From Phil Papers (further details there):
A. Pasternak (forthcoming). Sharing the Costs of Political Injustices. Politics, Philosophy and Economics. It is commonly thought that when democratic states act wrongly, they should bear the costs of the harm they cause. However, since states are collective agents, their financial burdens pass on to their individual citizens. This fact raises important questions about the proper distribution of the state’s collective responsibility for its unjust policies. This article identifies two opposing models for sharing this collective responsibility in democracies: first, in proportion to citizens’ personal association with the unjust policy; second, by giving each (...) citizen an equal share of the costs. Proportional distribution is compatible with the principle of fairness. And yet, both in the literature and in political praxis we find many supporters for the equal sharing of the costs of unjust policies in democracies. How can equal distribution be defended on normative grounds? This article develops a defense that is grounded in citizens’ associative obligations. I argue that, at least in some democracies, one of the intrinsic values of the civic bond revolves around the joint formation and execution of worthy political goals. This social good generates the political associative obligation to accept an equal distribution of the costs of unjust policies.
Emanuela Bianchi (2010). Sexual Topologies in the Aristotelian Cosmos: Revisiting Irigaray's Physics of Sexual Difference. Continental Philosophy Review 43 (3):373-389. Irigaray’s engagement with Aristotelian physics provides a specific diagnosis of women’s ontological and ethical situation under Western metaphysics: Women provide place and containership to men, but have no place of their own, rendering them uncontained and abyssal. She calls for a reconfiguration of this topological imaginary as a precondition for an ethics of sexual difference. This paper returns to Aristotelian cosmological texts to further investigate the topologies of sexual difference suggested there. In an analysis both psychoanalytic and phenomenological, the paper (...) rigorously traces a teleological and oedipal narrative implicit in the structure of the Aristotelian cosmos, in which desire for the mother is superseded by love for the father. Further, the paper argues that this narrative is complicated by certain other elements in the Aristotelian text—aporias involving the notion of boundary and the relationship between space and time, the fallenness of the feminine, and the ineliminably aleatory qualities of matter. The paper concludes that such elements may provide material for disrupting this teleology of gender, opening onto not merely an ethics of sexual difference, but providing space and place for a proliferation of non-normative, queer, transgender and intersex modes of sexed and gendered subjectivity.
Catharine A. MacKinnon (2010). Gender – The Future. Constellations 17 (4):504-511.
Robert Gooding-Williams (2010). After Identity: Rethinking Race, Sex, and Gender by Georgia Warnke. Constellations 17 (4):589-594.
Deborah Cameron (2010). Gender, Language, and the New Biologism. Constellations 17 (4):526-539.
Lois McNay (2010). Feminism and Post-Identity Politics: The Problem of Agency. Constellations 17 (4):512-525.