Textbook Notes (367,974)
Canada (161,538)
LWSO 2000 (3)
Chapter

LWSO Fraser, Becker Notes.docx

3 Pages
75 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Law and Society
Course
LWSO 2000
Professor
Robynn Arnold
Semester
Summer

Description
LWSO Readings: Becker, Fraser Logic and Social Theory Fraser’s theory on needs: Section I, I suggest a break with standard theoretical approaches, Section II, I relate this discourse model to social-structural considerations Section III, I identify three major strands of needs-talk Section IV, In the paper she covers the following points i. The officially recognized idioms in which one can press claims; for example, needs-talk, rights-talk, and interests-talk. ii. The vocabularies available for instantiating claims in these recognized idioms; thus, with respect to needs-talk, what are the vocabularies iii. The paradigms of argumentation accepted as authoritative in adjudicating conflicting claims; thus, with respect to needs-talk, how are conflicts over the interpretation of needs resolved? By appeals to scientific experts, by brokered compromises, by voting according to majority rule, by privileging the interpretations of those whose needs are in question? iv. The narrative conventions available for constructing the individual and collective stories which are constitutive of people's social identities. v. Modes of subjectification; the ways in which various discourses position the people to whom they are addressed as specific sorts of subjects endowed with specific sorts of capacities for action; for example, as "normal" or "deviant," as causally conditioned or freely self- determining, as victims or as potential activists, and as unique individuals or as members of social groups. Bibilography Fraser, N. (1989). Talking About Needs: Interpretative Contests as Political Conflict in welfare-state societies. Socio-economics of Law Socio-economic factors to determine legislation and arbitration of fines and punishments of criminal and civil law. Fault based liability may be preferable to strict liability when individuals are risk-averse as they can accomplish the desired effect. Strict liability is easier to administer as authority need only determine harm whereas in the aforementioned liability must. Few enforcement actions will result using fault based liability saving costs in enforcement. 3.2.3, Differences of morality and variability among the subjects in the society i.e. risk-averse society’s shorter sentences & imprisonment. 4 .1 .1,, Maximize, minimize, optional fine for the risk neutral; keeping in mind respect of fines as referenced earlier in the note. In the risk-averse individual optional fine is not at the maximum, if they are risk-averse because they have the highest amount of imprisonment. People that are
More Less

Related notes for LWSO 2000

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit