of ethics as well as of some prominent strands in feminist ethics. In this essay I will explore two interconnected themes: the first is the hermeneutical problem of how to understand radically different bodily experiences; the second is the question of the political determinants of mothering-in particular how nationalism uses mothering both materially and symbolically. My own view is that in order to give an adequate analysis of mothering, it is necessary to develop a feminist materialist analysis that focuses on the complex historical construction of bodily identities-a construction that extends well beyond the scope of individual consciousness and control. Feminist Critiques of Masculinist Ethics There are many resources to draw on for a revision of ethical theories. Feminists have been prominent, but not alone in developing a critique of the individualism of "philosophical man." Norbert Elias, in The Civilizing Process, describes the philosophical depiction of the subject in the following way: "The fact that he came into the world as a child, the whole process of his development to adulthood and as an adult, is neglected as immaterial by this image of man."' Feminists have tried to flesh out the processes involved in the development to adulthood: to cite a few prominent texts, Nancy Chodorow's, The Reproduction of Mothering analyzes the psychodynamics of male and female development; Carol Gilligan's In a Different Voice explores genderbased differences in moral thinking; Sara Ruddick's Maternal Thinking analyzes the thought and work of "mothering" individuals (who may well be men). These writers argue that masculine theorists have developed a conception of moral autonomy and reasoning based on a specifically male experience of separateness. These feminists seek to supplant individualistic ethics with an ethics that focuses on relationships between humans. Here I will focus only on one facet of the debate about an ethics of care: the criticism that care theorists analyze women's psychology, moral development, and maternal practices from a politically narrow viewpoint. For example, although Sara Ruddick mentions the diversity of mothering, and acknowledges that maternal work is shaped by race, ethnicity, class, culture, and sexual orientation, this diversity does not shape her theorizing about maternal practice. As Alison Bailey writes, "Her pluralism requires more than just recognizing the existence of diversity; she must also be able to talk about it "2 Whereas Ruddick identifies preservative love, nurturing, and social training as the basic story of maternal practice, critics point out that these categories disregard the specific locations from which women mother. In contrast to Ruddick, Patricia Hill Collins analyzes the motherwork carried out by women of color in the United States. Her work generates a different list of maternal priorities: survival (which cannot be taken for granted in racist America), identity (how to retain one's identity without becoming a willing participant in one's own subordination), and empowerment (how mothers struggle to empower themselves in order to meet the needs of their children and communities).3 Collins' work shows the extent to which proponents of an "ethics of care" and "maternal thinking" fail to account for the material situatedness of mothering, for example, in economic, racial, geographic, and national contexts. It is only when feminists locate mothering activities in these political fields that the move from a morality of the individual subject to a morality of relations between humans will genuinely move away from the traditional individualistic premises of moral philosophy. …

Liberal democracy and the rights of nature: The struggle for inclusion

Is there a necessary, in‐principle connection between ecocentric values and democracy or is the relationship merely contingent? Is it possible to incorporate the interests of the non‐human community into the ground rules of democracy? Through an immanent ecological critique of the regulative ideals and institutions of liberal democracy, it is suggested that ecocentric values and democracy can be connected to some extent ‐ at least in the same way that liberalism and democracy are connected ‐ through an extension of the principle of autonomy and the rights discourse to include ecological interests. However, the move from autonomy, to rights, to an ecologically grounded democracy encounters a number of hazards, not all of which can be successfully negotiated owing to the individualistic premises of the rights discourse. While the rights discourse may be extended to include human environmental rights and animal rights in relation to captive and domesticated species, it becomes considerably strained and unworkable (ontologically, politically and legally) in relation to the remaining constituents of the biotic community.

Hume and Contractarianism

David Hume's opposition to contractarian political theory, most famously expressed in Of the Original Contract, is not as complete as prevailing interpretations suggest. On the issues of requiring consent from the governed and the permissibility of resistance to oppression, he is less far from the contractarian position than is normally assumed. However he diverges strongly from the contractarians in denying both their individualist premises about the internal ordering of society and their conceptions of sovereign states as moral and legal persons in external affairs.

