Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 307War, Law, and JusticeMemory, violence, and historyMemory, Trauma, and Testimony

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Ethical Loneliness: The Injustice of Not Being Heard

Stauffer, Jill·2015·Columbia University Press eBooks
DOI 10.7312/columbia/9780231171502.001.0001
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Ethical loneliness is the experience of being abandoned by humanity, compounded by the cruelty of wrongs not being heard. It is the result of multiple lapses on the part of human beings and political institutions that, in failing to listen well to survivors, deny them redress by negating their testimony and thwarting their claims for justice. Jill Stauffer examines the root causes of ethical loneliness and how those in power revise history to serve their own ends rather than the needs of the abandoned. Out of this discussion, difficult truths about the desire and potential for political forgiveness, transitional justice, and political reconciliation emerge. Moving beyond a singular focus on truth commissions and legal trials, she considers more closely what is lost in the wake of oppression and violence, how selves and worlds are built and demolished, and who is responsible for re-creating lives after they are destroyed. Stauffer boldly argues that rebuilding worlds and just institutions after violence is a broad obligation and that those who care about justice must first confront their own assumptions about autonomy, liberty, and responsibility before an effective response to violence can take place. In building her claims, Stauffer draws on the work of Emmanuel Levinas, Jean Améry, Eve Sedgwick, and Friedrich Nietzsche, as well as concrete cases of justice and injustice across the world.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.7312/stau17150

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Stauffer, J.
Corresponding author
Stauffer, Jill
Venue
Columbia University Press eBooks
Publisher
Columbia University Press
Published
2015-12-31
DOI
10.7312/columbia/9780231171502.001.0001
OpenAlex
W4254331790
Cited by
108
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 8
FWCI
11.04
Type
book
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Columbia University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › War, Law, and Justice
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History › Memory, violence, and history
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Memory, Trauma, and Testimony
Keywords
survivors of violence, transitional justice, political reconciliation, political forgiveness, truth commissions, redress, witness testimony, historical revisionism, responsibility, autonomy, freedom, Emmanuel Levinas, Jean Améry, Eve Sedgwick, Friedrich Nietzsche

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

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.