Anti-Perfectionisms and autonomy

No abstract available

A Glimpse of Casual Queerness: The Radical Progress of Queer Visibility in Weimar Film and the Inevitable Backlash That Followed

In looking back at German history, the Weimar Era and the 1920s, in particular, are often regarded as a time of unrestricted frivolity and the catharsis of post-war anxiety. In retrospect, it can be temptingly easy to credit the changing political landscape and liberalization of German society between 1918 and 1933 as a brief but inherently doomed moment of progressivism that necessarily would give way to a strident, reactionary backlash. Often, the increased visibility and acceptance of LGBTQ individuals during this time is regarded as a symptom of the “anything goes” attitude for which the Weimar Era has been famous. Dismissing the Weimar Republic as frivolous experiment in this way is an oversimplification that overlooks the important progress achieved in the fields of psychology and sexology during this time. In reality, the research performed by scientists like psychologist Magnus Hirschfeld proves that the progress being made for queer Germans during the Weimar years was meaningful and anything but frivolous. In the years following World War II, policymakers of East and West Germany attempted to regain stability, and in doing so adopted a more conservative approach to the issue of homosexuality than their Weimar Republic predecessors. The reactionary movement helped to confirm the sweeping dismissal of the Weimar Era as a moment of chaos and confusion best left behind. This reestablishment of gender norms is clearly illustrated in both the later version of Mädchen in Uniform and Anders als du und ich, in which changing rhetoric and scientific understandings of sexuality demonstrate a significant shift in the way Germans were thinking about queerness

Authenticity and the third-person perspective

In this paper, I argue for two claims: first, that authenticity is a property possessed only by those preferences and commitments whose satisfaction contributes to our lives going well; and secondly, that our preferences are authentic just in case they do not have covert explanations, which is to say when the true third-personal explanation of our preferences is necessarily hidden from our first-person perspective

Funding for the Future

This research paper touches on the fundamental issues surrounding inequality in the American educational system, specifically between race and class. Prior research has indicated that minorities and lower class families experience far less ideal and adequate educations than white families with higher incomes. This paper brings together work done by Jonathon Kozol and the Civil Rights Project while using examples from New Hampshire schools in order to emphasize the disparate treatment of children in American schools

Building Independent Political Power

[Excerpt] I am excited that the new leadership of the AFL-CIO is committing an additional $35 million to building labor\u27s political operation during this election year. But I\u27m especially excited that they will be doing more than returning Clinton to the Presidency and Democratic control to the House and Senate—They are going to move labor\u27s own agenda through ongoing political organizing, and not just in federal elections but in state and local ones

Debate: The Concept of Voluntariness

IN her work on the distinction between freedom and voluntariness, Serena Olsaretti suggests the following definition of voluntary action: an action is voluntary if it is not non-voluntary, and non-voluntary if it is performed because there are no acceptable alternatives, where ‘acceptable’ means conforming to some objective standard (which Olsaretti suggests might be well-being). Olsaretti suggests that ascriptions of responsibility are underwritten by judgments of voluntariness, rather than freedom. Also, Olsaretti notes that a concern for voluntary choice might be grounded in respect for autonomy. So, two important questions in political philosophy – when an agent is responsible for her actions and what we must do if we want agents to live autonomous lives – hang upon whether Olsaretti's account of voluntariness is correct once it has been developed in detail. This article is a contribution to that development. I show that well-informedness about our options is crucial to whether we act voluntarily or not, and I argue that we should restrict the scope of what we consider relevantly unacceptable to include only things which involve serious prudential harm. Inevitably there are some questions left unanswered, but what follows indicates what I take to be the strongest form of Olsaretti's theory, and one which can play the role described for it above

Forbidden ways of life

I examine an objection against autonomy-minded liberalism sometimes made by philosophers such as John Rawls and William Galston, that it rules out ways of life which do not themselves value freedom or autonomy. This objection is incorrect, because one need not value autonomy in order to live an autonomous life. Hence autonomy-minded liberalism need not rule out such ways of life. I suggest a modified objection which does work, namely that autonomy-minded liberalism must rule out ways of life that could not develop under an autonomy-promoting education. I conclude by suggesting some reasons why autonomy-minded liberals should bite the bullet and accept this

Disadvantage, Autononomy, and the Continuity Test

The Continuity Test is the principle that a proposed distribution of resources is wrong if it treats someone as disadvantaged when they don’t see it that way themselves, for example by offering compensation for features that they do not themselves regard as handicaps. This principle – which is most prominently developed in Ronald Dworkin’s defence of his theory of distributive justice – is an attractive one for a liberal to endorse as part of her theory of distributive justice and disadvantage. In this paper, I play out some of its implications, and show that in its basic form the Continuity Test is inconsistent. It relies on a tacit commitment to the protection of autonomy, understood to consist in an agent deciding for herself what is valuable and living her life in accordance with that decision. A contradiction arises when we consider factors which are putatively disadvantaging by dint of threatening individual autonomy construed in this way. I argue that the problem can be resolved by embracing a more explicit commitment to the protection (and perhaps promotion) of individual autonomy. This implies a constrained version of the Continuity Test, thereby salvaging most of the intuitions which lead people to endorse the Test. It also gives us the wherewithal to sketch an interesting and novel theory of distributive justice, with individual autonomy at its core

Editor\u27s Note

It is once again that time of year when I have the distinct honor and pleasure of sharing a few comments related to the publication of the most recent volume of the Journal of the Indiana Academy of the Social Sciences. The current issue, Volume 18 (2015), represents the fifth and final year of my first term as senior editor in chief. I have been fortunate during this time period to have been able to work with a talented and dedicated staff of coeditors, referee-reviewers and, of course, authors. I am extremely pleased to report that the current volume presents another outstanding collection of high-quality cutting-edge research articles that reflect the rich diversity of social science disciplines, topics, and methods. Our current issue represents a balance between research dealing with national and local issues, and includes papers on international topics as well

Senior Editor\u27s Note

I am pleased to present Volume 19 (2016) of the Journal of the Indiana Academy of the Social Sciences. Our latest issue offers a sizable number of papers sharing results in research, pedagogy, and shorter research notes, including remarks from last year’s keynote speaker, Professor Kosali Simon. Taken as a whole, this volume explores a rich and diverse array of topics and issues from across a wide range of disciplinary perspectives. Topics include health, gender, healthcare professionals, and healthcare policy; African American and American Indian families; family, work, and leisure pursuits such as scrapbooking; a 1945 bingo riot in Evansville; social demographic trends in Northwest Indiana over recent decades; Internet advocacy approaches for welfare policy; interracial cooperation in 19th-century emigration movements; domestic violence; and traditional markets in Mexico. This issue truly represents an outstanding collection sure to be of interest to all social scientists