Advertisement

How to Overcome Structural Injustice? Social Connectedness and the Tenet of Subsidiarity

  • Michael S. Aßländer
Original Paper

Abstract

Referring to the phenomenon of structural injustice resulting from unintended consequences of the combination of the actions of many people, Iris Marion Young claims for a new understanding of responsibility. She proposes what she calls a social connection model of responsibility which assigns responsibility to individuals also for participating in ongoing structural and social processes. To remedy structural injustice Young claims for collective action of various actors in society and assigns different degrees of responsibility depending on the agent’s position within the structural process. However, although Young mentions power, privilege, interest, and collective ability as parameters influencing the degree of an actor’s responsibility to contribute to structural change she does not elaborate which responsibilities concern which groups in society. As we will outline in our contribution, we hold the tenet of subsidiarity to be a useful supplement to the conception of Iris Marion Young which would allow for assigning such responsibilities to different layers in society. However, since the tenet of subsidiarity is only a supple principle which does not distinguish between different kinds of duties, we propose to enrich the tenet of subsidiarity by the Kantian conception of perfect and imperfect duties.

Keywords

Structural injustices Subsidiarity Political responsibility Social connectedness Liability Perfect duties Imperfect duties 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. Arendt, H. (1973). The origins of totalitarianism. Orlando: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
  2. Arendt, H. (1994). Organized guilt and universal responsibility. In H. Arendt (Ed.), Essays in understanding 1930–1954 (pp. 121–132). New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co.Google Scholar
  3. Arendt, H. (2003). Collective responsibility. In H. Arendt (Ed.), Responsibility and judgement (pp. 147–158). New York: Schocken Books.Google Scholar
  4. Aristotle (2009). Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Aroney, N. (2007). Subsidiarity, federalism and the best constitution: Thomas Aquinas on city, province and empire. Law and Philosophy, 26(2), 161–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Aroney, N. (2014). Subsidiarity in the writings of Aristotle and Aquinas. In M. Evans & A. Zimmermann (Eds.), Global perspectives on subsidiarity (pp. 9–27). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Aßländer, M. S. (2011). Corporate social responsibility as subsidiary co-responsibility: A macroeconomic perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 99(1), 115–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Aßländer, M. S. (2012). Corporate or governmental duties? CSR as subsidiary co-responsibility. In D. Melé & C. Dierksmeier (Eds.), Human development in businessValues and humanistic management in the encyclical Caritas in veritate (pp. 117–133). Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan: Houndsmill.Google Scholar
  9. Aßländer, M. S., & Curbach, J. (2014). The corporation as citoyen? Towards a new understanding of corporate citizenship. Journal of Business Ethics, 120(4), 541–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Aßländer, M. S., & Curbach, J. (2017). Corporate or governmental duties? Corporate citizenship from a governmental perspective. Business and Society, 56(4), 617–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bagnoli, C. (2006). Humanitarian intervention as a perfect duty: A Kantian argument. In T. Nardin & M. S. Williams (Eds.), Humanitarian intervention (pp. 117–140). New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Barbieri, W. A. Jr. (2001). Beyond the nations: The expansion of the common good in Catholic Social Thought. The Review of Politics, 63(4), 723–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Barry, C., & Ferracioli, L. (2013). Young on responsibility and structural injustice. Criminal Justice Ethics, 32(3), 247–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Calder, T. (2010). Shared responsibility, global structural injustice, and restitution. Social Theory and Practice, 36(2), 263–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carozza, P. G. (2003). Subsidiarity as a structural principle of international human-rights law. The American Journal of International Law, 97(1), 38–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chaplin, J. (1997). Subsidiarity: The concept and the connections. Ethical Perspectives, 4(2), 117–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cicero, M. T. (2009). On duties. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Costa, E., & Ramus, T. (2012). The Italian economia aziendale and Catholic Social Teaching: How to apply the common good principle at the managerial level. Journal of Business Ethics, 106(1), 103–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Crane, A., Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). Corporations and Citizenship. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Curbach, J., & Aßländer, M. S. (2014). Corporate citizenship, from corporate bourgeois to corporate citoyen. In R. C. Chandler (Ed.), Business and corporate integrity, 2 Vols. (Vol. 1, pp. 33–52). Santa Barbara: Praeger.Google Scholar
  21. Erskine, T. (2001). Assigning responsibilities to institutional moral agents: The case of states and quasi-states. Ethics and International Affairs, 15(2), 67–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Erskine, T. (2014). Coalitions of the willing and responsibilities to protect: Informal associations, enhanced capacities and shared moral burdens. Ethics and International Affairs, 28(1), 115–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Evans, M. (2013). The principle of subsidiarity as a social and political principle in Catholic social teaching. Solidarity: The Journal of Catholic Social Thought and Secular Ethics, 3(1), 43–60.Google Scholar
  24. Fasterling, B., & Demuijnck, G. (2013). Human rights in the void? Due diligence in the UN guiding principles on business and human rights. Journal of Business Ethics, 116(4), 799–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gomes, B. (2011). The duty to oppose violence: Humanitarian intervention as a question for political philosophy. Review of International Studies, 37(3), 1045–1067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gosepath, S. (2005). The principle of subsidiarity. In A. Føllesdal & T. Pogge (Eds.), Real world justice. Grounds, principles, human rights, and social institutions (pp. 157–170). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  27. Guyer, P. (2010). The Obligation to be virtuous: Kant’s conception of the Tugendverpflichtung. Social Philosophy and Policy, 27(2), 206–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hahn, H. (2009). The global consequence of participatory responsibility. Journal of Global Ethics, 5(1), 43–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hahn, H. (2013). Iris Marion Youngs Modell politischer Verantwortung. In P. Niesen (Ed.), Zwischen Demokratie und globaler Verantwortung (pp. 77–92). Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hill, T. E. (1999). Happiness and human flourishing in Kant’s ethics. Social Philosophy and Policy, 16(1), 143–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Höffe, O. (2007). Democracy in an age of globalization. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Howlett, E., Davis, C., & Burton, S. (2016). From food desert to food oasis: The potential influence of food retailers on childhood obesity rates. Journal of Business Ethics, 139(2), 215–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jaspers, K. (2000). The question of German guilt. New York: Fordham University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Jefferson, T. (1829). In Th. Jefferson Randolph (Ed.), Memoir, correspondence, and miscellanies from the papers of Thomas Jefferson, 4 Vols (Vol. 1). Charlottesville: F. Carr & Co.Google Scholar
