Towards a principle of most-deeply affected

Abstract

This article argues that all-affected principle needs to be reconceptualized to account for the differences in the historical and current social position of those who are or who should be making legitimacy claims. Drawing on Butler’s theory of vulnerability, this article advances a new and more robust all-affected principle that affords a stronger claim to legitimacy to those most-deeply affected by both the current decision in question and the historical process and practices shaping the choices available. In particular, this article identifies three sets of exclusions of groups and claims that drive this reformulation: first, cases of historical injustice such as indigenous peoples; second, cases of current processes of minoritization which silence or render some groups and opinions as marginal such as women, ethnic minorities or even people in lower economic classes; and third, cases of state establishment of boundaries and ‘worthy’ citizenship such as refugees making claims for relocation and asylum.

What Matters and Who Matters to Young People Leaving Care

“…See Refaeli et al, 2023, for an international survey of services for care leavers during COVID-19. Afsahi, 2022; and see Chapter 10 on 'voice'. Fernyhough, 2016, p 3.…”

“…, on 'enduring trustful partnerships'. Gilmore-Bykovskyi et al, 2021Afsahi, 2022;Diffey et al, 2022. 'Few countries have well-developed care-leaving legislation.…”

The Aesthetic Habermas: Communicative Power and Judgment

“…The observer might identify the formal existence of the first-person perspective, but the participants might experience radical and disorienting shifts in their senses of themselves. By the same token, a rational reconstruction might reveal the operation of (U) in a communicative procedure, but the actors' experiences in role-switching might shift their perceptions and understanding of context, thus altering their sense of who counts as part of the "all affected," or better, Nancy Fraser's ( 2008) "most affected" (see also Afsahi 2020). For the theorist, the idea of a rationally motivated consensus appears as a regulative ideal operative in participants' communicative actions, but from the perspective of the participants, consensus takes on a different meaning: it is the point at which the other's perspective has been reached, a pause in the ongoing flow of intersubjectivity in which subjects can be (trans-)formed.…”

From public health to public good: Toward universal wellbeing

“…not possible for a person who enjoys a good to prevent others from doing the same) [ 8 , 9 ]. Second, it is because the public good needs to involve all citizens and comply with the ‘all-affected’ principle of democratic participation, including those most affected in the decision-making process [ 10 , 11 ].…”