Show simple item record

Files in this item

Thumbnail

Item metadata

dc.contributor.authorFletcher, J.
dc.date.accessioned2023-06-30T09:30:12Z
dc.date.available2023-06-30T09:30:12Z
dc.date.issued2023-04-25
dc.identifier287003267
dc.identifier26b7fcdd-e596-4841-bea5-e43e88d1576b
dc.identifier85159277661
dc.identifier.citationFletcher , J 2023 , ' Canberra planning for gender kinds ' , Journal of Social Ontology , vol. 9 , no. 1 , pp. 1-25 . https://doi.org/10.25365/jso-2023-7116en
dc.identifier.issn2196-9663
dc.identifier.otherRIS: urn:56506005AB89E37446C61A8224550A57
dc.identifier.otherORCID: /0000-0002-1371-6206/work/136288659
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10023/27857
dc.description.abstractIn this paper I argue that the Canberra Plan is ill-equipped to offer a satisfactory theory of gender. Insofar as the Canberra Plan aims to provide a general and unified approach to philosophical theorising, this is a significant problem. I argue that this deficit in their method stems from the robust role assigned to pre-theoretical beliefs in constructing philosophical analyses. I utilise a critical conception of ideology to explain why our pre-theoretic beliefs about certain social kinds are likely to deliver politically dubious metaphysics of the social world. The first half of the paper is dedicated to exercising this theoretical shortcoming. In the second half, I suggest a way in which the Canberra Plan can address and rectify this problem, with a view to maintaining the theoretical viability of the Canberra Plan with respect to politically important concepts.
dc.format.extent25
dc.format.extent204260
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Social Ontologyen
dc.subjectB Philosophy (General)en
dc.subjectT-NDASen
dc.subjectACen
dc.subjectMCCen
dc.subject.lccB1en
dc.titleCanberra planning for gender kindsen
dc.typeJournal articleen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews. Arché Philosophical Research Centre for Logic, Language, Metaphysics and Epistemologyen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews. Philosophyen
dc.identifier.doi10.25365/jso-2023-7116
dc.description.statusPeer revieweden


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record