An Ethic of Virtue and Justice As Community Obligation

FNDS 701 – Ethics and Social Justice 2019 7A January 1, 2019 to June 30, 2019

Instructor: Christopher J. Voparil Contact Info: [email protected]; 954-829-2935

Seminar Description Ethics and Social Justice is one of the three foundational seminars for the Ph.D. in Interdisciplinary Studies. Organized around major thinkers and core concepts, this seminar examines alternative conceptions of ethics and explores their implications for social justice. The goal of this seminar is to provide students with a theoretical foundation capable of informing and enriching their socially-engaged intellectual pursuits, through a critical engagement with both classic texts and contemporary theories. Following Aristotle, our guiding assumption will be that ethical reflection is a process of reflective dialogue between one’s current beliefs and assumptions, and more complex ethical problems and theories designed to spur not only thought, but self-reflection. We will begin with the classical understanding of ethics and justice, and then examine how beliefs about the individual’s relation to the community change given modernity’s assumptions about atomized individuals. From there we turn to more recent theories of ethics and justice that have emanated from excluded voices: justice as a form of caring for others, and as a means for transforming the social reality to recognize the identities of groups.

Integration of Program Theme(s)_ Cultivating a concern for social justice has been an abiding commitment of the PhD program since its inception 50 years ago. As the foundational seminar in this area, a concern for social justice is the primary focus of this course. Not only will we examine alternative conceptions of ethics and their implications for social justice, we will explore competing theories of social justice itself. Drawing on the major theoretical traditions in moral philosophy and political theory, students will critically assess the meaning of social justice in the abstract, and then pursue the practical implications of these theories in an interdisciplinary way through study of the realization (or betrayal) of social justice in specific historical contexts, as portrayed in literature and film.

Individualized Learning An approach to learning grounded in the stream of individual experience has long been a hallmark of the PhD program. In keeping with this spirit, this course attempts to support individual learning both in principle and in practice. The guiding principle of the course is that thinking about ethics and social justice is best understood as a reflective dialogue between one’s own intuitions and beliefs, and a series of complex and provocative ethical questions and texts. In practice, the assignments are structured to foster individual learning as well: the Critical Article Outlines and Critical Review Essays afford an opportunity to interpret specific readings in light of individual concerns with social justice and individual research interests.

Learning Outcomes & Competencies FNDS 701 pays particular attention to the following outcomes and competencies:

University Outcomes: UI&U Doctoral Learning Outcome III: Ethical & Social Responsibility. Express ethical & social implications in one’s social, professional, artistic and/or scholarly practice. Ph.D. Program Outcomes: Vii) Demonstrate understanding of theories and practices of the creative process, engaging difference, and social justice Ph.D. Program Competencies: 1. Explains theories and practices of the creative process, engaging difference, and/or social justice. 2. Appraises potential benefits and shortcomings of theories and practices of the creative process, engaging difference, and/or social justice.

Seminar Competencies: By the end of this seminar, students will demonstrate fundamental knowledge of the four ethical traditions and corresponding conceptions of social justice via the following seminar competencies:  Summarize, interpret, and discuss each theoretical perspective through participation in Forum discussions of the readings on Campus Web.  Distinguish, analyze, and critically assess competing theories and concepts via the Critical Article Outlines.  Put forth clear thesis statements supported by cogent argument and careful exegesis of key passages.  Demonstrate individual creativity and interpretive ability via the Critical Review Essays.  Relate core theories and concepts to historical contexts and issues within their individual areas of concentration through the Seminar Paper.  Integrate core theories and concepts with their individual intellectual projects through the Seminar Paper.

Assignments

Forum Posts and Critical Responses: The online discussion forum in Campus Web is the primary medium for students to express their seminar participation. As outlined in the seminar schedule below, during each learning unit students will be expected to participate in Forum discussion of the required readings on Campus Web. Based on individual interests, students will serve on a rotating basis as Discussion Leaders during each unit (we will determine the discussion leader schedule during the residency). The discussion leaders will be responsible for posting a Critical Response to the designated readings, sharing concerns, expressing criticisms, and raising questions. These critical responses will serve as the impetus for the collective Forum discussion of the reading. All students, including the discussion leaders, will compose a minimum of two posts (either critical responses or responses to critical responses) during each learning unit, one in Discussion A and one in Discussion B. Each post should be at least 300 words and contain quotations from the reading to support and illustrate one’s points (with page numbers from the text in parentheses). Rather than attempting to summarize an entire reading, the posts should focus on one idea or theme or issue from the reading and pursue it in depth, with an eye to positioning oneself in relation to particular claims made in the text, whether in agreement or disagreement.

Exemplary Critical Responses and Discussion Posts will: - Demonstrate an understanding of the overall argument of the thinker being discussed - Possess clarity and focus in presenting a particular thesis or point, with an argument to support it, as opposed to stream of consciousness - Offer a critical interpretation rather than a mere summary or recapitulation, although establishing the thinker’s views before critiquing them is essential - Engage with the text via specific discussion of relevant quotes - Position own thinking in relation to claims and texts cited - Relate the thinker’s particular argument back to the larger themes of the course - Demonstrate a measure of originality or thoughtfulness of interpretation – i.e., an ability to think for oneself

Critical Article Outline: At two points in the term (see Seminar Outline below), students will complete a Critical Review Outline for one of the indicated secondary essays listed for that week. Specific guidelines and instructions for this assignment are available in a separate document posted in CampusWeb under Handouts on the Main Page. Essentially, you read, annotate, and analyze a critical article by another scholar and make an outline with the most pertinent information. This both helps you see what a strong critical essay looks like and shows you how to position yourself dialogically in the realm of scholarly discourse. Analyzing critical articles effectively contributes to the Critical Review Essay.

Critical Review Essays: During each of the last two monthly learning units outlined below, students will write a Critical Review Essay of the required readings for that unit. Each essay should be 1500-2000 words in length and contain specific textual evidence from the readings to support interpretations and contentions. The essays should be written 4 for a reader who is already familiar with the readings; therefore, summarizing should be omitted in favor of analysis, interpretation, and presenting a specific argument. Because the essays are too brief to deal adequately with the full range of issues raised in the readings, each essay should be organized around a specific thesis or point based on the student’s own reaction to the reading, and should make an argument. For instance, one might put one reading into critical dialogue with another, arguing that, say, Aristotle’s conception of ethics is superior to Plato’s for specific reasons. Or one might offer a thesis of one’s own suggesting perhaps that both Plato and Aristotle miss a crucial element of ethics that you find essential. Depth of discussion in these essays is more important than breadth; therefore, critical review essays should discuss no more than two of the readings from that unit (focusing on one is also acceptable). While the focus of the critical review essays should be the reading(s) under review, relating the readings to examples drawn from your own experience to make a point is fine, provided that these examples are used to illuminate something in the reading, rather than detour from it. Note that this is a reflection or reaction paper, rather than a research paper; use of external sources is not necessary.

Exemplary Critical Review essays will: - Possess a clear overall thesis stated at the outset of the essay - Have a coherent argumentative structure in the body of the text to support thesis - Engage with the theories and texts under discussion through specific discussion of particular passages or quotes - Demonstrate an understanding of the nuances of each theory or text being discussed - Critically examine the claims of each theory or thinker, rather than summarize or recapitulate - Position own thinking in relation to claims and texts cited - Demonstrate a measure of originality or thoughtfulness of interpretation – i.e., an ability to think for oneself

Edited Notes: An additional method of engagement, reflective note taking requires the learner to not only record information but to think about what it means that you chose to take note of specific references, thoughts, arguments and inspirations from the variety of learning resources used in this seminar. Within those learning resources (readings, research, discussion during residency and virtually, and others) there will be facts, ideas, concepts and sources that will resonate more deeply with you. Some will inspire you to do additional independent research to learn more, others will motivate you to write in response to the material. In this seminar, we will use reflective note taking as a practice and assignment.

Practice: Take notes on all the learning resources you access during the seminar. Use a format that is best suited for you. Some learners will write extensive detailed notes, others will use bullet points with notations, some will have phrases and instruction for further inquiry. The notes are part of your individualized learning methodology. Do what works.

Optional Assignment: Learners may turn in an edited version of their notes: 2000 word minimum and 2500-word maximum by March 1st. This assignment will require you to think again about the resources, and to make choices about what will be included in the edited notes. The format is up to you. If Edited Notes have been submitted by March 1st, a second installment covering the 2nd half of the course may be submitted by May 1st. For extra credit (not required).

Adobe Connect Sessions and Individual Calls: During the residency we will establish a schedule for monthly live sessions via Adobe Connect. Shortly after the midpoint of the term, each student will schedule an individual phone conversation with the instructor to discuss performance in the seminar to that point and to discuss strategies, if any, for improvement.

Evaluation and Grading

Final grades will follow the grading policy described in the Student Handbook and be determined in a manner outlined by the individual instructor.

In this course your final grade will be determined based on the following:

Forum Discussion Posts & Adobe Sessions 40% Critical Article Outlines (2) 25% Critical Review Essays (2) 35% Edited Notes (optional) Extra Credit

The final deadline for all work is May 15th. All assignments should be submitted via the Coursework-Assignments area of CampusWeb.

The Writing Center Union Institute & University’s Writing Center offers self-help resources and free one-on- one tutoring sessions over the phone for all students. Tutoring sessions are available mornings, afternoons, evenings and weekends. Self-help resources are located at http://www.myunion.edu/writing-center. Appointments for tutoring by telephone can be scheduled through the writing center’s CampusWeb group or by contacting the center (phone: 513-487-1156 or toll free: 1-800-861-6400 ext. 1156 or email: writing- [email protected]).

Course Communication Additional information will be provided throughout the semester. You will want to check your Union email account regularly and responsibly (at least once a day).

ADA accommodations Union Institute & University is committed to providing equal access to its academic programs and resources for individuals with disabilities. Information on ADA policies and services is located on UI&U’s public website: https://myunion.edu/current- students/student-services/disability-services/

Academic Integrity 6

Union Institute & University’s Academic Integrity policy can be found on Campus Web at https://campusweb.myunion.edu/ICS/icsfs/Academic_Integrity_Policy.pdf?target=9ccd7 549-1590-445f-876e-a959b1724c31

Grading Scale and Satisfactory Academic Progress (SAP) (Grading, SAP and Financial Aid Policies can be found in the University Catalog http://myunion.edu/academics/catalog/)

Students in the Cohort PhD Program must make satisfactory academic progress every term. This means that students must earn at least a cumulative GPA of 3.0 or S. Students must also successfully complete at least 67% of cumulative credits attempted. For example, if a student has attempted 60 credit hours during enrollment, he/she must successfully complete 40 or more of those hours. Student completion rates are reviewed at the end of each term of attendance. Grades of U, W, I, V, NE and WIP adversely affect a student’s completion rate because they are calculated as attempted but not completed. This can cause a student’s completion rate to drop below 67%. This may result in the student not meeting the SAP requirement facing possible academic and financial aid probation and/or dismissal from the program. Grades of C or U adversely affect the student’s GPA and academic standing in the program. A special review will be initiated if a student receives a C, U or two or more incomplete (I) grades.

