Refine
Document Type
- Article (2)
- Working Paper (1)
Language
- English (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3)
Keywords
- social justice (3) (remove)
Mobilizations in defence of ‘companion animals’ have become major sites of contestation in Chinese society in recent years. They often reject the existing ambiguity between the use of these animals as pets and as meat, demanding unambiguous respect for and protection of dogs. However, in a society where inequalities are as significant as in China, where the level of poverty, sickness, and environmental and industrial tragedies appears overwhelming, one may ask how pets’ destinies have become such a symbolic focus and source of occasional fury – for both Chinese and foreign audiences. Taking this question seriously, this article aims to examine such mobilizations in China – demanding the protection of dogs – as a starting point to theoretically unwrap the more general problem of how the perception of certain beings as ‘weak’ and as deserving the protection of society is socially constructed, and what the related choices imply. I argue that to better understand these mobilizations to protect dogs, we should not separate the focus of the calls for protection from the social web of relationships and oppositions in which they are entrenched.
Populists in the EU often call for restrictions on EU immigrants’ access to welfare rights. These calls are often demagogic and parochial. This paper aims to show what exactly is both distinct and problematic with these populist calls from a normative point of view while not necessarily reducible to demagogy and parochialism. The overall aim of the paper is not to argue that all populists call for such restrictions nor to claim that all calls for such restrictions are populist. The purpose of the paper is rather humble. It only aims to show that populist calls for restrictions on EU immigrants’ access to welfare rights are characterised by two normatively problematic arguments that target two different subsets of the citizenry: what I dub for the purpose of this paper the moralists and the immoralists. It is the way populists address these two subsets of the citizenry, as well as the fact that they could simultaneously appeal to the concerns of both groups, that makes populist approaches to welfare rights both conceptually distinct to other approaches as well as potentially politically appealing to a more diverse population of voters.
This article examines whether restrictions on access to welfare rights for EU immigrants are justifiable on grounds of reciprocity. Recently political theorists have supported some robust restrictions on the basis of fairness. They argue that if EU immigrants do not immediately contribute sufficiently to the provision of basic collective goods in the host state, restrictions on their access to the welfare state are justified. I argue that these accounts of the principle of reciprocity rely on an ambiguous conception of contribution that cannot deliver the restrictions it advocates. Several strategies open to those advocating reciprocity-based restrictions are considered and found wanting. This article defends that verdict from a number of objections.