Some disagreements concern our most fundamental beliefs, principles, values, or worldviews, such as those about the existence of God, society and politics, or the trustworthiness of science. These are ‘deep disagreements’. But what exactly are deep disagreements? This paper critically overviews theories of deep disagreement. It does three things. First, it explains the differences between deep and other kinds of disagreement, including peer, persistent, and widespread disagreement. Second, it critically overviews two mainstream theories of deep disagreement, the Wittgensteinian account and (...) the Fundamental Epistemic Principle account, before introducing a Hybrid account. Finally, it explores the notion that deep disagreements can be deeper than others. (shrink)

Sometimes ordinary disagreements become deep as a result of epistemic injustice. The paper explores a hitherto unnoticed connection between two phenomena that have received ample attention in recent social epistemology: deep disagreement and epistemic injustice. When epistemic injustice comes into play in a regular disagreement, this can lead to higher-order disagreement about what counts as evidence concerning the original disagreement, which deepens the disagreement. After considering a common definition of deep disagreement, it is proposed that the depth of disagreements is (...) best understood as a matter of degree. Then, a case study of real-life disagreement is introduced: the disagreement about whether racism is a significant issue in the Netherlands, illustrated by the tradition of ‘Black Pete’. It is argued that there is disagreement about what counts as evidence in the case study because of two forms of epistemic injustice: testimonial and hermeneutical injustice. Specifically, there is disagreement about epistemic principles concerning whether private first-personal experience of racism is a weighty source of evidence in this domain, whether victims of racism count as important testifiers in this domain, and how to assess testimony that is not intelligible to you because it employs concepts and terminology you are unfamiliar with. By dismissing the relevant testimony and epistemic resources, the disagreement boils down to disagreement on the level of epistemic principles concerning,, and. Introducinginjustice-based deep disagreementhighlights moral and political aspects of disagreements that might seem factual. (shrink)

Scholars have demonstrated that common ways of performing charitable food aid in high-income countries maintain a powerless and alienated status of recipients. Aiming to protect the dignity of recipients, alternative forms of food aid have taken shape. However, an in-depth understanding of dignity in the context of food aid is missing. We undertook a scoping review to outline ways in which the dignity of recipients is violated or protected across various forms of food aid in high-income countries. By bringing scientific (...) results together through a social dignity lens, this paper offers a complex understanding of dignity in the context of food aid. The online database Scopus was used to identify scientific literature addressing food aid in relation to the dignity of recipients in high-income countries. The final selection included 37 articles representing eight forms of food aid in twelve countries. Across diverse forms of food aid, the selected studies report signs of (in)dignity concerning five dimensions: access to food aid, social interactions, the food, the physical space, and needs beyond food. Research gaps are found in the diversity of forms of food aid studied, and the identification of social standards important for recipients. Bringing the results of 37 articles together through a social dignity lens articulates the complex and plural ways in which the dignity of recipients is violated or protected. In addition, this review has demonstrated the usefulness of a social dignity lens to understand dignity across and in particular food aid contexts. (shrink)

Dependence is an inherent aspect of human existence, yet independence and autonomy are powerful ideals, especially where they seem lacking. In the case of food aid, the dependence that it signifies is often experienced as shameful. Food justice scholars and practitioners advocate that people with low incomes should have greater autonomy in exercising their right to food, for example by receiving cash transfers instead of food donations. In this paper, we challenge an understanding of autonomy defined in opposition to dependence. (...) Using a relational autonomy lens, we unravel how practices of autonomy are interrelated with forms of dependence in a food aid initiative. By better understanding these interrelations, and how forms of autonomy and dependence are experienced by recipients, it becomes possible to have more informed debates about desirable and undesirable ways of doing food aid. Our analysis is rooted in an ethnographic case study of a pilot program for money-based food aid in the Netherlands. This program gave food-insecure households a weekly budget to buy healthy groceries at regular stores. We unravel how this form of food aid shifted dependencies compared to the parcel-based aid it replaced, and how this reshaped practices of autonomy for recipients. Through the themes ‘concealing and revealing charity’, ‘upholding norms and caring through food choices’, and ‘budget management with a safety net’, we demonstrate how individual competencies, social relations, technologies, and institutional structures shape forms of dependence and autonomy. We show how recipients appreciated these forms as they navigated the demands of consumer society, motherhood, public welfare programs, and living on a low income. We also note that receiving a charitable budget for food heightened a feeling of vulnerability to sanctions from public welfare providers who might mistake it as income. We conclude that providing appropriate food aid includes self-determination in meeting food needs and the ability to uphold the social norms of consumer choice and financial responsibility, while also embedding such practices in relations of care that alleviate stress, protect the grocery budget, and support healthy diets. (shrink)

.Deep disagreements are those involving a disagreement about (relatively) fundamental epistemic principles. This paper considers the bearing of testimonial injustice, in Miranda Fricker’s sense, on the depth of disagreements, and what this can teach us about the nature and significance of deep disagreements. I start by re-evaluating T. J. Lagewaard’s recent argument that disagreements about the nature, scope, and impact of oppression will often be deepened by testimonial injustice, since the people best placed to offer relevant testimony will be (...) subject to testimonial injustice, pushing the disagreement into one about the bearing of certain epistemic sources on the original debate. I take issue with this last step, but I build on the argument to bring attention to unappreciated and worrying ways in which prejudices can make a disagreement deep in ways that can be hidden from one or more of the participants and from observers. Finally, I revisit some of the ways that deep disagreement has been thought to be problematic for the proper functioning of a democracy, and I examine whether the kinds of hidden deep disagreements I argue for in the paper make these problems any worse, concluding that they likely do. (shrink)