Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T03:26:57.616Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Idealization and Abstraction in Models of Injustice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Abstract

Charles Mills has argued against ideal theory in political philosophy on the basis that it contains idealizations. He calls for political philosophers to do more nonideal theory, namely political theory that pays more attention to the most visible oppressions in society, such as those based on race, gender, and class. Mills's argument relies on a distinction between idealization and abstraction. Idealizations involve adding false assumptions to one's model, which is unacceptable, whereas abstractions merely leave out details without undermining descriptive power. By studying formal models of injustice, I argue that the idealization/abstraction distinction is unhelpful. Either the distinction exists only relative to one's modeling purposes, or all models in political theory contain idealizations. Either way, the distinction does not help Mills's cause. Furthermore, there are arguments from philosophy of science for the epistemic benefits of idealizations. However, Mills's call for greater emphasis on the most visible mechanisms of oppression can be supported without relying on an idealization/abstraction distinction. I provide three alternative reasons for why we should prefer political theories that place more emphasis on race‐, class‐, and gender‐based oppression.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © 2017 by Hypatia, Inc.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Batterman, Robert W., and Rice, Colin C. 2014. Minimal model explanations. Philosophy of Science 81 (3): 349–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruner, Justin, and O'Connor, Cailin. Forthcoming. Power, bargaining, and collaboration. In Scientific collaboration and collective knowledge, ed. Boyer, Thomas, Mayo‐Wilson, Conor, and Weisberg, Michael. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://philpapers.org/archive/BRUPBA-2.pdf (accessed November 4, 2016).Google Scholar
Bruner, Justin, and O'Connor, Cailin. Working paper. Dynamics and diversity in epistemic communities. https://www.academia.edu/9796362/Dynamics\_and\_Diversity\_in\_Epistemic\_Communities\_Working\_Paper (accessed November 4, 2016).Google Scholar
Jaggar, Alison M. 1988. Feminist politics and human nature. Totowa, N.J.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
Jones, Martin R. 2005. Idealization and abstraction: A framework. Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities 86 (1): 173218.Google Scholar
Kittay, Eva Feder. 1998. Love's labor: Essays on women, equality, and dependency. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Longino, Helen. 1998. Values and objectivity. In Philosophy of science: The central issues, ed. Curd, Martin and Cover, J. A.New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Mills, Charles W. 2005. “Ideal theory” as ideology. Hypatia 20 (3): 165–83.Google Scholar
Muldoon, Ryan, Smith, Tony, and Weisberg, Michael. 2012. Segregation that no one seeks. Philosophy of Science 79 (1): 3862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Neill, Onora. 1987. Abstraction, idealization and ideology in ethics. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements 22: 5569.Google Scholar
O'Neill, Onora. 1990. Justice, gender and international boundaries. British Journal of Political Science 20 (4): 439–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, John. 1999. A theory of justice, Revised ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 2005. Political liberalism. 2nd ed.New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Schelling, Thomas C. 1971. Dynamic models of segregation. Journal of Mathematical Sociology 1 (2): 143–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartzman, Lisa H. 2006a. Abstraction, idealization, and oppression. Metaphilosophy 37 (5): 565–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartzman, Lisa H. 2006b. Challenging liberalism: Feminism as political critique. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Simmons, A. John. 2010. Ideal and nonideal theory. Philosophy & Public Affairs 38 (1): 536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Styer, Daniel F. 2004. What good is the thermodynamic limit? American Journal of Physics 72 (1): 2529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valentini, Laura. 2012. Ideal vs. nonideal theory: A conceptual map. Philosophy Compass 7 (9): 654–64.Google Scholar
Wiens, David. 2015. Against ideal guidance. Journal of Politics 77 (2): 433–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Mark. 2013. What is “classical mechanics” anyway? In The Oxford handbook of philosophy of physics, ed. Batterman, Robert. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, William C. 2007. Re‐engineering philosophy for limited beings: Piecewise approximations to reality. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar