IDEA – July 20th
The International Development Ethics Association (IDEA) will be hosting a one-day conference at Carleton University in advance of the International Social Philosophy Conference. Please consider attending both!
Wednesday, July 20, 2016
Carleton University, River Building 3228, organized by the International Development Ethics Association
10:00-11:00 Holly Longair (Carleton University)
“The Deliberative Perfectionist Approach to Adaptive Preferences: Is David Crocker’s Deliberative Participation an Appropriate Framework?”
Abstract
In her book Adaptive Preferences and Women’s Empowerment, Serene Khader argues for a
deliberative perfectionist approach to inappropriately adaptive preferences (IAP). In order to
ensure a context sensitive and cross-culturally appropriate application, she emphasises the use
of deliberation in both attempts to uncover IAPs and attempts to address them. However, what her
concept of deliberation entails is given minimal explanation, and relies heavily on David Crocker’s
concept of deliberative participation. This paper will explore whether or not the use of Crocker’s
concept is appropriate in the context of Khader’s deliberative perfectionist approach. Although it
appears to be the best of the options presented by Crocker, further development of the concept in
the context of IAPs is needed in order to make Khader’s approach effective and appropriate.
11:15-12:15 Susan Murphy (Trinity College Dublin, University of Dublin)
“Challenging Hidden Hegemonies: Exploring the Links between Education, Gender Justice, and Sustainable Development Practice”
Abstract
It is widely accepted that formal education is a critical foundation supporting the pathway to
sustainable development. As a central pillar on the international development agenda for many
decades, it remains a core goal in the 2030 framework for sustainable development. However, in
spite of substantial funding and attention from national and international agencies, delivering this
basic good to all has proved to be problematic, in particular for girls in rural areas in the lowest
income least developed locations. In this paper we unpack the complex drivers of educational
exclusion and non-progression of girls and female adolescents in rural Tanzania. Despite targeted
government policies, donor funding, and multiple development interventions, this area has
witnessed declining rates of academic progression for young girls over the past decade. From a
practical perspective, this contribution provides critical insights into the range factors that
influence educational attainments in a rural, developing country context. These include structural
and agent-based, gendered and non-gendered factors, both inside and outside of the classroom.
From a theoretical perspective, an examination of this case sheds light on the interconnection
between educational attainment, gender justice and sustainable development practices. It points to
the need for a more expansive account of gender justice that includes consideration of principles of
epistemic inclusion in addition to the traditional focus on matters of distribution. The case explores
not only the range of positional harms that can emerge through educational exclusion and nonprogression,
but also the non-positional benefits that can emerge through academic development
and epistemic inclusion and empowerment. Using this expansive account to evaluate the 2030
education framework for action highlights both gaps and opportunities for progress towards the
shared vision of transforming lives through education (Education 2030 Incheon Declaration) and
ensuring no one is left behind (2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development).
1:30-2:30 Arielle Stirling (Carleton University)
“Development as Racism: An Analysis of the Discourse of Global Poverty”
Abstract
Postdevelopment ideology levels critiques against many aspects of development theory, including
questioning the motives of development from a historical perspective. Notions of poverty and
underdevelopment were constructed in a post-World War II global system heavily shaped by
power imbalance and assumptions of a prescribed path to improvement: industrialization,
modernization, urbanization, and capitalism. However, within these constructions and assumptions
lie similarities with the far more sinister and damaging discourse of race. Though development
discourse has never functioned as a monolithic force of subjugation, it is crucial to recognize both
the historical assumptions that ground the discourse and the legacy that these assumptions leave in
current incarnations of development practice. Making reference to Pablo Escobar’s archaeology of
development discourse and using Sally Haslanger, Marilyn Frye, and Michel Foucault’s
discussions of race, I argue that development thinking resembles racism because it marks people
for a certain type of treatment and fosters a corresponding perception of their abilities and place in
the world.
2:45-3:45 Jennifer Caseldine-Bracht (Manchester University)
“Applied Environmental Ethics: The Role of Community Engagement in Social Democracy and Environmental Sustainability”
Abstract
In this paper, I will examine the work of Jane Addams and Iris Marion Young and their approach
to ethics. For instance, Dr. Young argued that if we shift our focus from blame to responsibility
then we will more likely provide motivation for people to work towards environmental
sustainability. We may still be responsible for the environment even if we are not individually
blameworthy for the problematic institutions and processes which contribute to environmental
degradation and environmental injustices. Jane Addams asks us to work in areas that already
interest people. She reminds us that we should never work to do good ‘for’ others, rather we
should work to do good ‘with’ them. Environmental sustainability is a notoriously wicked
problem. People are often pursuing their own private economic self-interest and collective
environmental problems are simply ignored or pushed to the wayside. Many people are often
suspicious of government regulation and it is not clear that there are individual solutions to some
major environmental policy problems. It is sometimes difficult to know where to start. Perhaps, by
following the lead of sympathetic understanding and democratic action proposed by Jane Addams,
along with a responsibility approach to environmental sustainability endorsed by Young, we can
find a path beyond the traditional classroom to engage with issues of environmental sustainability.
I recently became a Purdue certified master gardener through an extension program. I was told that
I was the first philosopher that ever joined that particular program. The Master Gardener Program
is an extension program through land grant colleges which helps gardeners by providing them with
a few months of intensive training in horticultural principles. The class is research based. Students
are admitted to the class for free, except for the cost of materials (which can be waived in some
circumstances). Students learn about plant science, plant nutrition, soil science, how to care for
trees, flowers and vegetable gardens. They also learn about critter control and integrative pest
management, along with principles of sustainability. Once students meet the requirements and pass
a test, they become official “Certified Master Gardeners” who then volunteer in their community
to retain their master gardener status. These certified master gardeners may volunteer in different
ways. They can answer gardening questions at the extension office, or provide gardening seminars
at home and garden shows or neighborhood association meetings. They often assist teachers with
school gardening programs, teach children how to plant trees, or grow their own school gardens, or
work in community gardens. This provides a unique opportunity for environmental ethicists to
engage with their community. Some people may join the program simply because they want to
learn how to keep their hydrangea plants alive. Environmental ethicists may join to learn
sustainability techniques. This is a space where conversations (along with actions) can occur,
which may spur a paradigm shift in the ways communities think about their environment.
4:00-5:00 Jay Drydyk (Carleton University)
“Sufficiency—What is Enough?”
Abstract
A paradox surrounds the idea of sufficiency – enough for all – as a goal or requirement of justice.
What is attractive about the idea is its ability to mobilize widespread support on its own, not just as
a stepping stone towards some more robust form of equality. There is no other distributive norm
that enjoys support from a wider range of otherwise divergent perspectives, from high theories to
religions to folk moralities. More demanding ideas of equality do not enjoy such widespread
support.
However, attempts to isolate sufficiency from equality may be self-defeating. When we demand
enough for all, what shall we say is enough? One approach is subjective: ‘enough’ means enough
that we are not dissatisfied with what we have. This approach is fraught with inconsistencies, due
to expensive tastes and adaptive preferences. The alternative proposed by Martha Nussbaum is that
‘enough’ means enough for a life compatible with equal human dignity. However, the most
capability-friendly interpretation of ‘equal human dignity’ does not condone any inequality in
valuable capabilities. Thus, in attempting to unpack ‘enough’ we find that nothing is enough, short
of equality.
The solution I propose starts from an idea of social capability. (1) Within each society, nothing is
enough, short of capability levels that could be produced for everyone by the social capability of
that society. (2) Global justice requires equalizing (upward) the social capabilities of different
societies. (3) Consideration must also be given to efficiency, to future generations, to human
empowerment, and to other species.