Liberal autonomy in a troubled context

  • Nenad Dimitrijević Political Science Department, Central European University (Budapest)

Abstract

Autonomy, understood as self-rule, is almost routinely accepted as one of the core liberal concepts. Still, a closer view reveals that both the status and meaning of autonomy are controversial. The text departs from a short summary of the main theoretical disputes surrounding the concept. A critique of the standard internalist account is followed by an attempt to offer reasons for accepting a relational reading of autonomy. The central question of the text is context-specific. It asks about the possibility and meaning of liberal autonomy in a society whose past is marked by mass regime-sponsored (and sometimes widely supported) crimes. The background assumption is that mass crime leaves actors in heteronomous condition. At stake is reestablishing individual autonomies of two types of actors, whose group-specific identities have been created by crime: the ethical community of those who share collective identity with victims, and the ethical community of those who share collective identity with perpetrators.

Keywords

autonomy, harm, morality, ethics, special duties, memory, acknowledgment

References

Allen, Jonathan (1999), “Balancing Justice and Social Unity: Political Theory and the Idea of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission”, University of Toronto Law Journal, 49 (3): 315-333.

Arendt, Hannah (1973), The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Assmann, Aleida (2006) “Memory, Individual and Collective”, in Goodin, Robert and Tilly, Charles (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Contextual Political Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 210-227.

Blustein, Jeffrey (2008), The Moral Demands of Memory. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Booth, W. James (2006), Communities of Memory. On Witness, Identity, and Justice. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.

Cohen, Stanley (2001), States of Denial. Knowing about Atrocity and Suffering. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Christman, John (2015), “Autonomy in Moral and Political Philosophy”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2015 Edition), Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2015/entries/autonomy-moral/ (viewed July 4, 2016)

Christman, John (2009), The Politics of Persons. Individual Autonomy and Socio-historical Selves. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Christman, John (2007), “Autonomy, History, and the Subject of Justice”, Social Theory and Practice, 33 (1): 1-26.

Christman, John and Robertson, Joel (eds.) (2005), Autonomy and Challenges to Liberalism. New Essays. New York, Cambridge University Press.

Dimitrijevic, Nenad (2011), Duty to Respond. Mass Crime, Denial, and Collective Responsibility. Budapest: Central European University Press.

Dimitrijevic, Nenad (2010), “Moral Knowledge and Mass Crime. A Critical Reading of Moral Relativism”, Philosophy and Social Criticism, 36 (2): 131-156.

Dubil, Helmut (2002), Niko nije oslobođen istorije. Nacionalsocijalistička vlast u debatama Budestaga. Beograd: Samizdat B92.

Dyzenhaus, David (2000), “Justifying the Truth and Reconciliation Commission,” Journal of Political Philosophy, 8 (4): 470-496.

Dworkin, Gerald (1988), The Theory and Practice of Autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Elster, Jon (2004), Closing the Books. Transitional Justice in Historical Perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Feinberg, Joel (1980), “The Idea of a Free Man”, in his Rights, Justice, and the Bounds of Liberty: Essays in Social Philosophy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980: 3-30.

Fischer, John Martin (2010) “Responsibility and Autonomy”, in O’Connor, Timothy and Sanders, Constantine (eds.), A Companion to the Philosophy of Action. Chicester: Willey-Blackwell, pp.: 309-316.

Frankfurt, Harry (1971), “Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person”, The Journal of Philosophy, 68 (1): 5-20.

Frei, Norbert (2001), Adenauer’s Germany and the Nazi Past. The Politics of Amnesty and Integration. New York: Columbia University Press.

Gaus, Gerald and D’Agostino, Fred (eds.) (2013), The Routledge Companion to Social and Political Philosophy. New York: Routledge.

Goodin, Robert (2009) “Demandingness as a Virtue”, Journal of Ethics, 13 (1): 1-13.

Goodin, Robert and Tilly, Charles (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Contextual Political Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Goodin, Robert (1998), “What is so Special about Our Fellow Countrymen?”, Ethics, 98 (4): 663-686.

