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
Fraser, N. (1989). Talking About Needs: Interpretative Contests as Political Conflict in welfare-state
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