The Fact
A neo-Roman tradition in political philosophy has defined slavery in terms of subjection to another person’s will or arbitrary power, rather than only in terms of legal ownership. Modern philosopher Tom O’Shea traces how abolitionists and radical republicans used that older vocabulary when criticizing forms of economic dependence, including wage labor.
What This Means
There has never been only one philosophical definition of slavery. Legal slavery centers ownership and powers associated with ownership. A separate political-philosophy tradition asks whether a person is free when another person can exercise arbitrary power over them because they are materially dependent.
Sources
- Tom O’Shea, “Wage slavery: A neo-Roman account,” European Journal of Political Theory, first published online 2024.
- EDITORIAL NOTE — PHILOSOPHY / HISTORY OF IDEAS
- This sheet concerns a philosophical definition of domination. It does not redefine legal slavery or equate ordinary wage employment with chattel slavery, racial slavery, forced labor, trafficking, or ownership of persons.