  35. Kant, I. (1891). Principles of politics. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.Google Scholar
  36. Kant, I. (2012). Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Kant, I. (2013). The metaphysics of morals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Kohler, L., & Saner, H. (1993). (Eds.). Hannah Arendt—Karl Jaspers: Correspondence 1926—1969. Orlando: Harcourt Brace & Company.Google Scholar
  39. Lincoln, A. (1905). The life and works of Abraham Lincoln, 12 Vols (Vol. 2,2). New York, NY: Anglo-American Authors’ Association.Google Scholar
  40. Maak, T. (2009). The Cosmopolitical Corporation. Journal of Business Ethics, 84(3, Suppl.), 361–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Matten, D., & Crane, A. (2005). Corporate citizenship: Toward an extended theoretical conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 166–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McIlroy, D. H. (2003). Subsidiarity and sphere sovereignty: Christian reflections on the size, shape and scope of government. Journal of Church and State, 45(4), 739–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Melé, D. (2005). Exploring the principle of subsidiarity in organizational forms. Journal of Business Ethics, 60(3), 293–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Melé, D. (2017). Subsidiarität und Partizipation. In M. S. Aßländer & B. Wagner (Eds.), Philosophie der Arbeit (pp. 489–509). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  45. Miller, S. C. (2005). Need, care and obligation. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement, 57, 137–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Moggach, D. (2009). Freedom and perfection: German Debates on the state in eighteenth century. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 42(4), 1003–1023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nell-Breuning, O. V. (1964). Christliche Soziallehre. Mannheim: Pesch-Haus.Google Scholar
  48. Nell-Breuning, O. V. (1990). Baugesetze der Gesellschaft. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder.Google Scholar
  49. Néron, P.-Y. (2010). Business and the polis: What does it mean to see corporations as political actors. Journal of Business Ethics, 94(3), 333–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Neuhäuser, C. (2014). Structural injustice and the distribution of forward-looking responsibility. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, XXXVIII, 232–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. O’Neill, O. (2001). Agents of justice. Metaphilosophy, 32(1/2), 180–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ohreen, D. E., & Petry, R. A. (2012). Imperfect duties and corporate philanthropy: A Kantian approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 106(3), 367–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Osuji, O. K. (2015). Corporate social responsibility, Juridification and globalization: ‘Inventive interventionism’ for a ‘paradox’. International Journal of Law in Context, 11(3), 265–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Palazzo, G., & Scherer, A. G. (2006). Corporate legitimacy as deliberation. A communicative framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 66(1), 71–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Powell, B., & Zwolinski, M. (2012). The ethical and economic case against sweatshop labor: A critical assessment. Journal of Business Ethics, 107(4), 449–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Riley, P. (1979). Federalism in Kant’s political philosophy. Publius, 9(4), 43–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rommen, H. (1955). The state in Catholic Thought. St. Louis: Herder Book Co.Google Scholar
  58. Rotter, J. P., Airike, P.-E., & Mark-Herbert, C. (2014). Exploring political corporate social responsibility in global supply chains. Journal of Business Ethics, 125(4), 581–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2011). The new political role of business in a globalized world: A review of a new perspective on CSR and its implications for the firm, governance, and democracy. Journal of Management Studies, 48(4), 899–931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Scherer, A. G., Palazzo, G., & Baumann, D. (2006). Global rules and private actors: Toward a new role of the transnational corporation in global governance. Business Ethics Quarterly, 16(4), 505–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Schrempf, J. (2014). A social connection approach to corporate responsibility: The case of the fast-food industry and obesity. Business & Society, 53(2), 300–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Tempels, T., Blok, V., & Verwij, M. (2017). Understanding political responsibility in corporate citizenship: Towards a shared responsibility for the common good. Journal of Global Ethics, 13(1), 90–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Van Til, K. A. (2008). Subsidiarity and sphere-sovereignty: A match made in…. Theological Studies, 69(3), 610–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Waschkuhn, A. (1995). Was ist Subsidiarität? Ein Sozialphilosophisches Ordnungsprinzip: Von Thomas von Aquin zur “Civil Society”. Wiesbaden: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Weinberger, L. D. (2014). The relationship between sphere sovereignty and subsidiarity. In M. Evans & A. Zimmermann (Eds.), Global perspectives on subsidiarity (pp. 49–63). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wettstein, F. (2010). The duty to protect: Corporate complicity, political responsibility, and human rights advocacy. Journal of Business Ethics, 96(1), 33–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Williams, H. (2010). Towards a Kantian theory of international distributive justice. Kantian Review, 15(2), 43–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Young, I. M. (2003). Political responsibility and structural injustice. In The Lindley Lecture. Lawrence: University of Kansas.Google Scholar
  69. Young, I. M. (2004). Responsibility and global labor justice. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 12(4), 365–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Young, I. M. (2006). Responsibility and global justice: A social connection model. Social Philosophy and Policy, 23(1), 102–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Young, I. M. (2011). Responsibility for justice. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Scribal Abbreviations

  1. CA: John Paul II. (1991). Centesimus Annus, Encyclical on the hundredth Anniversary of Rerum Novarum, 1st of May 1991. Rome: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.Google Scholar
  2. CV: Benedict XVI. (2009). Encyclical-Letter Caritas in Veritate, on Integral Human Development in Charity and Truth, 29th of June 2009. Rome: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.Google Scholar
  3. LS: Francis. (2015). Laudato Si, Encyclical Letter on Care for our Common Home, 24th of May 2015. Rome: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.Google Scholar
  4. MM: John XXIII. (1961). Mater et Magistra, Encyclical on Christianity and Social Progress, 15th of May 1961. Rome: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.Google Scholar
  5. PCJP: Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. (2004). Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. Rome: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.Google Scholar
  6. PT: John XXIII. (1963). Pacem in Terris, Encyclical on Establishing Universal Peace in Truth, Justice, Charity, and Liberty, 11th of April 1963. Rome: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.Google Scholar
  7. QA: Pius XI. (1931). Quadragesimo Anno, Encyclical on Reconstruction of the Social Order, 15th of May 1931. Rome: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.Google Scholar
  8. RN: Leo XIII. (1891). Rerum Novarum, Encyclical on Capital and Labor, 15th of May 1891. Rome: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.International Institute ZittauTechnical University DresdenZittauGermany

Personalised recommendations