Didier Zúñiga

Contemporary political theory (CPT) has approached questions of plurality and diversity by drawing rather implicitly on anthropological accounts of difference. This was the case with the ‘cultural turn’, which significantly shaped theories of multiculturalism. Similarly, the current ‘ontological turn’ is gaining influence and leaving a marked impact on CPT. I examine the recent turn and assess both the possibilities it offers and the challenges it poses for decentering CPT and opening radical, decolonial avenues for thinking difference otherwise. I take Paul Nadasdy's critique of the ontological turn as an invitation to reflect on the methodological precepts that inform how the field frames the scope and limits of comparison. In pursuit of this, I examine the Zapatistas’ notion of a ‘world of many worlds’, which provides a way of approaching difference that captures the generative aspects of the ontological turn while avoiding the pitfalls of relativism and political inertia. I argue that the Zapatistas’ insights offer ethical guidance towards social and ecological thriving. Ultimately, my goal is to move CPT towards a more capacious form of making sense of what is out there in the world, and thus make room for better ways of inhabiting the Earth.

_In the lead essay ‘What Would a Philosophy of Inheritance Look Like?,’ J. Reid Miller proposes __a broader, interdisciplinary lens to adequately comprehend how material and non-material attributes are transferred through inter-generational processes. His co-symposiasts Claire Katz, Fernando Zapata, and Didier __Zúñiga agree __that __current frames of analyses that narrow inheritance either to __biological, economic, or cultural transfer __be broadened. __Building upon Reid Miller’s proposal, Katz urges that wounds of national traumas be addressed, should the wounds not be transferred to the next generation; Zapata follows Reid Miller in understanding inheritance through processes in which belongingness is bestowed, while __Zúñiga underscores that histories of domination and oppression be studied to comprehend how injustices and inequalities continue to be reproduced. In his reply, Reid Miller reiterates that multiple ways of belonging be envisioned and implemented that are able to narrate inheritances from different perspectives._.

Much work in care ethics and disability studies is concerned with the flourishing of human animals as an independent species. As a result, it focuses on how the built environments and the social structures that produce them restrict and exclude us. This paper addresses this problem and provides tentative first steps towards sketching an account of ethics that is structured around the interdependent nature of human and more than human life. I argue that our embodied existence places us in a shared condition of vulnerability with all forms of life on earth. This allows us to conceive of caring as an essential condition of the sustainability and well-being of social and ecological life systems. To this end, I discuss the notion of anthropocentrism – and the attendant notion of Anthropocene – and argue that the conception of human animality that underwrites it posits a disembodied and homogenous ‘anthropos’ that is equally responsible for and equally affected by unsustainable social systems. Further, I examine the debate that opposes realist and constructivist accounts of nature, and I argue that it is inadequate to look at nature through the lenses of the predatory social systems that are responsible for ecological injustices in the first place.

Agency and representation are viewed as preconditions for democratic action. The dominant understanding of agency and representation is defined in terms of certain capacities and abilities that are considered to constitute the basis of personhood. The article will put into question this understanding and the assumptions that underpin it and argue that it rests on a mistaken conception of human animality – one that reduces the self to an autonomous and disembodied rational mind. The article will also suggest that it is problematic because it marginalizes more than human forms of life – as well as those of us who are differently human – and excludes their points of view from the political processes of world making. In contrast, I will put forward an understanding of agency and representation that is attuned to the relational dimensions of all life on earth. By paying attention to the semiotic propensities that all forms of life share – which entails considering nonlinguistic forms of communication – this article responds to the need for more radically democratic ways of listening, giving voice, and caring for the earth’s beings and the relations that form the conditions for life to flourish.

Pluralism and diversity are largely bound to a humancentric conception of difference, one which fails to consider the plurality of ontologies that constitute reality. The result has been the confinement of the subject of justice to social spaces, and hence the reinforcement of the dichotomous understanding of humanity and nature. This is in part because pluralist theories are largely concerned with one single manifestation of vulnerability: the vulnerability of minority groups. This essay begins by offering a distinctive definition of vulnerability, one that is broad enough to incorporate both universal and dispositional accounts, while being narrow enough to rule out both vitalist and biocentric approaches. I use the notion to examine debates on political pluralism, and I argue that, as they currently stand, pluralist approaches are ill suited for understanding the struggles of Indigenous peoples against colonialism. I defend the view that the normative case for pluralism needs to be grounded in an ecologically aware ethics that can respond to the vulnerability of animate beings who sustain life.

Political theory and philosophy need to widen their view of the space in which what matters politically takes place, and I suggest that integrating the conditions of sustainability of all affected—that is, all participants in nature's relations—is a necessary first step in this direction. New materialists and posthumanists have challenged how nature and politics have traditionally been construed. While acknowledging the significance of their contributions, I critically examine the ethical and political implications of their ontological project. I focus particularly on how the decentering of human agency that they advocate for raises a set of concerns that need to be addressed in developing an appropriate ecological ethics. I argue that the latter must be attuned to the vulnerability of living beings who participate in relationships that sustain life on earth. This brings me to conclude that qualitative distinctions between the worlds ofbiosandtechneare necessary. This is because we need to think critically about ways of evaluating types of relationships so that we can assess them and establish which are worth nurturing and protecting and which are not.

Didier Zúñiga | : Le présent article examine la façon dont Charles Taylor a entrepris de poser le problème politique de la sécularisation. Plus spécifiquement, nous voudrions montrer que, si son effort pour articuler une théorie de l’aménagement de la diversité morale et religieuse a certes contribué à critiquer les régimes rigides de la laïcité, Taylor accorde une prééminence incontestable à la liberté de conscience. Or, notre analyse entend démontrer que, selon cette vue, il n’y a pas de place pour l’autonomie religieuse. Notre hypothèse est qu’en présentant les conflits moraux et religieux comme des enjeux de justice, Taylor néglige l’important clivage existant entre, d’une part, les questions de reconnaissance reliées à la différence culturelle et, d’autre part, les revendications d’autorité exprimées par des groupes — et pas simplement des membres individuels — au sein de la sphère publique. | : This paper aims to challenge the assumption that Charles Taylor’s conception of political secularism is pluralist. The article argues that, although Taylor’s work provides the basis for an important critique of the most rigid forms of secularism, his theory places a strong focus on individual conscience. Yet Taylor’s almost exclusive concern for individual conscience excludes the pluralist claim to religious institutional autonomy. In addition, this article argues that Taylor presents moral and religious conflicts as questions of justice, which can be resolved with a correct interpretation of freedom of conscience. Against Taylor’s conception of “laïcité,” the article attempts to show that these problems are best grasped as conflicts between the authority of different groups—not just individuals—and that of the state.

In political philosophy one often encounters claims on behalf of pluralism, yet there is anything but a consensus over the meaning of this fundamental concept. It is true that there is no single pluralist tradition; rather, there are different pluralist traditions within different domains of practical reason. No one would object, however, to the notion that Isaiah Berlin’s “value pluralism” is a genuine form of meta-ethical pluralism. Charles Taylor is another philosopher who is often called a pluralist, but I shall argue that this is a mistake. One of the central goals of his philosophy is that of reconciling competing aims and ends and this is incompatible with pluralism.