IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/socinc/v1y2013i1p72-83.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Neo-Rawlsian Approach to Residential Integration

Author

Listed:
  • Kevin J. Brown

    (Department of Business, Economics, and Political Science, Asbury University, 1 Macklem Drive, Wilmore, KY 40390, USA)

Abstract

Over the past 40 years, the United States has engaged in various policies to integrate otherwise segregated black and white households within a shared space. However, little work has been done to fully articulate a moral argument for residential integration among black and white households. This paper offers what I refer to as the normative argument, which possesses two morally-impelled arguments for residential integration. Since the ethical appeal to integrate is often couched in the language of justice, I begin with a framework—based upon the work of the late philosopher John Rawls—for considering the moral aspects of residential integration. However, I go on to point out intractable problems related to the Rawlsian framework that would fail to flesh out all ethical considerations of the normative argument. From here, I provide a revised, or neo-Rawlsian, framework for understanding residential integration which addresses the aforementioned problems. This exercise is both important and necessary for the future of residential mixing, as better understanding the moral and ethical attributes of this discussion is, perhaps, the best means to lubricate the fundamental shift from 'spatial' to 'social' integration.

Suggested Citation

  • Kevin J. Brown, 2013. "A Neo-Rawlsian Approach to Residential Integration," Social Inclusion, Cogitatio Press, vol. 1(1), pages 72-83.
  • Handle: RePEc:cog:socinc:v1:y:2013:i:1:p:72-83
    DOI: 10.17645/si.v1i1.105
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/socialinclusion/article/view/105
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17645/si.v1i1.105?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cog:socinc:v1:y:2013:i:1:p:72-83. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: António Vieira or IT Department (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.