The complexities of how justice comes to be realized, and by which agents, is a relatively neglected element in contemporary theories of justice. This has left several crucial questions about agency and justice undertheorized, such as why some particular agents are responsible for realizing justice, how their contribution towards realizing justice should be understood, and what role agents such as activists and community leaders play in realizing justice. We aim to contribute towards a better understanding of the landscape of these (...) kinds of questions. First, we argue that theorists should distinguish between (i) agents who are responsible for realizing justice, but not committed to it, (ii) agents who are not responsible for realizing justice, but who are committed to it, and (iii) agents who are both responsible for and committed to realizing justice. Second, we discuss how to incorporate agents of justice more robustly into theorizing about justice. (shrink)

This paper offers a critique of Martha Nussbaum’s description of the capability approach, and offers an alternative. I will argue that Nussbaum’s characterization of the capability approach is flawed, in two ways. First, she unduly limits the capability to two strands of work, thereby ignoring important other capabilitarian scholarship. Second, she argues that there are five essential elements that all capability theories meet; yet upon closer analysis three of them are not really essential to the capability approach. I also offer (...) an alternative description of the capability approach, which is called the cartwheel view of the capability approach. This view is at the same time radically multidisciplinary yet also contains a foundationally robust core among its various usages, and is therefore much better able to make the case that the capability approach can be developed in a very wide range of more specific normative theories. Finally, the cartwheel view is used to argue against Nussbaum's claim that all capabilitarian political theory needs to be politically liberal. (shrink)

Dans cet article, j’analyse trois logiques normatives qui peuvent fonder les politiques éducatives en portant une attention particulière aux questions liées aux spécificités des sexes. Ces trois modèles éducatifs sont la théorie du capital humain, le discours du droit et l’approche des potentialités. D’abord, je décris cinq rôles que l’éducation peut jouer. Ensuite, j’analyse les trois modèles pouvant fonder les politiques éducatives. La théorie du capital humain pose un certain nombre de problèmes parce qu’elle s’avère économiciste, fragmentée et essentiellement instrumentaliste. (...) Le discours du droit et l’approche des potentialités sont en principe des modèles multidimensionnels et inclusifs et peuvent par le fait même tenir compte des rôles intrinsèques et non éco- nomicistes de l’éducation. Toutefois, selon la manière dont quelqu’un satisfait aux exigences spécifiques des cadres théoriques du droit et des potentialités, ceux-ci peuvent également présenter des difficultés. Je termine cet article en soutenant que la visée intrinsèque des politiques éducatives devrait être d’augmenter les potentialités des individus et que nous devrions employer les discours du droit de façon stratégique, c’est-à-dire lorsqu’il est probable qu’ils amènent les gens à réaliser leurs potentialités. (shrink)