Who Needs a Theory of Justice? Judith Shklar and the Politics of Injustice

Much recent political theory aims to move beyond the dominant approach to theorizing justice by foregrounding cases of injustice. Judith Shklar’s The Faces of Injustice is regularly invoked in this context, yet the full force of her challenge to the “normal model of justice” and its implications for understanding injustice have not been fully appreciated. This article reconstructs and defends Shklar’s approach to theorizing injustice. It evaluates the differences between John Rawls’s account of the sense of justice and Shklar’s notion of the sense of injustice, showing why the latter should be theorized in relation to plural, competing, and ever-changing expectations, rather than in relation to ideal principles of justice. It illustrates how we can evaluate political responses to injustice without recourse to such principles and maintains that doing so is a strength of any democratic theory that is committed to giving injustice its due.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
American Political Science Review
Published
2025-06-24
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055425100816
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Political Philosophy and Ethics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
8.52

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Who Needs a Theory of Justice? Judith Shklar and the Politics of Injustice

Robin Douglass
1 citations
American Political Science Review
Political Philosophy and Ethics
8.52
article

Who Needs a Theory of Justice? Judith Shklar and the Politics of Injustice

Robin Douglass
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Much recent political theory aims to move beyond the dominant approach to theorizing justice by foregrounding cases of injustice. Judith Shklar’s The Faces of Injustice is regularly invoked in this context, yet the full force of her challenge to the “normal model of justice” and its implications for understanding injustice have not been fully appreciated. This article reconstructs and defends Shklar’s approach to theorizing injustice. It evaluates the differences between John Rawls’s account of the sense of justice and Shklar’s notion of the sense of injustice, showing why the latter should be theorized in relation to plural, competing, and ever-changing expectations, rather than in relation to ideal principles of justice. It illustrates how we can evaluate political responses to injustice without recourse to such principles and maintains that doing so is a strength of any democratic theory that is committed to giving injustice its due.

American Political Science ReviewVol. 120(1)
King's College London (GB)
King's College London
Openalex Percentile: Top 4%
Political Philosophy and Ethics
8.52
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Who Needs a Theory of Justice? Judith Shklar and the Politics of Injustice — Robin Douglass · American Political Science Review (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS