Diversity Reading List

Comment:
available in this Blueprint

Comment (from this Blueprint): Veltman's text can be used first, to introduce students to the concept of meaningful work and philosophical analysis of its core characteristics; and second, to facilitate discussion on the importance of meaningful work in society, such as discussion about what types of activities counts as meaningful work, whether all people should have access to it, or what role the state plays in providing it, etc.

Comment: This essay presents a side-by side analysis of both de Beauvoir's and Arendt's philosophical accounts of labour and work. It also touches on some of the ethical implications of those accounts, and their meaning for a philosphical understanding of the concepts of work and labor as they relate to human life. The author highlights a previously unnoticed similarity between how both thinkers approaches the concept of labor, as the category of human activity relegated to the inherently ephemeral: 'labor itself produces no great works or deed worthy of remembrance, nor does it directly contribute to constructing the artifice of the human world that distinguishes human existence from unchanging animal life.' She also discusses the author approaches as they relate to their major predecessor on the topic: Marx. As such, the essay may be used in a variety of intermediate undergraduate as well as master's level courses covering work and labor, feminist perspectives on work and labor, the philosophy of Simone de Beauvoir and Hannah Arendt, respectively, or even philosophical critiques of Marx. The text, while offering a close textual read of both others, also has value for it's broader take on the concepts of work and labor - concepts which have not been readily discussed in contemporary analytic philosophy outside of the Marxist literature.

Comment: This paper highlights the central importance, for an equal society, of answering questions about distribution of meaningful work, and more specifically, whether it is even possible for all people in such a society to have some access to it. It addresses the normative challenges that arise when thinking about routine, or as the author describes, 'eudaimonistically meaningless' work in a society in which the flourishing of any member is presumed to be equal in importance and value to that of any other member. As such, this article would be useful as a secondary or supplementary reading when examining the topics of labor distribution, divisions of labor, meaningful work and work as a finite good, as well as courses that more generally cover topics in political theory, justice and fairness, critiques of capitalism, and socialist philosophy. In this text, Veltman surveys an wide array of the philosophical and adjacent literatures on meaningful work and work distribution, and as such, may also be a useful resource for getting a broad sense contemporary academic discussion on these topics.

Comment: This paper revisits the contemporary literature on the gendered divisions of household labour and argues for a new ethical framework based on Simone de Beauvoir's analysis of marriage in terms of transcendence and immanence. According to Beauvoir, 'marriage is oppressive and involves a moral wrong when it facilitates the transcendence of one spouse by relegating the other to the round of relatively uncreative chores needed to maintain life in the home.' Veltman also argues that, contrary to a common reading of de Beauvoir's account, de Beauvoir does not reject marriage per se, but in fact leaves open the opportunity for reform, such that a marriage 'has the potential to support equitable unions between free beings.' For this reason, the paper may be useful as specialised or further reading for courses interested in contemporary feminist critiques, the work of Simone de Beauvoir, or more broadly, 20th Century feminism. In addition, it also offers an interesting discussion of housework and domestic labor which may prove useful in the context of courses examining work and gendered divisions of labour. It would also be well paired with the work of Hannah Arendy, and another of Veltman's essays, "Simone de Beauvoir and Hannah Arendt on Labor."

Comment: This paper can be used as a stand-alone argument for how some pornography might silence women, or can be viewed as part of the literature on silencing and pornography; as an alternative strategy to Rae Langton's approach, using Kristie Dotson's work instead of J L Austin's. It can also be used as an example of how Kristie Dotson's work on Testimonial Injustice has broad application.

Comment (from this Blueprint): In this scathing chapter, Waithe argues that people who have left women out of the history of philosophy are either inempt of bigoted. Rather than being an accidental fact of women's general exclusion, she argues that women philosophers have been ignored intentionally.

Comment: This text serves as a useful counterpoint to the general framework employed in much of the other cultural appropriation literature. It is also a useful selection for course units focusing on art practice.

Comment: A useful way of introducing some feminist thought into a course on classical Chinese philosophy. It would fit well either in a unit on Daoism or in a unit on feminism. It would be tough to use this in a feminist course to introduce some Daoist thought; the chapter is tricky without some familiarity with the Daodejing

Comment: This book serves as a comprehensive introduction to ecofeminist philosophy. The introductory chapter (1), the chapter on vegetarianism (6), and the chapter on the Land Ethic (7) make excellent stand alone readings in an introductory course on Environmental Ethics.