The DOI matches its Crossref record; 233 of the 233 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Autonomy, Vulnerability, Recognition, and Justice
Open accessAbstract
One of liberalism's core commitments is to safeguarding individuals' autonomy. And a central aspect of liberal social justice is the commitment to protecting the vulnerable. Taken together, and combined with an understanding of autonomy as an acquired set of capacities to lead one's own life, these commitments suggest that liberal societies should be especially concerned to address vulnerabilities of individuals regarding the development and maintenance of their autonomy. In this chapter, we develop an account of what it would mean for a society to take seriously the obligation to reduce individuals' autonomy-related vulnerabilities to an acceptable minimum. In particular, we argue that standard liberal accounts underestimate the scope of this obligation because they fail to appreciate various threats to autonomy. The reason these vulnerabilities have been underestimated, we believe, is because autonomy has generally been understood in an essentially individualistic fashion. The alternative account of autonomy we sketch here highlights the ways in which individuals' autonomy can be diminished or impaired through damage to the social relations that support autonomy. By articulating a conception of autonomy in terms of, more specifically, a theory of mutual recognition, we aim to pinpoint the individualistic bias in liberal accounts and the concomitant underestimation of our dependence on relationships of respect, care, and esteem. We conclude by anticipating some broader implications of this for how proceduralist accounts of social justice ought to be revised.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity
McIntosh, M. (1991) · Feminist Review · doi:10.1057/fr.1991.33 · Cited by 29,379
Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison.
Tarbet, D. W., Foucault, M., & Sheridan, A. (1978) · Eighteenth-Century Studies · doi:10.2307/2737970 · Cited by 19,200
The Interpretation of Cultures
(2017) · Macat Library eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781912128310 · Cited by 16,449
Sen, A. (2009) · Rugman Reviews · doi:10.1007/978-1-137-28787-8_94 · Cited by 15,837
Mind, Self, and Society: The Definitive Edition
Mead, G. H., Joas, H., Huebner, D. R., & Morris, C. W. (2015) · University of Chicago Press eBooks · doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226112879.001.0001 · Cited by 11,018
In A Different Voice: Psychological Theory And Women's Development
Gilligan, & Carol, C. (1982) · Cited by 10,869
Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy
Habermas, J. (1996) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/1564.001.0001 · Cited by 9,998
A Theory of Justice: Revised Edition
Rawls, J. (1999) · doi:10.4159/9780674042582 · Cited by 9,455
Rawls, J. (2018) · Princeton Readings in Political Thought · doi:10.2307/j.ctv19fvzzk.68 · Cited by 9,417
The theory of communicative action
(2014) · The Philosophy of Habermas · doi:10.4324/9781315710495-5 · Cited by 8,634
Cited by
Technology, autonomy, and manipulation
Susser, D., Roessler, B., & Nissenbaum, H. (2019) · Internet Policy Review · doi:10.14763/2019.2.1410 · Cited by 474
‘Vulnerability’: Handle with Care
Brown, K. (2011) · Ethics and Social Welfare · doi:10.1080/17496535.2011.597165 · Cited by 272
Choosing death in unjust conditions: hope, autonomy and harm reduction
Wiebe, K., & Mullin, A. (2024) · Journal of Medical Ethics · doi:10.1136/jme-2022-108871 · Cited by 49
Metadata
- Authors
- Anderson, J., & Honneth, A.
- Venue
- Autonomy and the Challenges to Liberalism
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press
- Published
- 2005-02-07
- Pages
- 127-149
- OpenAlex
- W2166129803
- Cited by
- 437
- References
- 233
- FWCI
- 25.95
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Autonomy, Vulnerability, Recognition, and Justice. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/cbo9780511610325.008
- The paper
- Anderson, J., & Honneth, A. (2005). Autonomy, Vulnerability, Recognition, and Justice. Autonomy and the Challenges to Liberalism. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511610325.008
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.