CFP: Justice and Social Ontology of Race

The North American Society for Social Philosophy (NASSP) invites submissions for its group session at the Pacific APA, 2016. The theme of our session will be:

“Justice and the Social Ontology of Race”

Proposals on topics intersecting this theme, broadly understood, are welcome, and might include:

–       The use of racial categories in social planning and policy

–       The ontological status and import of racial categories

–       Race and the justice system

–       The role of race in social and political identity

–       Intersectional analyses of racialized experience(s)

–       Racial categories and educational institutions

–       Race and experience

–       Race and equity

–       Racial violence

–       The status of criminal hate

Other topics in this vein are welcome and encouraged.

Submissions should take the form of extended abstracts or papers. Abstracts should be around 1000 words, with bibliography included. Papers should be under 3000 words. Please include the following information in submission:

Name, affiliation (if any), email address, and paper title.

We welcome submissions from both members and non-members, but we do require that all presenters join the North American Society for Social Philosophy if their papers are accepted.

Submission deadline: September 13, 2015

Submissions and questions should be sent to: Devora Shapiro at shapirod [at] sou [dot] edu, with the subject heading “NASSP APA 2016 SUBMISSION.” Notification of acceptance will be made via email in October. For more information on the society and our events, visit our website.

Kingma and Woollard on Pregnancy and State Interference

Philosophers Eliselijn Kingma and Fiona Woollard have responded to a Dutch proposal to increase government powers with respect to pregnant women smoking.

It is very sad when an early life is set back before it is even born. But it is also dreadful that one in four women is the victim of domestic abuse, and that in 30% of cases that abuse begins during pregnancy. Nonetheless the state does not place webcams in our homes, or chips in expectant fathers. Why? Because a just state needs to balance (1) the protection of individuals against each other, and (2) the protection of individuals against the state. In pregnant women, we are too often inclined to lose sight of that latter demand. The physical unity of fetus and pregnant woman means that intervening on the latter in the name of protecting the former is necessarily a profound violation of the mother’s personal freedom, privacy and civil rights. The fetus cannot be forcefully separated from the mother without, literally, cutting her open. And controlling what she inhales and ingests – let alone forced treatment or deprivation of liberty – is a profound interference by the state of her most intimate and basic human freedoms, and a far-reaching abuse of the powers of the state.

Full translation is here.