Final answer:
The Kalish article's concept of 'aggrieved entitlement' deals with a perceived right to compensation or revenge for wrongs suffered. It is reflected in historical and modern contexts where compensatory actions attempt to balance justice, such as legal codes that limit retaliation and reparations for past discriminations.
Step-by-step explanation:
The Kalish article's concept of "aggrieved entitlement" refers to a sense of injustice felt by individuals or groups who believe they have been wronged and are thus entitled to some form of compensation or revenge. This compensation is often sought as a means to balance the scales of justice, aligning with ancient legal codes like "an eye for an eye" which aimed to limit retaliation to the equivalent of the original harm. The discussion of aggrieved entitlement can extend to various social dynamics, including discussions around equity and reparations for historical wrongs, such as the payments made to survivors of Japanese internment as an attempt to make amends for past discrimination. This concept also relates to the broader challenges of achieving fairness in the face of societal grievances, whether they stem from historical injustices or perceptions of unfair treatment by others.