Grading Scale Grade Criteria A Academic work reflects impressively thorough and accurate knowledge of assigned material, including the complexities and nuances of major and minor theories, concepts, and intellectual frameworks; exceptional evidence of capability to compare, assess, and synthesize material; especially strong capability to logically critique extant theories and claims and to develop persuasive arguments based on original thinking. 4.0 Quality Points A- Criteria for A work not fully met. 3.70 Quality Points B+ Criteria for B work is more fully met. 3.30 Quality Points B Academic work reflects accurate grasp of major concepts, theories, and prevailing knowledge; abundant evidence of capability to offer informed analysis of extant knowledge and ideas; clear capability to synthesize and apply key information from prevailing knowledge; appropriate critiques of extant theories and knowledge; considerable demonstration of capability to develop and logically present own judgments. 3.0 Quality Points B- Criteria for B work is not fully met. 2.70 Quality Points C+ Criteria for C work is more fully met. 2.30 Quality Points C Academic work reflects adequate familiarity with key ideas and 7

knowledge, although interpretations of key theories and concepts are occasionally incomplete and flawed; written and verbal accounts of information, theories, and concepts remain primarily at the level of description; critiques are present but not well developed with occasional interpretive errors. 2.0 Quality Points S Academic work reflects satisfactory completion of all prescribed learning and is equivalent to B or better at the doctoral level on a standard letter grading scale. The S grade is used only for ACS 897, ECL/HMS/PPS 841, 850, 860, MLK 800, MLK 890 and RSCH 900 Dissertation. 0.00 Quality Points and does not calculate into the GPA U Academic work reflects insufficient capability to comprehend and accurately present ideas and information; superficial and unpersuasive critiques; little evidence of capability for original thinking. Unsatisfactory performance is defined as any performance less than C at the doctoral level. A U grade should be given only on the basis of less than satisfactory work and should not be given because a student has not been present in a seminar (in such a case a V grade should be given). 0.0 Quality Points W Withdrawal: Student initiated withdrawal from a seminar or the program. Withdrawal from the program discontinues connection to university passwords and accounts. I Incomplete: Student completes at least 60% of work in a seminar but less than 100% of the required work in a seminar. NE Never Engaged: An NE grade will be assigned during the first 21 days of each term for a student who neither attends nor engages in a registered seminar (including the residency sessions). V Vanished: A V grade will be assigned six weeks after the beginning of a term by the Dean’s Office, or during end-of-term grading by a faculty member for a student who attends/engages in a registered seminar (including the residency sessions) but subsequently ceases to attend/engage in the seminar and does not officially withdraw from the seminar. WIP (No No Grade: Faculty member has not submitted a grade for a student. grade) Repeated Students are permitted to repeat any seminar once after receiving a U. Seminar The last grade earned is calculated in the GPA. Successful A grade of A through C or S is considered successful seminar completion. Completion

Special Note Regarding Incompletes: Students must have approval from the seminar faculty member to receive an incomplete for the term. If this approval is not requested and approved, the student will receive a W (withdrawal) or V (vanished), depending on the circumstances in regard to attendance in the seminar. In other words, incompletes are not automatic and students should not assume that they can take incompletes at will. All incomplete work for a current term must be submitted by November 15 of the following term. It is always best for students to stay in communication with faculty members and to try to get all the work done for the term by the deadline. Students and faculty members should 8 explore all options together before deciding that the incomplete route is the one to take.

REQUIRED TEXT

The majority of course readings will be available through links in CampusWeb to the UI&U library electronic holdings. The following book is not available via the library and needs to be acquired by students:

. Held, Virginia (ed.), Justice and Care: Essential Readings in Feminist Ethics. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1995. ISBN# 081332162X

A good source for used books is: www.abebooks.com

The information on this syllabus is subject to change. Please consult the electronic version posted on CampusWeb for the most up to date version. 9

SEMINAR SCHEDULE RESIDENCY

Session #1: Introduction & Overview

Session #2: Social Justice and the Role of Theory Reading: bell hooks, “Theory as Liberatory Practice,” Teaching to Transgress: Education as a Practice of Freedom. New York: Routledge, 1994, pp. 59-76.

