In light of the summer 2020 protests and their subsequent backlash, questions about the prospective timeline for achieving a racially just society have taken on renewed significance. This article investigates Du Bois’s writings between 1920 and 1940 as a lens through which to examine the temporality of social change. I argue that Du Bois’s turn to the role of white unreason explains the dual temporality of his political vision and the dual strategies that ensue. According to Du Bois, white supremacy (...) is upheld not only by ignorance, but also by white unreason, reproduced through generations of institutional conditioning. Du Bois therefore turns to propaganda for transforming white unreason, thereby making a racially just society possible. But because the transformation of white unreason through propaganda is a slow process, Du Bois argues that Black Americans must ensure their survival through voluntary self-segregation. By presenting us with a framework of social change, Du Bois models how advocates of racial justice might navigate defeat without devolving into defeatism. (shrink)

Contesting Conformity investigates the writings of Tocqueville, Mill, and Nietzsche in order to examine the relationship between non-conformity and modern democracy. Jennie Ikuta argues that non-conformity is an intractable issue for democracy while non-conformity is often important for cultivating a just polity, non-conformity can also undermine democracy. Democracy therefore needs non-conformity, but not in an unconditional way. This book examines this intractable relationship, and offers resources for navigating the relationship in contemporary democracies in ways that promote justice and freedom.

Mill’s status in the democratic family is contested. However, regardless of their conclusions, scholars have largely focused on and interpreted the tension between competence and participation in his thought as a way to determine Mill’s democratic credentials. This article argues for a different approach in thinking about Mill’s status as a democrat – that is, an approach that takes seriously his multifaceted conception of human flourishing – and it also argues that Mill is an ambivalent democrat because different dimensions of (...) democracy corrupt and cultivate different aspects of human flourishing. By taking seriously Mill’s multifaceted notion of human flourishing and connecting it to specific dimensions of democracy, I argue, we obtain a richer and more accurate depiction of the relationship between Mill’s ethics and his politics. (shrink)