The dominating effects of economic crises

Bryan, Alexander

doi:10.1080/13698230.2019.1581492

Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosoph

2019

DOI: 10.1080/13698230.2019.1581492

|View full text |Cite

The dominating effects of economic crises

Alexander Bryan

Abstract: If citing, it is advised that you check and use the publisher's definitive version for pagination, volume/issue, and date of publication details. And where the final published version is provided on the Research Portal, if citing you are again advised to check the publisher's website for any subsequent corrections.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

2019

2022

Publication Types

Select...

Article6

Relationship

Self Cite3

Independent3

Authors

Journals

Cited by 6 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The first of these involves analyzing the structural relations of modern economies. Understanding domination as a form of unfreedom that can emerge from complex structural relations, this work explores how existing economic structures—such as the labor market, debt relations, and the role of currencies in the global financial system—leave some individuals subject to domination (Anderson, 2015; Bryan, 2021; Gourevitch, 2013, 2015; Herzog, 2019; Preiss, 2021). The second involves the defense of particular models of political economy on republican grounds.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The material conditions of non-domination: Property, independence, and the means of production

Bryan

2021

European Journal of Political Theory

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While it is a point of agreement in contemporary republican political theory that property ownership is closely connected to freedom as non-domination, surprisingly little work has been done to elucidate the nature of this connection or the constraints on property regimes that might be required as a result. In this paper, I provide a systematic model of the boundaries within which republican property systems must sit and explore some of the wider implications that thinking of property in these terms may have for republicans. The boundaries I focus on relate to the distribution of property and the application of types of property claims over particular kinds of goods. I develop this model from those elements of non-domination most directly related to the operation of a property regime: (a) economic independence, (b) limiting material inequalities, and (c) the promotion of common goods. The limits that emerge from this analysis support intuitive judgments that animate much republican discussion of property distribution. My account diverges from much orthodox republican theory, though, in challenging the primacy of private property rights in the realization of economic independence. The value of property on republican terms can be realized without private ownership of the means of production.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The material conditions of non-domination: Property, independence, and the means of production

Bryan

2021

European Journal of Political Theory

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The traditional republican concerns about the relationship between property, liberty, and the dispersion of power provide a promising starting point for thinking about economic inequality. Building on Richard Dagger’s essay “Neo-republicanism and the civic economy” (Dagger, 2006) a growing literature has explored the republican critiques of the market and structural domination (Bryan, 2019; Gourevitch, 2013; Thompson, 2018; White, 2011). Yet there are also reasons to doubt whether classical republican ideas are appropriate under contemporary circumstances.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Radical republicanism and solidarity

Kohn

2019

European Journal of Political Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article explains how 19th-century radical republicans answered the following question: how is it possible to be free in a social order that fosters economic dependence on others? I focus on the writings of a group of French thinkers called the solidarists who advocated “liberty organized for everyone.” Mutualism and social right were two components of the solidarist strategy for limiting domination in commercial/industrial society. While the doctrine of mutualism was rooted in pre-industrial artisan culture, social right was a novel idea that built on Durkheim’s analysis of the division of labour. In this article, I describe the main features of the solidarist account: solidarity, social property, quasi-contractual debt, and restorative justice. Classical republicanism was deeply concerned with citizen participation and the balance between popular and elite power, but 19th-century radical republicans thought that these goals must be approached differently in market societies in which enormous power is exercised outside the state. The solidarists cautiously embraced the state as a mechanism for regulating the market in order to ensure equal liberty. Social right and mutualism were also conceived as ways of limiting the centralization of state power.

show abstract

Freedom as Non-domination, Robustness, and Distant Threats

Bryan

2021

Ethic Theory Moral Prac

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is a core feature of the conception of freedom as non-domination that freedom requires the absence of exposure to arbitrary power across a range of relevant possible worlds. While this modal robustness is critical to the analysis of paradigm cases of unfreedom such as slavery, critics such as Gerald Gaus have argued that it leads to absurd conclusions, with barely-felt constraints appearing as sources of unfreedom. I aim to clarify the demands of the modal robustness requirement, and offer a reinterpretation of its place in the conceptual framework of freedom as non-domination. I illustrate this point through a discussion of low-probability threats of interference which are central to Gaus's critique, which I term 'distant threats'. I argue that those committed to robust conceptions of freedom should still be concerned by these kinds of threats, which will sometimes constitute genuine sources of unfreedom. But rather than leading to absurd conclusions, we should instead view them as diagnostic of deficiencies within existing regimes of non-domination. The challenge posed by distant threats of domination to the republican conception of freedom does not prove it implausible, but illustrates some of its most important insights about the social and economic conditions of free status, and the fragility of that freedom.

show abstract

scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.

Contact Info

hi@scite.ai

10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614

Henderson, NV 89052, USA

Blog Terms and Conditions API Terms Privacy Policy Contact Cookie Preferences Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Made with 💙 for researchers

Part of the Research Solutions Family.

The dominating effects of economic crises

Cited by 6 publications

References 51 publications

The material conditions of non-domination: Property, independence, and the means of production

The material conditions of non-domination: Property, independence, and the means of production

Radical republicanism and solidarity

Freedom as Non-domination, Robustness, and Distant Threats

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About