We argue that violent political protest is justified in a generally just society when violence is required to send a message about the nature of the injustice at issue, and when it is not ruled out by moral or pragmatic considerations. Focusing on protest as a mode of public address, we argue that its communicative function can sometimes justify or require the use of violence. The injustice at the heart of the Baltimore protests—police brutality against black Americans—is a paradigmatic case of this sort, because of the rela­tionship of the police to the injustice and the protests against it.

In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges. Although I concur that same-sex couples should have the right to marry if anyone does, I argue that civil marriage is an unjust institution. By examining the claims employed in the majority opinion, I expose the Court’s romanticized, patriarchal view of marriage. I critique four central claims: (1) that marriage is central to individual autonomy and liberty; (2) that civil marriage is uniquely valuable; (3) that marriage “safeguards” children and families; and (4) that marriage is fundamental to civil society.

In this article I tease out a conception of reason in Pierre-Joseph Proudhon’s writings that is both decoupled from Enlightenment notions of human nature, progress, and transcendental truth, as well as auto-critically engaged with the anti-authoritarian Enlightenment ethos of anarchist thought. In so doing, I hope to reveal how the Proudhonian deployment of reason retained a healthy skepticism of foundationalism, philosophical systems-building, and the intellectualism bred of its dogmatic excesses as well as reconsider Proudhon’s relation to our most privileged faculty.

The author compares the strategies used in the conquest of the American West, the imperialism of the Third Reich, the creation of Bantustans in South Africa, and cautions against sanguine readings of the Oslo Peace Talks between Israel and Palestine. He concludes that the current agreements are in fact the last stages of Israeli conquest of Palestine.

The author criticizes efforts to resuscitate W. E. B. Du Bois’s claim that people of African descent have a special obligation to each other premised on race. He concludes that Africana philosophers such as Du Bois, Alain Locke, and Lucius Outlaw do not claim to possess essential knowledge of the human condition but instead propose a story human beings can tell about what they’re doing with their lives. Their story exerts imperative force only when they can convince themselves that it is a better story than all the others they have inherited.

This essay is a reading of two Hollywood films: The Defiant Ones (1958, directed by Stanley Kramer, starring Tony Curtis and Sidney Poitier) and Rising Sun (1993, directed by Philip Kauffman starring Wesley Snipes and Sean Connery, based on the Michael Crichton novel of the same name). The essay argues that these films work to contain black demand for social and political equality not through exclusionary measures, but rather through deliberate acknowledgment of blackness as integral to US identity. My reading shows how a homosocial bond between white and black stands in for US national identity, and how this identity is unified by foregrounding the threat of an apocalyptic outcome. I use the concept of brinkmanship to illustrate the political effects of this particular narrative form. Then I move to Rising Sun, a film that employs a racial triangle of white, black and Asian men to manage black demand for social change. I argue that the narrative logic and the cultural politics of the film require any figure that is both Asian and masculine to be coded as a foreign enemy.

The paper included here was presented by Nanette Funk in Honor of Gertrude Ezorsky, the famed philosopher, feminist, and antiracism activist, at the 1997 Meeting of the Society for Women in Philosophy. It is published here as presented. Thus, although it is a coauthored talk the “I” refers to Nanette Funk.