Reflections on poor-led poverty abolition: a reply to Matthews, Pilapil, Igneski and Peeters

ABSTRACT

In this reply, I respond to issues raised by Matthews, Pilapil, Igneski and Peeters in their commentaries on Poverty, Solidarity, and Poor-Led Social Movements. They pose important definitional, conceptual, and normative questions and challenges. My response acknowledges that the diversity and fluidity of political activism by people in poverty complicates questions of political cooperation and solidarity – and makes the prospect of poor-led poverty abolition and social change seem dim. The normative arguments in support of centering the perspectives and aims of poor-led organizations and social movements, however, do not depend on the consistency or imminent success of these movements. If political theorists are to contribute to efforts to abolish the systems that perpetuate chronic poverty, they will need to see the social-political empowerment of people living in poverty – and the dismantling of systems of structural subordination and exploitation – as the broad remedy.

KEYWORDS:

• Poverty
• social movements
• political responsibility
• solidarity
• poor-led activism

Notes

1 By ‘relational poverty’ I mean not only needs deprivation, but subordination and/or and exploitation within social structures and relations of domination.

2 Brooke Ackerly also makes this point in a commentary on my book, in which she notes that relying on secondary sources (as opposed to doing one’s own fieldwork) has limitations: ‘only some groups gain the recognition and visibility necessary to be studied.’ See Ackerly 2023, 32.

3 Jonathan Wolff, for example, concludes that it is a ‘myth’ that ‘the philosopher [has] a distinctive, even privileged role in the policy process, as the formulator of the theory that provides a moral foundation for public policy.’ He contrasts this hubristic model of the philosopher applying theory to policy problems with that of the ‘engaged philosopher,’ whose role is limited to identifying ‘relevant values, in the context of a problem, current facts, past history, and contemporary alternatives.’ See Wolff 2019, 23.

4 I use the term ‘nonpoor’ in order to include all people – whether living in low-, middle-, and high-income countries – whose daily lives are not shaped by poverty. This term still isn’t adequate as it doesn’t capture the relational nature of poverty, or the fact that many people move in and out of poverty.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Canada Research Chairs Program (Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada).

Notes on contributors

Monique Deveaux

Monique Deveaux has held the Canada Research Chair (Tier 1) in Ethics & Global Social Change at the University of Guelph since 2010, where she is also Professor of Philosophy. She has authored or co-edited books on multiculturalism, exploitation, and the thought of Onora O’Neill. She is an editor for the forthcoming Oxford Handbook of Grounded and Engaged Normative Theory.