Theories of social norms frequently define social norms in terms of individuals’ beliefs and preferences, and so afford individual beliefs and preferences conceptual priority over social norms. I argue that this treatment of social norms is unsustainable. Taking Bicchieri’s theory as an exemplar of this approach, I argue, first, that Bicchieri’s framework bears important structural similarities with the command theory of law; and second, that Hart’s arguments against the command theory of law, suitably recast, reveal the fundamental problems with Bicchieri’s (...) framework. I then draw on Hart’s critique to develop and defend an alternative approach, arguing that we should conceive of social norms as the norms internal to a “socially sanctioned representational practice.” This approach makes social norms conceptually independent of individuals’ beliefs and preferences by locating them within social practices that transcend their individual participants, structuring the social landscape even before individuals form their own beliefs and preferences. (shrink)

Despite repeated calls for equity, diversity, and inclusion in nursing education and the significance of disability for the vocation of nursing, the voices and experiences of nursing faculty with disabilities are largely absent from our literature. In this paper, we present a critical grounded theory of the experiences of disabled nursing faculty in academe to begin to amend this gap. Using critical disability studies as a sensitizing framework and building on prior work on racism and other systems of oppression in (...) nursing, we theorize that nursing academe is a normalized space produced by White, able‐mindbodied, and cis‐heteropatriarchal discourses that regulate the boundaries of inclusion via exclusionary social norms. Further, we describe the operations of normalcy in nursing academe, discuss implications for education and health care, and consider avenues for change. (shrink)

Recently, some political philosophers have started to argue that the history and continuation of colonial injustices means that former colonising states have no right to exclude members of former colonies or colonially inflected societies. However, less attention has been paid to the issue of how postcolonial migrants ought to be treated once admitted into former metropoles. In this paper I assess whether postcolonial migrants ought to be required to socially integrate once admitted. On the one hand, there seems to be (...) a compelling argument in favour of this requirement, because of the relational equality promoting benefits of social integration. I show how postcolonial migrants are subject to relational inequality within former metropoles and draw attention to compelling empirical evidence that shows that facilitating close and frequent interactions between members of ‘outgroups’ and ‘ingroups’ is an effective means of promoting relational equality. However, I then argue that postcolonial migrants ought not to be required to socially integrate for two reasons. Firstly, such policies in fact risk reinforcing relational inequality, and secondly, they risk subjecting postcolonial migrants to unreasonable burdens. This does not mean that former colonising states ought to dispense with social integration policies altogether, but they ought to be more attuned to the preferences of postcolonial migrants. In contexts in which they oppose social integration policies, a more appropriately relational egalitarian act would be for former colonising states to keep open the possibility of future social integration, rather than to impose it. (shrink)