Habermas, Jürgen (1998), A Berlin Republic. Writings on Germany. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Habermas, Jürgen (1996), Between Facts and Norms. Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Habermas, Jürgen (1997), “Warum ein ‘Demokratiepreis’ für Daniel J. Goldhagen? Eine Laudatio”, Die Zeit, http://www.zeit.de/1997/12/historie.txt.19970314.xml, (viewed December 29, 2015)

Habermas, Jürgen (1990), Die nachholende Revolution. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

Johnston, David (1994), The Idea of Liberal Theory: A Critique and Reconstruction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Kovach, Karen (2010), “The Moral Legacy of Communal Wrongs: Ethnic Identity Groups and Intergenerational Moral Sentiment”, Metaphilosophy, 41 (4): 618-638.

Laitinen, Arto (2011), “Recognition, Acknowledgement, and Acceptance”, in Ikäheimo, Heikki and Laitinen, Arto (eds.), Recognition and Social Ontology. Leiden: Brill.

Larmore, Charles (2008), Autonomy and Morality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Moody-Adams, Michelle (1994), “Culture, Responsibility, and Affected Ignorance”, Ethics, 104 (2): 291-309.

Murphy, Jeffrie (1988), “Forgiveness and Resentment”, in Murphy, Jeffrie and Hampton, Jean, Forgiveness and Mercy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 14-35.

Murphy, Jeffrie and Hampton, Jean (eds), Forgiveness and Mercy. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Myers, Diana (1989), Self, Society, and Personal Choice. New York: Columbia University Press.

Nagel, Thomas (1997), The Last Word, New York: Oxford University Press.

Norval, Aletta (1998), “Memory, Identity, and the (Im)possibility of Reconciliation: The Work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa”, Constellations 5 (2): 250-265.

O’Connor, Timothy and Sanders, Constantine (eds.) (2010), A Companion to the Philosophy of Action. Chicester: Willey-Blackwell.

Orentlicher, Diane (2008), Shrinking the Space for Denial. The Impact of the ICTY in Serbia. New York: Open Society Institute.

Oshana, Marina (2007), “Autonomy and the Question of Authenticity”, Social Theory and Practice, 33 (3): 411-429.

Oshana, Marina (1998), “Personal Autonomy and Society”, Journal of Social Philosophy, 29 (1): 81-102.

Raz, Joseph (1986), The Morality of Freedom. Oxford, Clarendon Press.

Spector, Horacio (2013), “Autonomy”, in Gaus, Gerald and D’Agostino, Fred (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Social and Political Philosophy. New York: Routledge, pp. 573-583.

Stump, Eleonore (2004), “Personal Relations and Moral Residue”, History of the Human Sciences, 17 (2-3): 33-56.

Sutton, John “Memory”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (The Winter 2012 Edition), Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/memory/ (viewed January 3, 2016)

Waldron, Jeremy, (2005), “Moral Autonomy and Personal Autonomy”, in Christman, John and Robertson, Joel (eds.), Autonomy and Challenges to Liberalism. New Essays. New York, Cambridge University Press, pp. 307-330.

Waldron, Jeremy (1992) “Superseding Historic Injustice”, Ethics, 103 (1): 4-28.

Walker, Margaret Urban (2007), Moral Understandings. A Feminist Study in Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Walker, Margaret Urban (2006), Moral Repair. Reconstructing Moral Relations after Wrongdoing. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Published
2017-03-24
How to Cite
DIMITRIJEVIĆ, Nenad. Liberal autonomy in a troubled context. Filozofija i društvo / Philosophy and Society, [S.l.], v. 28, n. 1, p. 90-109, mar. 2017. ISSN 2334-8577. Available at: <http://journal.instifdt.bg.ac.rs/index.php?journal=fid&page=article&op=view&path%5B%5D=506>. Date accessed: 17 nov. 2017. doi: https://doi.org/10.2298/FID1701090D.
Section
LIBERALISMS AND ANTI-LIBERALISMS – CHALLENGES AND ALTERNATIVES