Abstract
Contemporary conceptions and practices regarding complicity have led to the surprising emergence of citizens who seek rather than flee complicity. The purpose of this is to gain standing to challenge controversial state practices. As in the recent Hobby Lobby decision, such attempts to demonstrate complicity are not motivated by a desire to take ownership over state actions, but to justify institutional reforms or individual opt-outs that would not be legitimized absent such a finding of complicity. This article highlights the danger posed by the proliferation of claims of this sort and works to unpack and critique the logic of such efforts to demonstrate complicity. Such claims rely upon implied political meanings of complicity, which affirm a strong connection between complicity, standing, and sovereignty. These political meanings of complicity are embedded in familiar conceptions of liberal democratic citizenship, but upon examination prove to be in tension with core liberal principles. By bringing to the surface the connection between complicity, standing, and sovereignty, this logic may be reformulated in such a way as to contribute to healthier modes of democratic participation.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ahmed, S. (2007) A phenomenology of whiteness. Feminist Theory 8(2): 149–168.
Appiah, K.A. (1992) Racism and moral pollution. In: L. May and S. Hoffman (eds.) Collective Responsibility. Savage: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
Applebaum, B. (2008) White privilege/white complicity: Connecting “benefiting from” to “Contributing to”. Philosophy of Education Archive 292–300.
Arendt, H. (2003) [1968] Collective responsibility. In: Responsibility and Judgment. New York: Schocken Books Incorporated.
Beerbohm, E. (2012) In Our Name: The Ethics of Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Allen v. Wright 468 US 751.
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby 573 U.S.______ (2014).
Cole, T. (2012) The White-Savior Industrial Complex. The Atlantic, March 21.
DeGirolami, M.O. (2016) Free exercise by moonlight. San Diego Law Review 53: 105–201.
Esquith, S.L. (2011) The Political Responsibilities of Everyday Bystanders. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Gardner, J. (2007) Complicity and causality. Criminal Law and Philosophy 1(2): 127–141.
Greene, G. (1978) The Human Factor. Penguin.
Jaspers, K. (2000) [1948] The Question of German Guilt. New York: Fordham University Press.
Kadish, S. (1985) Complicity, cause and blame: A study in the interpretation of doctrine. California Law Review 73(2): 323–410.
King Jr., M.L.K. (1964) Why We Can’t Wait. Penguin.
Kutz, C. (2000) Complicity: Ethics and Law for a Collective Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kutz, C. (2007) Causeless complicity. Criminal Law and Philosophy 1(3): 289–305.
Little Sisters of the Poor Home v. Burwell. 794 F.3d 1151 (2015).
Locke, J. (1983) [1689] A Letter Concerning Toleration. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.
Lupu, I.C. (2015) Hobby Lobby and the dubious enterprise of religious exemptions. Harvard Journal of Law and Gender 38: 35–101.
May, L. (1992) Moral taint. In: L. May and S. Hoffman (eds.) Collective Responsibility. Savage: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
May, L. (2010) Complicity and the Rwandan genocide. Res Publica 16(2): 135–152.
Mellema, G. (2011) Legal versus moral complicity. American International Journal of Contemporary Research 1(2), September 2011.
Mellema, G. (2016) Complicity and Moral Accountability. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
NeJaime, D. and Siegel, R. (2015) Conscience wars: Complicity-based conscience claims in religion and politics. Yale Law Journal 124: 2516–2591.
Pollitt, K. (2014) Why it’s time to repeal the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The Nation, 18–25 August.
Schwartzman, M. (2011) Conscience, speech, and money. Virginia Law Review 97: 317–384.
Sepinwall, A.J. (2015) Conscience and complicity: Assessing pleas for religious exemptions in “Hobby Lobby’s” wake. The University of Chicago Law Review 82: 1897–1980.
Shklar, J.N. (1991) American Citizenship: The Quest for Inclusion (Vol. 3). Harvard University Press.
Smiley, M. (1992) Moral Responsibility and the Boundaries of Community: Power and Accountability from a Pragmatic Point of View. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Smiley, M. (2014) Future-looking collective responsibility. Midwest Studies in Philosophy XXXVIII: 1–11.
Volokh, E. (2014) Sebilius v. Hobby Lobby: Corporate Rights and Religious Liberties. Washington, DC: Cato Institute.
Walzer, M. (1977) Just and Unjust Wars. New York: Basic Books.
Walzer, M. (1983) Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality. New York: Basic Books.
Whelan, E. (2013) The elementary RFRA error. National Review. http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/337649/elementary-rfra-error-ed-whelan.
Winter, S.L. (1988) The metaphor of standing and the problem of self-governance. Stanford Law Review 40: 1371–1516.
Zubick v. Burwell (578 U.S.______(2016).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
McCarty, T.W. Insisting on complicity. Contemp Polit Theory 18, 1–21 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41296-018-0257-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41296-018-0257-9