James Hickson
I am a political theorist, working at the interface of philosophy, economics, and public policy. My current research focuses on: (i) precarity and precarious work; (ii) republican political theory; and (iii) contemporary urban politics.
less
InterestsView All (30)
Uploads
This paper argues that the republican political philosophy of Philip Pettit, and the concept of freedom as non-domination in particular, offers an intuitive and fruitful framework with which to first approach precarity. Doing so not only allows us to recognise the relationships of arbitrary power created by precarious work, but also to challenge claims that precarious work benefits workers’ freedom. However, I also suggest that the case of precarious work highlights insufficiencies with Pettit’s existing definition of domination, arguing that Pettit fails to recognise how certain forms of structural constraint can compromise republican freedom. In concluding I suggest how a wider research project could attempt to rectify these insufficiencies in order to provide a holistic, republican, critique of precarity in twenty-first century work.
Newcastle University, 14th-15th December 2016.
This paper explores the impact of the labor republican tradition of political thought, as recently uncovered by Alex Gourevitch. I attempt to place labor republicanism within the wider republican revival that has been influentially led by Philip Pettit. I support the claim that labor republicanism offers a more expansive account of republican liberty by clarifying and contrasting the conceptions of structural domination offered by Gourevitch’s labor republicans and Philip Pettit. Having done this, I emphasise the importance of this conceptual shift by analysing the case of precarious work in the contemporary labour market from a labor republican perspective. I show how the labor republican framework provides the conceptual resources to identify precarious work as a problem of unfree labour, and argue that this suggests the potential to imagine a contemporary labor republicanism that continues the task of universalising republican liberty in the new social conditions of the twenty-first century.
This paper argues that the republican political philosophy of Philip Pettit, and the concept of freedom as non-domination in particular, offers an intuitive and fruitful framework with which to first approach precarity. Doing so not only allows us to recognise the relationships of arbitrary power created by precarious work, but also to challenge claims that precarious work benefits workers’ freedom. However, I also suggest that the case of precarious work highlights insufficiencies with Pettit’s existing definition of domination, arguing that Pettit fails to recognise how certain forms of structural constraint can compromise republican freedom. In concluding I suggest how a wider research project could attempt to rectify these insufficiencies in order to provide a holistic, republican, critique of precarity in twenty-first century work.
Newcastle University, 14th-15th December 2016.
This paper explores the impact of the labor republican tradition of political thought, as recently uncovered by Alex Gourevitch. I attempt to place labor republicanism within the wider republican revival that has been influentially led by Philip Pettit. I support the claim that labor republicanism offers a more expansive account of republican liberty by clarifying and contrasting the conceptions of structural domination offered by Gourevitch’s labor republicans and Philip Pettit. Having done this, I emphasise the importance of this conceptual shift by analysing the case of precarious work in the contemporary labour market from a labor republican perspective. I show how the labor republican framework provides the conceptual resources to identify precarious work as a problem of unfree labour, and argue that this suggests the potential to imagine a contemporary labor republicanism that continues the task of universalising republican liberty in the new social conditions of the twenty-first century.