Reading Books as a Subject of the Philosophy of Justice

Authors

  • Alexander Markov Russian State University for the Humanities (Moscow)
  • Oksana Shtayn Russian State University for the Humanities (Moscow)

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.47850/RL.2024.5.1.51-60

Keywords:

justice, reading, affect, social modeling, autocommunication, reading experience

Abstract

The article considers the philosophy of justice as a possibility of realization of collective autocommunication. Psychoanalysis helps to enrich the philosophy of justice by linking the study of reactions to internal states and to external social situations by the concept of autocommunication. The incorporation of psychoanalytic definitions (desire) into the conceptual-categorical apparatus of economics (resource, capital) allows us to analyze the process of transition of issues of social equality and fair distribution from the field of ethics to an extended version of the social game that includes reading experience. The position of Amartya Sen, who constructs a particular field of readerly consumption that is both scenic and conducive to the accumulation of social experience rather than simply its public manifestation, is critically examined. It is suggested that reading should be seen as a desire to use a limited material or emotional resource, actualizing fantasy as a manifestation of excess and as an autocommunication, an encounter with the self as the subject of fantasization. Surplus communication expands notions of the responsibility of justice by turning the reader into a mirror of autocommunication.

Author Biographies

Alexander Markov, Russian State University for the Humanities (Moscow)

Doctor of Philological Sciences, Professor, Department of Cinema and Contemporary Art

Oksana Shtayn, Russian State University for the Humanities (Moscow)

Candidate of Philosophical Sciences, Associate Professor Department of Philosophy

References

Европейский словарь философий. Лексикон непереводимостей. (2015). Ред. Б. Кассен. Киев: Дух i лiтера.

Cassin, B. (ed.). (2015). Dictionary of untranslatables. Kyiv. (In Russ.)

Кассен, Б. (2000). Эффект софистики. М.-СПб.: Московский философский фонд Университетская книга, Культурная инициатива.

Cassin, B. (2000). L’effet sophistique. Moscow; St. Petersburg. (In Russ.)

Нуссбаум, М. (2014). Не прибыли ради. Зачем демократам нужны гуманитарные науки. М.: Высшая школа экономики (Государственный университет).

Nussbaum, M. (2014). Not for Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities. Moscow. (In Russ.)

Нуссбаум, М. (2023). Политические эмоции. Почему любовь важна для справедливости. М.: Новое литературное обозрение.

Nussbaum, M. (2023). Political Emotions: Why Love Matters for Justice. Moscow. (In Russ.)

Сен, А. К. (2004). Развитие как свобода. М.: Новое издательство.

Sen, A. K. (2004). Development as Freedom. Moscow. (in Russ.)

Сен, А. К. (2016). Идея справедливости. М.: Изд-во Института Гайдара.

Sen, А. К. (2016). The idea of justice. Moscow. (In Russ.)

Anderson, E. (2005). Critical Notice of Amartya Sen, “Rationality and Freedom”. The Philosophical Review. Vol. 114. No. 2. Pp. 253-271.

Meeks, J. G. (2017). Amartya Sen (1933–). The Palgrave Companion to Cambridge Economics. Pp. 1045-1077.

Sen, A. (2009). The idea of justice. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Yamamori, T. (2018). The concept of need in Amartya Sen: commentary to the expanded edition of Collective Choice and Social Welfare. Ethics and Social Welfare. Vol. 12. No. 4. Pp. 387 392.

Published

2024-03-25

How to Cite

Markov А. В., & Shtayn О. А. (2024). Reading Books as a Subject of the Philosophy of Justice. Respublica Literaria, 5(1), 51–60. https://doi.org/10.47850/RL.2024.5.1.51-60