Session #3: Ethics, Ancient and Modern Readings: Plato, Crito. Martin Luther King, Jr., “Letter from Birmingham Jail”

LEARNING UNIT 1 – An Ethic of Virtue and Justice as Community Obligation

Assignments: 1/21 1A Discussion Leaders post Critical Responses (on Campus Web) 1/22-1/26 Forum Discussion 1A 1/27 1B Discussion Leaders post Critical Responses 1/28-2/2 Forum Discussion 1B 2/7 1st Critical Article Outline Due (Choose from 1B “At least one of the following”)

Required readings: Discussion 1A Plato, Republic, Books I, VII (esp. The Cave Allegory). Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Books I,II, V, VIII. Recommended: MacIntyre, Alasdair, A Short History of Ethics (New York: Collier Books, 1966): chapters 5 and 7.

Discussion 1B Addams, Jane. Democracy and Social Ethics. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2002, Chapter V: “Industrial Amelioration.”

At least one of the following: . MacIntyre, Alasdair. After Virtue, “The Nature of the Virtues” (Ch. 14). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1981, pp. 156-173. . Mann, Hollie Sue. “Ancient Virtues, Contemporary Practices: An Aristotelian Approach to Embodied Care.” Political Theory, vol. 40, no. 2 (2012): 194-221. . Nussbaum, Martha. “Human Functioning and Social Justice: In Defense of Aristotelian Essentialism.” Political Theory, vol. 20, no. 2 (1992): 202-246. . Perrett, Roy W. and John Patterson, “Virtue Ethics and Maori Ethics,” Philosophy East and West, vol. 41, no. 2 (1991): 185-202. . Roberts, Samuel K. In the Path of Virtue: The African American Moral Tradition, Chapter 1, 1-18. Cleveland, OH: The Pilgrim Press, 1999. [In Handouts] . Shklar, Judith, “Giving Injustice Its Due.” The Yale Law Journal, vol. 98, no. 6 (1989): 1135-1151. 10

. Tessman, Lisa. “Feminist Eudaimonism: Eudaimonism as Non-Ideal Theory.” In Feminist Ethics and Social Philosophy: Theorizing the Non-Ideal, edited by Lisa Tessman, 47-58. New York: Springer, 2009. . Winthrop, Delba. “Aristotle and Theories of Justice.” American Political Science Review, vol. 72, no. 4 (1978): 1201-1216.

Further reading: Bernal, Martin. Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1991. Cavell, Stanley. Conditions Handsome and Unhandsome: The Constitution of Emersonian Perfectionism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990, introduction. Dewey, John. Ethics, in Jo Ann Boydston (ed.), John Dewey: The Later Works,1925- 1953, Vol. 7. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1989, chapter 5. Etzioni, Amitai (ed.). Rights and the Common Good: The Communitarian Perspective. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1995. Foucault, Michel. “The Ethics of the Concern for Self as a Practice of Freedom.” In Paul Rabinow (ed.), Ethics: Subjectivity and Truth New York: The New Press, 1997). MacIntyre, Alasdair. After Virtue. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1981, chapters 14-16. Nussbaum, Martha. Poetic Justice: The Literary Imagination and Public Life. Boston: Beacon Press, 1995. _____. Sex and Social Justice. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. _____. Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, and Species Membership. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2006. Sandel, Michael. Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1982, esp. chapter 4. Taylor, Charles. Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989, Part I. Walzer, Michael. Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality. New York: Basic Books, 1983, chapters 1-3. Williams, Bernard. Moral Luck: Philosophical Papers, 1973-1980. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981, chapters 4, 6. _____. Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy. Cambridge: Harvard University, Press, 1985, chapter 3.

LEARNING UNIT 2 – An Ethic of Individual Choice and Justice as Fairness

Assignments: 2/10 2A Discussion Leaders post Critical Responses 2/11-2/16 Forum Discussion 2A 2/17 2B Discussion Leaders post Critical Responses 2/18-2/23 Forum Discussion 2B 2/24 2C Discussion Leaders post Critical Responses 2/25-3/2 Forum Discussion 2C 3/7 2nd Critical Article Outline Due (Choose from 2C “At least one of the following”) 3/11-3/17 Mid-Semester Break 11

Required readings: Discussion 2A De Las Casas, Bartolomé. “Apologetic History of the Indies” (1566) Recommended: A Brief Account of the Destruction of the Indies (1552)

Dussel, Enrique. The Invention of the Americas: Eclipse of ‘the Other’ and the Myth of Modernity, trans. Michel D. Barber. New York: Continuum, 1995: Chapter 5: “Critique of the Myth of Modernity,” pp. 63-72.

Recommended: Chapter 6, “Amerindia in a Non-Eurocentric Vision of World History, op. cit.

Deloria, Vine, Jr. God is Red: A Native View of Religion. Golden, CO: Fulcrum Publishing, 2003 [1973]: Chapter 4: “Thinking in Time and Space,” pp. 61-76.

Discussion 2B Kant, Immanuel. Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, trans. Allen W. Wood. New Haven: Yale University Press (2002 [1785]: Preface, Chapters 1-2 (excerpts: pp. 1-21; 44-49). Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism [1863]: Chapters I, II, V. Recommended: MacIntyre, Alasdair, A Short History of Ethics, chapters 14 and 17 (only pp. 232-43 on Bentham and Mill).

Discussion 2C Rawls, John. “Justice as Fairness: Political not Metaphysical.” Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 14, no. 3 (Summer 1985): 223-251.

At least one of the following: . Dewey, John and James H. Tufts, Ethics (New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1908), Chapter XV: “Happiness and Social Ends,” pp. 286-305. . Habermas, Jürgen. “Reconciliation through the Public Use of Reason: Remarks on John Rawls’s Political Liberalism,” The Journal of Philosophy vol. 92, no. 3 (1995): 109-131. . Michelbach, Philip A. and John T. Scott, Richard E. Matland, and Brian H. Bornstein, “Doing Rawls Justice: An Experimental Study of Income Distribution Norms,” American Journal of Political Science vol. 47, no. 3 (2003): 523-539. . Okin, Susan Moller. “Reason and Feeling in Thinking About Justice.” Ethics, vol. 99, no. 2 (Jan. 1989): 229-249. . Roberts, Rodney C. "Justice and Rectification: A Taxonomy of Justice" in Rodney C. Roberts (ed.), Injustice and Rectification (New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 2002/2005), pp. 7-28. [In Handouts]. . Sen, Amartya. “What Do We Want from a Theory of Justice?” The Journal of Philosophy, vol. 103, no. 5 (2006): 215-238. . Wilson, Yolonda. “When is an Omission a Fault? Or, Maybe Rawls Just Isn’t That Into You,” The Southern Journal of Philosophy vol. 47, no. (2009): 185-190.

Further reading: Barber, Benjamin. Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984, chapter 1. Bernasconi, Robert. “Will the Real Kant Please Stand Up? The Challenge of Enlightenment Racism to the Study of the History of Philosophy.” Radical Philosophy, vol. 117 (Jan/.Feb. 2003): 13-22. Cavell, Stanley. Conditions Handsome and Unhandsome, chapter 3. Hampshire, Stuart. Justice is Conflict. Princeton: Princeton University Press,2000. Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government [1690]. Mills, Charles W. “Rawls on Race/Race in Rawls,” The Southern Journal of Philosophy vol. 47 (2009): 161-184. Nozick, Robert. Anarchy, State, Utopia. New York: Basic Books, 1974. Nussbaum, Martha. Love’s Knowledge: Essays on Philosophy and Literature. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990, chapter 6. Okin, Susan Moller. Gender, Justice, and the Family. New York: Basic Books,1989. Pateman, Carole. The Sexual Contract. Stanford: Stanford University Press,1988, chapters 1, 3. Pogge, Thomas. Reading Rawls. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1989. Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971. _____. Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press, 1993. _____. Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The Social Contract [1762]. Shklar, Judith. The Faces of Injustice. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990. Thomas, Laurence M. “Self-Respect, Fairness, and Living Morally.” In Tommy L. Lott and John P. Pittman (eds.), A Companion to African-American Philosophy. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2003, pp. 293-305. _____. “Moral Equality and Natural Inferiority.” Social Theory and Practice 31, no. 3 (2005): 379-404. Walzer, Michael. Thick and Thin: Moral Argument at Home and Abroad. Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press, 1994.