Why the problem of reductionism in biology has implications for economics

Abstract For several decades, economists have been preoccupied with an attempt to place their entire subject on the ‘sound microfoundations’ of general equilibrium theory, with its individualistic premises. However, this project has run into seemingly intractable problems. This essay examines underlying questions such as the appropriate building block of analysis and the structure of explanation in economics. The examination of biology is found to be instructive, due to debates concerning the limitations of reductionism within that discipline. The final part of the paper argues for the autonomy of a non‐reductionist macroeconomics, based on the institution as the unit of analysis.

The Rhetoric of the Anti-Progressive Income Tax Movement: A Typical Male Reaction

This Article examines the arguments against progressivity and the supporting individualistic philosophic premises behind the mask of rhetoric. First, accepting the underlying premises, the article shows that the arguments against progressivity are not nearly as strong as supposed. Second, by exposing the limitations of the arguments’ underlying premises, the article shows that theses arguments depend not on objective “scientific facts”, but on a particular vision of people and society. This vision is certainly a legitimate one, but it is just as certainly not the only one. Part I briefly summarizes the major arguments against progressivity. Part II examines the economic argument, its underlying assumption, and its limitations. Part III discusses philosophic premises and progressive taxation. First, accepting for argumentation the neoclassical contractarian premise that only a benefits tax is a just tax, it examines whether a progressive tax can be justified on this basis. Second, it reexamines the individualistic premises underlying the neoclassical economic view of efficiency and exposes weaknesses in the arguments favoring a flat tax. Third, it suggests that less individualistic philosophies or visions of society (and human nature) lend support to a progressive tax and uses a feminist view as an example of how one such alternative view could support progressive taxation. Part IV concludes that there is a strong case for progressive taxation based not only on the feminist view of humanity but also on the neoconservative view. The conflict between these philosophies, which seems to require making a choice between a flat and a progressive tax is more illusory than we believe. To the extent that it is real, the choice of either one will be unsatisfactory to some people. We should choose progressivity, which better comports with modern society, and does relatively little violence to the Neo View because it places minimal restrictions on the individual’s actions and property.

Children's rights in the Canadian context

In recent years, the issue of children's rights has engendered controversy in both Canada and the United States. Popular and specialized journals, television documentaries, and academic monographs have questioned the image of the North American child as indulged and protected by a liberal and affluent society. Such criticisms have emphasized that the modern child's dependent status is fraught with vulnerability. Indeed, as Patrick Lee argues, the traditional child support system is breaking down and some North American children are being left stranded as victims of social oppression, economic exploitation, and legal deprivation. At the same time, research has increasingly demonstrated that children frequently possess talents and competencies that have been ignored or misunderstood by a society more interested in conformity and control than in individual fulfilment. Bob MacKay's conversational analysis of the classroom, Glenn Eastabrook's analysis of school change, and Dennis Conly's descriptive analysis of the training school attest to the authority structures that systematically deny the child's self-determination intellectually and socially. Recognition of children's latent abilities as well as their vulnerable status are necessary steps toward the elimination of the destructive dimensions of age-ascribed dependency. Thus far, child advocacy has been much more prevalent in the United States than in Canada. In America, child advocates have emphasized the need for recourse to civil rights when a child's dependency has not been reciprocated with attention and care. However, Canada does not have a deeply entrenched civil liberties tradition, and American policy changes and legal decisions do not have direct relevance to our experience here. Canada's founding legislation is not based on the individualistic premises of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness but rather on the conservative principles of peace, order, and good government. As Romulo Magsino argues, the development of Canadian student rights has largely had to contend with our virtually inoperative Bill of Rights. Furthermore, unlike the United States, Canada has not experienced government by diverse political parties whose alternating leadership provides a force of dynamic change within which wrongs can be righted. Our federal government has always been dominated by brokerage parties of the centre that characteristically do not aid oppressed minority groups unable to mobilize support on their own behalf. These kinds of differences suggest that the status of Canadian children must be examined within the particular framework of our society. In this context, the articles in this special double issue of Interchange provide a foundation upon which responses to the need for Canadian children's rights can be successfully constructed. Although some of the articles focus upon the United