In Poverty, Solidarity, and Poor-Led Social Movements, Monique Deveaux criticizes and reframes the traditional, moral (and often individualistic) response to poverty in favor of a political and collective one that centers the role of the poor and poor-led groups in the anti-poverty agenda. I have two aims in this review, a supportive one and a more critical one. On the supportive side, I examine the advances Deveaux makes by 1) expanding the category of agents of justice; 2) putting the poor (...) at the center of an effective response to poverty; and 3) changing the emphasis from individual duties to a collective response. On the critical side, I revisit Deveaux’s critique of the traditional approach and argue that she unnecessarily shifts the moral burden away from the affluent whose complicity and capacity remain important grounds of obligation. In conclusion, I consider some remaining challenges that are (helpfully) exposed by Deveaux’s account. (shrink)

In this commentary, I discuss three aspects of Monique Deveaux’s account. First, the method of Grounded Normative Theorizing she adopts to engage directly with the contexts and views of those experiencing poverty fits within a range of proposals to enhance the methodology of moral and political philosophy, and I would call on all philosophers working in this space to further develop these innovative methodologies. Second, Deveaux extends the capabilities approach by focusing on the group-based character of poverty and making the (...) case for building the collective capabilities of poor-led social movements. While I do not substantially disagree with this argument (in practice), I argue that we should be careful to avoid normative collectivism (as a theoretical assumption). Finally, Deveaux discusses political solidarity with people experiencing poverty. I argue that this should be based on esteeming each other’s various contributions in more diverse ways than only in narrow economic terms. Treating people in poverty and poor-led social movements as agents of justice, as Deveaux advocates, is a significant step in this endeavour. (shrink)

In this reply, I respond to issues raised by Matthews, Pilapil, Igneski and Peeters in their commentaries on Poverty, Solidarity, and Poor-Led Social Movements. They pose important definitional, conceptual, and normative questions and challenges. My response acknowledges that the diversity and fluidity of political activism by people in poverty complicates questions of political cooperation and solidarity – and makes the prospect of poor-led poverty abolition and social change seem dim. The normative arguments in support of centering the perspectives and aims (...) of poor-led organizations and social movements, however, do not depend on the consistency or imminent success of these movements. If political theorists are to contribute to efforts to abolish the systems that perpetuate chronic poverty, they will need to see the social-political empowerment of people living in poverty – and the dismantling of systems of structural subordination and exploitation – as the broad remedy. (shrink)

This article engages with Monique Deveaux’s book Poverty, Solidarity, and Poor-Led Social Movements. Deveaux argues that philosophers writing on poverty and global justice should be more attentive to what poor people themselves think and do in response to poverty. I support Deveaux’s general orientation but reflect on some challenges that need to be considered and negotiated to achieve Deveaux’s goals. The article begins by complicating some of the distinctions Deveaux makes, especially the distinction between organisations which act on behalf of (...) the poor and those which are led by poor people. To further complicate this distinction, the article explores debates on representation that highlight some of the complexities that arise when privileged actors seek to act in solidarity with poor-led movements. Finally, the article invites Deveaux to further elaborate on the question of the epistemic value of listening to poor people’s accounts. (shrink)

This paper raises three critical arguments against Deveaux’s work in Poverty, Solidarity, and Poor-Led Social Movements. Firstly, the paper argues that a clear-cut definition as to what constitutes a legitimate poor-led social movement particularly its political goals and the means it is allowed to employ to achieve its objective is necessary. Secondly, the paper argues that the theory of recognition and its potential relevance for poor-led activism could have been presented in its strongest terms instead of giving it a reduced (...) treatment. And thirdly, contrary to Deveaux’s apparent over optimism about the poor as agents of global justice, there may be good reasons to be more ‘realistic’ about this position. (shrink)

Devrions-nous remplacer les élections par des loteries ? Le célèbre livre de Bernard Manin sur le gouvernement représentatif a appris à beaucoup que les Grecs considéraient les élections comme un moyen aristocratique, et non démocratique, de sélectionner des personnes pour le pouvoir et l'autorité politique, en comparaison avec le tirage au sort, où chacun a une chance égale d'être sélectionné. (Manin 1997) Jusqu'à récemment, cependant, l'idée qu'un engagement envers la démocratie nécessite de remplacer les élections par le tirage au sort (...) a suscité peu d'intérêt parmi les philosophes politiques. (Blondiaux, 2008 ; Courant et Sintomer, 2019) Cela a maintenant changé. (Abizadeh 2020) ( A. Guerrero 2014) (A. Guerrero 2021b ; 2021a) (Landemore 2020) (Owen et Smith 2018) (P.-É. Vandamme et al. 2018). Cet article pose donc la question de savoir si le tirage au sort est plus démocratique que les élections et si, pour cette raison, nous devrions l’utiliser pour compléter ou remplacer les élections ? (shrink)