LEARNING UNIT 3 – An Ethic of Care and Justice as Attentiveness to Others

Assignments: 3/18 3A Discussion Leaders post Critical Responses 3/19-3/23 Forum Discussion 3A 3/22-24 Virtual Mid-Semester Residency (MSR) – See below 3/24 3B Discussion Leaders post Critical Responses 3/25-3/30 Forum Discussion 3B 4/4 1st Critical Review Essay Due

Virtual Mid-Semester Residency (MSR) 3/22 Workshops: 7:00-9:00pm ET 3/23 Social Justice Speaker: 11:00a-1:00p ET 3/23 Concentration meetings: 1:15-2:15p ET 3/24 Workshops: 3:00-5:00pm ET

Required readings: Background: Gilligan, Carol. “Moral Orientation and Moral Development,” in Virginia Held (ed.), Justice and Care: Essential Readings in Feminist Ethics. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1995, pp. 31-46. [Required Text]

Discussion 3A Baier, Annette. “The Need for More than Justice,” in Held (ed.), Justice and Care, pp. 47-58. Tronto, Joan. “Women and Caring: What Can Feminists Learn About Morality from Caring?” in Held (ed.), Justice and Care, pp. 101-115.

Discussion 3B Collins, Patricia Hill. “Some Group Matters: Intersectionality, Situated Standpoints, and Black Feminist Thought,” in Fighting Words: Black Women and the Search for Justice. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1998, pp. 201-228. [In Handouts] Rorty, Richard. “Justice as a Larger Loyalty.” In Bontekoe, Ron and Marietta Stepaniants (eds.), Justice and Democracy: Cross-Cultural Perspectives. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1997, pp. 9-22.

Further reading: Baier, Annette. Moral Prejudices: Essays on Ethics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994. Blum, Lawrence. Friendship, Altruism, and Morality. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1980. Daly, Lois K. (ed.). Feminist Theological Ethics: A Reader. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994. Elshtain, Jean. Public Man, Private Woman: Women in Social and Political Thought. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993. Fraser, Nancy. Unruly Practices: Power, Discourse, and Gender in Contemporary Social Theory. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1989, chapters 7-8. Gilligan, Carol. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1982. Held, Virginia. The Ethics of Care: Personal, Political, and Global. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995. Jaggar, Allison. “Caring as a Feminist Practice of Moral Reason,” in Held (ed.), Justice and Care, pp. 179-202. Kittay, Eva. Love’s Labor. New York: Routledge, 1998. Noddings, Nel. Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984. _____. Starting at Home: Caring and Social Policy. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002. Nussbaum, Martha. Sex and Social Justice. New York: Oxford University Press,2000. Tronto, Joan. Moral Boundaries: A Political Argument for an Ethic of Care. New York: Routledge, 1993. Udefi, Amaechi. “Rorty’s Neopragmatism and the Imperative of the Discourse of African Epistemology.” Human Affairs 19 (2009): 78-86.

Voparil, Christopher J. Richard Rorty: Politics and Vision. Langham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Press, 2006, chapter 4. _____. “Rortyan Cultural Politics and the Problem of Speaking for Others.” Contemporary Pragmatism, vol. 8, no. 1 (2011): 115-131. Voparil, Christopher J. and Richard J. Bernstein (eds.), The Rorty Reader. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010.

