Structural Injustice and the Law: meet the editors
Posted on 15th October, 2024
Today we are proud to publish Structural Injustice and the Law, edited by Professor Virginia Mantouvalou and Professor Jonathan Wolff. This interdisciplinary collection presents theoretical approaches and concrete examples to show how the concept of structural injustice can aid legal analysis, and how legal reform can reduce or even eliminate some forms of structural injustice.
We are grateful to Virginia and Jonathan for taking the time to answer a few questions about their research, their experiences compiling this volume and their techniques for communicating academic topics to a broad audience.
Tell us more about your background and experience in this field.
Virginia: I have researched and taught on issues affecting precarious workers for many years now. I have also worked with civil society organisations that focus on workplace exploitation. In doing so, I try to understand the role of the law in protecting precarious workers or in increasing their vulnerability to exploitation. I have realised that the exploitation of precarious workers is not only due to some bad employers, ‘a few bad apples’, but that legal rules may have a role to play in increasing their vulnerability: an idea that I describe as ‘state-mediated structural injustice’. Legal change can also strengthen the position of these workers. On the basis of these ideas, I wrote a monograph on Structural Injustice and Workers’ Rights (OUP 2023). While working on that book, I felt strongly that I wanted to understand more broadly the role of the law in relation to structural injustice. Do legal rules, perhaps inadvertently, contribute to structural injustice? Can the law help address injustices that appear to be structural, namely when it may seem that no one is to blame? I discussed this broader idea on structural injustice and the law with Jonathan Wolff, a leading political philosopher, who was immediately positive and enthusiastic about co-organising a workshop at UCL. That’s how it all started!
Jonathan: I have, for a long time, been interested in the topic that is now known as ‘structural injustice’: essentially the idea that there are injustices that cannot be attributed to particular agents, but are instead a result of combined social forces. One can find such a view in the Marxist tradition, for example, but in recent years it is the American philosopher Iris Marion Young who has brought the issue to wide attention. I wrote a paper on the topic, taught it in graduate classes, and have discussed it widely. My co-editor Virginia Mantouvalou has been a pioneer in applying the idea of structural injustice to the law. She proposed that we put on a conference together on the topic, and it was so successful that we decided to co-edit this book.
What do you enjoy most about your work?
Virginia: There’s so much I love about academic work: that I can focus on social and legal problems I find pressing; read widely and across disciplines on these issues and develop my own arguments; discuss with colleagues and be challenged by them; teach students and learn from them; learn from people who have practical experience and share any insights from my work with them; and much more.
Jonathan: As a political philosopher who has been in academia for 40 years, it’s wonderful to see people being stimulated by the writings of people of my generation and to develop it their own way. It’s the idea, I think, of learning from the previous generations and hoping to build on that and pass on a little more that motivates many of us in academia, and it certainly does for me. I greatly enjoy seeing younger scholars developing their ideas and projects for themselves. At the same time, as a teacher, it’s wonderful to see people falling in love with the subject, whether or not they want to make it the centre of the rest of their lives.
How do you work with authors and contributors to ensure their voices are heard and their work is presented in the best possible light?
Jonathan: I can’t say that this is something I would especially claim to do. For this volume we chose excellent, highly respected figures, and gave them the space and forum to develop their own ideas under our gentle guidance, which most of them don’t really need.
Virginia: I think that it always helps if an edited book is based on a workshop or conference, as we did with Structural Injustice and the Law where we hosted a workshop at the Faculty of Laws at UCL. This helped us understand better some key ideas and terms, hear and consider objections to our arguments, and improve our papers. My co-editor and I also read draft papers of all authors and gave them feedback, but their work was of such quality that this was very straightforward.
How do you balance the need for academic rigour with the need to make your publications accessible and engaging to a broader audience?
Jonathan: I don’t see a trade-off between rigour and accessibility, though there is often a conflict between the use of jargon and understandability. It’s easy as academics to fall into the mistake of assuming that everyone knows the same vocabulary as you do, but this can be problematic, especially in inter-disciplinary fields where the same term can mean different things. As a writer you have to ask yourself who your hoped-for audience is, and what you need to do to make your ideas available to them. For myself I tend to use examples and anecdotes to illustrate ideas and distinctions, but everyone has their own ways.
Virginia: I don’t think that academic rigour is in conflict with accessibility. Writing clearly and avoiding jargon is important so that our work is read widely and across disciplines. I personally also like using stories to illustrate my points. In law, these stories can come from cases, but also from empirical research about the effects of the law on people’s lives. One other way in which I try to make my work more accessible is by writing blog posts with the main ideas and problems that I identify in my academic research. These blog posts are even less technical and more easily accessible to a wide range of audiences.
What advice would you give to aspiring editors, and what do you think are the key skills and attributes required?
Virginia: Editing a book is a lot of work, so I’ve only done it when I was passionate about a topic and felt that there is a real need for this work to be done. Having a co-editor is always great because you can exchange ideas and deal with challenges together. An important skill is to be well organised, as you will need to remind authors about deadlines, which can be a challenge when editing a book.
Jonathan: Editing a volume can be a huge amount of work. It’s better, in my experience, to work with a co-editor, so you can bounce ideas around. It can also be dispiriting – when papers are late, and not exactly what you expected – but with two editors you can share the load and keep cheerful. I’d also say that if someone is unsure whether they can deliver a paper for a collection, don’t put them under pressure, but find others who want to do it. If someone feels under enormous pressure it’s unlikely they will deliver their best work, and you will all be frustrated. The key skills needed as an editor are patience and the ability to encourage, motivate, and give constructive feedback. Most academics are perfectly capable of this if they put their minds to it.
Surprise us with something unexpected you encountered in your work on this book.
Jonathan: It was a great surprise to me to find myself reading a paper on the films of Ken Loach, in a volume on structural injustice and the law. But Guy Mundlak’s is not only a superb paper in itself; it is a wonderful illustration of the themes of the book. Hugely illuminating and enjoyable.
Virginia: I don’t know if it was unexpected, but I was delighted by the enthusiasm that all our authors in the book showed from the minute we invited them to contribute. It was really rewarding.
What do you think are the biggest challenges facing academic book publishing today, and how do you see the industry evolving in the future?
Jonathan: I only have the most obvious things to say. People are getting used to the idea of not paying to read books or articles. That’s not a shocking idea – it’s the way public libraries have always functioned. Nevertheless, money is needed to produce books and articles, to publish them to a high standard and to market them. Public and school libraries were, in effect, paid for by the taxpayer, so the publishing industry had a huge, hidden, public subsidy. Now, with open access we are moving to a new world, and I don’t think we’ve figured out the business model on a large scale. I’m sure there will still be physical books and public libraries, but the balance will continue to shift as it is developing.
Virginia: Publishing open access is a challenge and an opportunity in the field, I think, as academic books can be very expensive and hence inaccessible to most people. I am delighted that our book Structural Injustice and the Law is published open access by UCL Press. Thank you so much for your support on that!
About the editors
Virginia Mantouvalou is Professor of Human Rights and Labour Law at UCL Faculty of Laws.
Jonathan Wolff is Alfred Landecker Professor of Values and Public Policy, Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford and Governing Body Fellow, Wolfson College Oxford.