Inequalities,responsibility and rational capacities: A defence of responsibility-sensitive egalitarianism

This article aims to defend responsibility-sensitive egalitarianism by arguing for the rational capacities-based principle of responsibility as a plausible conception of an agent's responsibility for inequalities caused by his or her choice in responsibility-sensitive egalitarianism. I show that the rational capacities-based principle of responsibility is not only philosophically defensible as a conception of genuine choice, but also promising enough to ward off two common worries which cast doubt on responsibility-sensitive egalitarianism (qua luck egalitarianism): first, the rational capacities-based principle of responsibility allows the assignment of differential degrees of responsibility to rational agents in proportional terms, which may make it echo the adverse effects of their childhood environments. Second, its proportional construal essentially allows that nobody possesses a full degree of rational capacities. This enables responsibility-sensitive egalitarianism to refute the harshness objection.     

A Consideration of Public Archaeology Theories

It is possible to identify four approaches to public archaeology: educational, public relations, pluralist, and critical. The most significant divide in the discourse of public archaeology over the last few decades has existed between the educational and public relations approaches on one side, and the pluralist and critical approaches on the other. Today, however, the dividing line in these four approaches is gradually shifting, as the pluralist and critical approaches, which have so far tended to be grouped together as a more theoretical and post-processual category, are progressively splitting apart. What is emerging, as a result, is a new divide between the educational, public relations, and pluralist approaches on the one side, and the critical approach on the other. This shift seems to be caused by economic neo-liberalism which demands that archaeology be more viable in economic terms. The more archaeology seeks economic viability, however, the more it alienates itself from critical reflection. The critical approach is, thus, faced with the danger of being regarded as a detriment to the sustainability of archaeology. What seems to be crucially needed today, then, is to reconfigure public archaeology, so that it can cope with the presently dominant economic paradigm, while at the same time continuing to keep critiquing it.     

Why Didn’t Agriculture Develop in Japan? A Consideration of Jomon Ecological Style,Niche Construction,and the Origins of Domestication.

Over the course of some 12,000 years, Jomon cultures developed a highly refined adjustment to the Japanese landscape. Japanese archaeologists have exposed Jomon culture in great detail, but because it rested on wild resources, the Jomon era attracts little worldwide archaeological interest. This paper discusses Jomon ecological style in light of niche construction theory to consider the conditions that gave rise to agriculture and domestication. Jomon communities clearly managed much of their landscape and many plant and animal populations. Drawing on ideas from niche construction theory, we argue that qualities of potential domesticates are a central factor in the development of agriculture.