Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter October 18, 2021

Moving Beyond the Individualist Paradigm? Risse and Wollner on Non-agential Exploitation

Katla Heðinsdóttir

Abstract

Most philosophical examinations of the concept of exploitation center on analyzing two-party interactions between individuals. Mathias Risse and Gabriel Wollner introduce an account of exploitation that seeks to transcend this ‘individualist paradigm’ in three ways: Through exploitation of and by agential groups (non-individual exploitation), of or by non-agential groups (non-agential exploitation) and by social structures (structural exploitation). In this paper, I argue that while the concepts of non-individual and structural exploitation do offer each their way of transcending or revising the individualist paradigm, the most ambitious and original attempt to break with the paradigm is offered by the concept of non-agential exploitation. I then discuss this concept, but ultimately conclude that it suffers from too many shortcomings in its current form to offer a plausible departure from the individualist approach.


Corresponding author: Katla Heðinsdóttir, Section for Philosophy, University of Copenhagen, Karen Blixens plads 8 2300, Copenhagen, Denmark, E-mail:

Funding source: The Novo Nordisk Foundation

Award Identifier / Grant number: NNF17SA0031368

Acknowledgments

I thank Erik Malmqvist for helpful comments and discussions, as well as for several of the points made in this paper.

  1. Research funding: The study was supported by the Novo Nordisk Foundation (NNF17SA0031368).

References

Ballantyne, A. 2005. “HIV International Clinical Research: Exploitation and Risk.” Bioethics 19 (5–6): 476–91, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2005.00459.x.Search in Google Scholar

Bratman, M. 2014. Shared Agency: A Planning Theory of Acting Together. New York: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Dal-Ré, R., A. Rid, E. Emanuel, and D. Wendler. 2016. “The Potential Exploitation of Research Participants in High Income Countries Who Lack Access to Health Care.” British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 81 (5): 857–64, https://doi.org/10.1111/bcp.12879.Search in Google Scholar

Gardner, J. 2007. “Complicity and Causality.” Criminal Law and Philosophy 1 (2): 127–41, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-006-9018-6.Search in Google Scholar

Goodin, R., and C. Barry. 2014. “Benefiting from the Wrongdoing of Others.” Journal of Applied Philosophy 31 (4): 363–76, https://doi.org/10.1111/japp.12077.Search in Google Scholar

Gray, D. 2020. “Rethinking Micro-Level Exploitation.” Social Theory and Practice 46 (3): 515–46, https://doi.org/10.5840/soctheorpract202051295.Search in Google Scholar

Lepora, C., and R. Goodin. 2013. On Complicity and Compromise. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

London, A. 2005. “Justice and the Human Development Approach to International Research.” Hastings Center Report 35 (1): 24–37, https://doi.org/10.1353/hcr.2005.0009.Search in Google Scholar

Malmqvist, E., and A. Szigeti. 2019. “Exploitation and Joint Action.” Journal of Social Philosophy 50 (3): 280–300, https://doi.org/10.1111/josp.12272.Search in Google Scholar

Mayer, R. 2007. “Sweatshops, Exploitation, and Moral Responsibility.” Journal of Social Philosophy 38 (4): 605–19, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9833.2007.00401.x.Search in Google Scholar

McKeown, M. 2016. “Global Structural Exploitation: Towards an Intersectional Definition.” Global Justice: Theory Practice Rhetoric 9 (2): 155–77.Search in Google Scholar

Meyers, C. 2004. “Wrongful Beneficence: Exploitation and Third World Sweatshops.” Journal of Social Philosophy 35 (3): 319–33, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9833.2004.00235.x.Search in Google Scholar

Mitra, A. 2013. “Off-Shoring Clinical Research: Exploitation and the Reciprocity Constraint.” Developing World Bioethics 13 (3): 111–8, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-8847.2012.00332.x.Search in Google Scholar

Panitch, V. 2013. “Exploitation, Justice, and Parity in International Clinical Research.” Journal of Applied Philosophy 30 (4): 304–18, https://doi.org/10.1111/japp.12040.Search in Google Scholar

Pettit, P. 2007. “Responsibility Incorporated.” Ethics 117 (2): 171–201, https://doi.org/10.1086/510695.Search in Google Scholar

Risse, M., and G. Wollner. 2019. On Trade Justice: A Philosophical Plea for a New Global Deal. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Valdman, M. 2009. “A Theory of Wrongful Exploitation.” Philosophers’ Imprint 9 (6): 1–14.Search in Google Scholar

Vrousalis, N. 2013. “Exploitation, Vulnerability, and Social Domination.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 41 (2): 131–57, https://doi.org/10.1111/papa.12013.Search in Google Scholar

Wertheimer, A. 1996. Exploitation. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Wollner, G. 2019. “Anonymous Exploitation: Non-Individual, Non-Agential and Structural.” Review of Social Economy 77 (2): 143–62, https://doi.org/10.1080/00346764.2018.1525758.Search in Google Scholar

Young, I. M. 2011. Responsibility for Justice. New York: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Zwolinski, M. 2007. “Sweatshops, Choice, and Exploitation.” Business Ethics Quarterly 17 (4): 689–727, https://doi.org/10.5840/beq20071745.Search in Google Scholar

Zwolinski, M. 2011. “Structural Exploitation.” Social Philosophy and Policy 29 (1): 154–79, https://doi.org/10.1017/s026505251100015x.Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2021-10-18
Published in Print: 2022-04-26

© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston