The ‘least favoured’ principle breaks down when oppressed groups’ claims conflict.

Evidence

Being radical meant upsetting people, and this could include other radicals. Frantz Fanon’s widow Josie Fanon was among those to turn against Sartre: she disliked the fact that he also supported Zionism during this period, which she felt made him an enemy to most Algerians. Sartre’s ability to engage with both causes speaks for his generous intentions. Yet it also shows another paradox in his ‘least favoured’ principle. More than one group can be considered unfavoured by history, so what happens if their claims are incompatible? Sartre’s praise of violence held a worse paradox too: who could be less ‘favoured’ than the victim of any violent attack, regardless of its motivation or context? — Sarah Bakewell, At the Existentialist Café, 871

Categorization

• DEFINE: Crisply articulates a real internal inconsistency in Sartre’s solidarity principle — a genuinely useful concept for anyone analyzing commitment politics.
• SEED: An essay angle: the structural limits of any ethics built on ‘stand with the underdog’ — what happens when two underdogs oppose each other, or when the underdoes’ means (violence) re-victimize others.
• ADDENDUM: Complements ‘On Sacrifice’ in reverse — here the question is whether the sacrificer’s just cause licenses violence against the actual victims of that violence.
• XREF: connects to: Common oppression does not necessarily unify the oppressed — Georg Simmel, on individuality and social forms_…, 335

Broader Connections

• Common oppression does not necessarily unify the oppressed #complicates (0.80) — Georg Simmel, on individuality and social forms_…, 335