The rhetoric of non-interference renders dominated people’s grievances inaudible

Evidence

But the philosophy clearly fails to offer a medium in which the palpable grievances of different groups can be reasonably articulated. Consider the grievance of the dominated worker or woman or tenant or debtor who does not actually suffer interference but who has to fawn and toady and look with a degree of apprehension on a master who holds power—perhaps only informal, legally unrecognized power—over them. Anyone in such a position has got a complaint to make: their position is saliently inferior to that of others. But, as we already know, no one in such a position will be able to make that complaint in the language of freedom as non-interference. For in terms of non-interference, in terms even of expected non-interference, there is no grievance audible; the language silences those whom it ought ideally to be serving. — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 607

Categorization

• DEFINE: The core distinction that makes non-domination more expressive than non-interference: domination without interference is a real grievance the latter language cannot even name.
• XREF: connects to: The rhetoric of difference may fail to articulate concrete social struggles; Communitarian moral rhetoric masks a project of disciplining individuals; Some suffering resists articulation when public dialogue is skewed

Broader Connections

• Some suffering resists articulation when public dialogue is skewed #expands (0.90)
• Communitarian moral rhetoric masks a project of disciplining individuals #corroborates (0.85)
• The rhetoric of difference may fail to articulate concrete social struggles #corroborates (0.80)