Magnus Ferguson

This article argues that in certain contexts, unreciprocated speech can be an important form of care for persons who would otherwise find it difficult to retain their place in shared worlds of linguistic meaning, such as those who lose capacities for linguistic expression due to illness. Philosophers and political theorists often underscore the importance of reciprocated speech for sharing in a human world. Hannah Arendt makes this point especially forcefully in _The Origins of Totalitarianism _and _The Human Condition_, in which she suggests that “speechless” persons are excluded from the linguistic “web of relationships.” I reconstruct several of Arendt’s analyses of speech and speechlessness and argue that they are _prima facie _exclusionary to nonspeaking persons. After responding to several objections against attributing this exclusionary position to Arendt, I identify resources in Arendt’s own writing, as well as that of Iris Marion Young and Aristotle, for theorizing unreciprocated speech as a way of offering listeners footholds in the linguistic spheres of meaning around them.

I confront the ‘accountability problem’ of Iris Marion Young’s theory of forward-looking responsibility, which arises when we seek to hold others accountable for failing to act on shared forward-looking responsibilities to intervene upon structural injustice. I reconstruct four strategies for circumventing the accountability problem, and ultimately endorse the view that we can understand negligence of forward-looking responsibilities in terms of moral laxity for imperfect duties. Judgments of moral laxity provide a coherent way to hold serial shirkers accountable without overlooking the cumulative demandingness of forward-looking responsibilities.

What does it mean to say that one “ought” to undergo an emotion? In The Imperative of Responsibility, Hans Jonas provocatively asserts that twentieth-century citizens “ought” to fear for the well-being of future generations. I argue that Jonas's demand is not straightforwardly reducible to claims about the fittingness, expedience, or aretaic desirability of fear, and I present an interpretation of its content and coherence using Aristotle's moral psychology of fear in the Rhetoric, Politics, and Nicomachean Ethics as a framework. Aristotle's account of fear as an anticipatory, imaginative stance that alters perception and judgment helps to clarify that Jonas's demand concerns acts of affect-laden, imaginative reflection through which one might revise one's affective sensibilities with regard to future persons. I conclude by considering several objections to Jonas's first-order argument, and indicating several clarifications and caveats that are important for formulating strong normative assertions about political emotions more generally.

This paper investigates the moral emotion of being socially, but non-agentially connected to a harm. I propose understanding the emotion of an affiliated onlooker as a species of regret called ‘social-regret’. Breaking from existing guilt- and shame-based accounts, I argue that social-regret can be a fitting, expressive, and revelatory reactive attitude that opens the way for deliberation over accountability for others’ harms. When we feel social-regret, our attention is directed towards the moral salience of our social relations and the expectations that undergird them, as well as possibilities for ameliorative action. I consider several existing accounts of affiliated onlookers’ emotions (including embarrassment, guilt, and shame), and I highlight the advantages of supplementing these with a regret-based account. Social-regret provides a novel way to understand negative, self-directed emotions in response to others’ harms as rational, expressive, and potentially reason-giving experiences.

I propose and analyze moral emotions that are fittingly experienced when one is socially, institutionally, or structurally affiliated with a perpetrator without causally contributing to their harm. The project explores the nature, scope, and urgency of our reactive attitudes and concomitant responsibilities that arise on account of harms caused by social and political relations. Drawing from resources in phenomenology, social epistemology, moral psychology, and feminist ethics, I argue that affective experiences can direct attention towards the moral salience of our relations and open the way for taking accountability for others’ harm.

This paper situates Hannah Arendt’s concept of natality between the rival concerns of Habermasian critical theory and Gadamerian hermeneutical philosophy. I argue that natality is simultaneously emancipatory and hermeneutically grounded. This is to say that Arendt affirms the possibility of reflectively disrupting precedents set by tradition, even as she refrains from overestimating the emancipatory powers of critical reflection. Through comparison with Habermas and Gadamer, it emerges that Arendt conceives of repetition and revolution as jointly constitutive of human natality. At bottom, natality is not simply an innate capacity for newness, but rather refers to the site of an irreducible confrontation between past and future.

In order to revise interpretive prejudgments, it is important to first recognize them for what they are. Problematically, the habitual overreliance on deficient prejudgments can make such recognition difficult. An impasse appears: How can one intervene on deficient interpretive resources if those very same resources conceal their deficiencies? I analyze James Joyce’s short story “The Dead,” in which the protagonist Gabriel is highly resistant to internalizing experiences that might otherwise prompt him to revise his interpretive projections. I argue that Gabriel only becomes aware of his interpretive shortcomings after an experience of profound hesitation that allows him to affectively sense the limitations of his prejudice. Drawing from Hans-Georg Gadamer, Kristie Dotson, and Alia Al-Saji, I argue that Gabriel’s experience of hesitation temporarily denaturalizes his deeply entrenched sexism, circumventing the hermeneutical impasse described above. Read in this way, “The Dead” illustrates the power of affective experiences to unsettle highly resilient ways of seeing the world.

I propose that Hannah Arendt’s hermeneutical philosophy can make important contributions to ongoing debates in the study of epistemic injustice. Building on Kristie Dotson’s concern that Miranda Fricker’s formulation of hermeneutical injustice is needlessly restrictive, I argue that Arendt’s concept of ‘thinking’ challenges us to imagine a form of hermeneutical virtue that is rigorously self-critical. The self-destructive tendency of Arendtian thinking may help to guard against the specific danger that Dotson identifies - namely, that an overly rigid approach to hermeneutical injustice and hermeneutical virtue can itself generate situations of epistemic injustice. Despite important differences that emerge, it is productive to bring together Fricker’s concept of hermeneutical virtue and Arendt’s concept of self-undermining thinking in order to reveal the ways in which these two corrective strategies might enrich and pose important challenges for the other.