Philosophers often make exotic-sounding modal claims, such as: “A timeless world is impossible”, “The laws of physics could have been different from what they are”, “There could have been an additional phenomenal colour”. Otherwise popular empiricist modal epistemologies in the contemporary literature cannot account for whatever epistemic justification we might have for making such modal claims. Those who do not, as a result of this, endorse scepticism with respect to their epistemic status typically suggest that they can be justified but have yet to develop some distinct, workable theory of how. That is, they endorse a form of non-uniformism about the epistemology of modality, according to which claims about philosophically interesting modal matters need to be justified differently from e.g. everyday or scientific modal claims, but they fail to provide any more detail. This article aims to fill this gap by outlining how such a non-uniformist view could be spelled out and what story about philosophically interesting modal justification it could contain.
This introduction presents the symposium on Sam Knafo and Benno Teschke’s article in Historical Materialism, ‘Political Marxism and the Rules of Reproduction of Capitalism: A Historicist Critique’ (2021). It briefly summarises the foundations of Political Marxism, discusses the broader implications of the debate raised by Knafo and Teschke for questions of collective knowledge-production and methods in Marxist historiography, and outlines the seven contributions of the symposium. The introduction concludes by tracing, through the evolution of debates in Political Marxism and the contributions of its protagonists, some of the lineages of Marxist historiography as well as of the history of this journal.
In the 1970s and 1980s, there was a marked increase in non-moderate, or “radical,” non-human animal advocacy organizations. Social movement scholars argued that these organizations have greater difficulty than “moderate” ones in receiving substantial news coverage. But forms of substantive news coverage have increased for both moderate and non-moderate animal advocacy organizations. To address this, media analyses were conducted using content coding of The New York Times articles from 1946–2011. Logistic regression and qualitative, comparative analyses examined the conditions under which both moderate and non-moderate organizations had their demands in news coverage. Aligned with an augmented political mediation model, the findings indicated that non-moderate organizations are more likely to get substantive coverage when they target non-governmental entities on a local level through “assertive collective action.” The conclusion was that non-human animal advocacy organizations that have radical goals or tactics do not compromise the quality of media coverage in the long-term.