LEARNING UNIT 4 – An Ethic of Identity and Justice as Social Transformation

Assignments: 4/7 4A Discussion Leaders post Critical Responses 4/8-4/13 Forum Discussion 4A 4/14 4B Discussion Leaders post Critical Responses 4/15-4/20 Forum Discussion 4B 4/21 4C Discussion Leaders post Critical Responses 4/22-4/27 Forum Discussion 4C 5/2 2nd Critical Review Essay Due

Required readings: Discussion 4A Hegel, G.W.F. Phenomenology of Spirit (1807) -- excerpt, trans. A.V. Miller (New York: Oxford University Press, 1977), pp. 111-119. Full text is here. [Scroll down to section: “A. Independence and Dependence of Self-Consciousness: Lordship and Bondage.”] Taylor, Charles. “The Politics of Recognition.” In Amy Gutmann (ed.), Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994, pp. 25-73. Fanon, Franz. “The Negro and Recognition,” Black Skin, White Masks, trans. Charles Lam Markmann. London: Pluto Press, 1986 [1952].

Discussion 4B Appiah, Kwame Anthony. The Ethics of Identity. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005, chapter 3 (excerpt), pp. 62-79; 99-113.

Fraser, Nancy. “From Redistribution to Recognition? Dilemmas of Justice in a Post- Socialist Age.” New Left Review, no. 212 (July/August 1995): 68-93. [In Handouts] Said, Edward. “Introduction to Orientalism.” In Moustafa Bayoumi and Andrew Rubin (eds.), The Edward Said Reader. New York: Vintage Books, 2002, pp. 63-93.

Discussion 4C Mouffe, Chantal. “Which Ethics for Democracy?” In Marjorie Garber, Beatrice Hanssen, and Rebecca L. Walkowitz (eds.), The Turn to Ethics. New York: Routledge, 2000, pp. 85-94. Harris, Leonard. “Insurrectionist Ethics: Advocacy, Moral Psychology and Pragmatism.” In Ethical Issues for a New Millennium, edited by John Howie, 192-210. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2002. [In Handouts]

Further reading: Anzaldua, Gloria. Borderlands/ La Frontera: The New Mestiza. San Francisco: Aunt Lute Books, 1987. Anzaldua, Gloria and Analouise Keating (eds.). this bridge we call home: radical visions for transformation. New York: Routledge, 2002 Appiah, Kwame Anthony. In My Father’s House: Africa in the Philosophy of Culture. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. ———. Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers. New York: W.W. Norton, 2006. Benhabib, Seyla. The Claims of Culture: Equality and Diversity in the Global Era. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002. Buck-Morss, Susan. “Hegel and Haiti,” Critical Inquiry 26, no. 4 (2000): 821-865. Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge, 1999. Cole, Andrew. “What Hegel’s Master/Slave Dialectic Really Means.” Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies, vol. 34, no. 3 (2004): 577-610. Cornell, Drucilla. At the Heart of Freedom: Feminism, Sex, and Equality. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998. Honneth, Axel. The Struggle for Recognition: The Moral Grammar of Social Conflicts, trans. Joel Anderson. Cambridge, MA.: The MIT Press, 1996. Hord, Fred Lee and Lee, Jonathan Scott (eds.). I Am Because We Are: Readings in Black Philosophy. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1995. Kymlicka, Will. Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. Lovell, Terry (ed.), (Mis)recognition, Social Inequality and Social Justice: Nancy Fraser and Pierre Bourdieu. New York: Routledge, 2007. Markell, Patchen. Bound by Recognition. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003. Morraga, Cherrie and Gloria Anzaldua (eds.), This Bridge Called My Back: Writings by Radical Women of Color. Latham, NY: Kitchen Table–Women of Color Press, 1981. Morrison, Toni. Playing in the Dark: Whiteness and the Literary Imagination. New York: Vintage Books, 1992. Sweeney, Michael J. (ed.) Justice Through Diversity? A Philosophical and Theological Debate. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2016. Young, Iris Marion. Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990.