The French political theorist George Sorel repeatedly prophesied that Europe would provide the future soil of armed cataclysms.1 Furthermore, he claimed that the catalyzing factors for the conflicts of political power that lay behind such eruptions of violence and anarchy were myths, conceived not in the anthropological sense but as a series of images formed into a dramatic narrative capable of mobilizing social movements and inspiring violence to change the status quo. Thomas Mann lent weight to such an analysis when he predicted that “in the era of the masses, parliamentary discussion would necessarily prove utterly inadequate as a means of shaping political will.” Thus, “in the future what was needed in its place were mythic fictions, which would be fed to the masses as the primitive battle cries necessary for unleashing and activating political energies.” Henceforth “popular myths, or better, myths trimmed for the masses, would be the vehicle of political action—fables, chimeras, phantasms that needed to have nothing whatever to do with truth, reason, or science in order to be productive nonetheless.”
{"title":"The “Mythological Machine” of Antisemitism: The Recycling of False Accusations against Jews in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction","authors":"Manuela Consonni","doi":"10.3817/0923204051","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3817/0923204051","url":null,"abstract":"The French political theorist George Sorel repeatedly prophesied that Europe would provide the future soil of armed cataclysms.1 Furthermore, he claimed that the catalyzing factors for the conflicts of political power that lay behind such eruptions of violence and anarchy were myths, conceived not in the anthropological sense but as a series of images formed into a dramatic narrative capable of mobilizing social movements and inspiring violence to change the status quo. Thomas Mann lent weight to such an analysis when he predicted that “in the era of the masses, parliamentary discussion would necessarily prove utterly inadequate as a means of shaping political will.” Thus, “in the future what was needed in its place were mythic fictions, which would be fed to the masses as the primitive battle cries necessary for unleashing and activating political energies.” Henceforth “popular myths, or better, myths trimmed for the masses, would be the vehicle of political action—fables, chimeras, phantasms that needed to have nothing whatever to do with truth, reason, or science in order to be productive nonetheless.”","PeriodicalId":43573,"journal":{"name":"Telos","volume":"40 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135007557","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Significant political changes are taking place in contemporary China. The current Chinese leader, Xi Jinping, has decisively changed the system for the succession of power established by Deng Xiaoping, the architect of Chinese reforms. Xi has eliminated the two-term limit on the presidency that was introduced to the Chinese constitution in 1982. He has centralized the system of governance significantly, reinforced the role of Party bodies in relation to state bodies, and transferred the main decision-making function from the traditional ministries and the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee departments to numerous governing groups, most of which he personally heads. In foreign policy, Xi has effectively abandoned the principle of “keeping a low profile and biding your time” (tao guang yang hui) put forward by Deng Xiaoping. According to official Chinese ideology, the new theory of government is one of the foundations of the “Xi Jinping thought” that, along with the provisions of the founders of Marxism and some other Chinese leaders, should guide the people of China. This provision was enshrined in the country’s constitution in 2018. However, the most important change, from the point of view of the Chinese authorities, was the implementation of a multifaceted government reform that foreign observers dubbed the “fifth modernization.”1
{"title":"Xi Jinping’s Political Model and the Typology of Communist Regimes: An Ideological Approach","authors":"A. Lukin","doi":"10.3817/0623203134","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3817/0623203134","url":null,"abstract":"Significant political changes are taking place in contemporary China. The current Chinese leader, Xi Jinping, has decisively changed the system for the succession of power established by Deng Xiaoping, the architect of Chinese reforms. Xi has eliminated the two-term limit on the presidency that was introduced to the Chinese constitution in 1982. He has centralized the system of governance significantly, reinforced the role of Party bodies in relation to state bodies, and transferred the main decision-making function from the traditional ministries and the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee departments to numerous governing groups, most of which he personally heads. In foreign policy, Xi has effectively abandoned the principle of “keeping a low profile and biding your time” (tao guang yang hui) put forward by Deng Xiaoping. According to official Chinese ideology, the new theory of government is one of the foundations of the “Xi Jinping thought” that, along with the provisions of the founders of Marxism and some other Chinese leaders, should guide the people of China. This provision was enshrined in the country’s constitution in 2018. However, the most important change, from the point of view of the Chinese authorities, was the implementation of a multifaceted government reform that foreign observers dubbed the “fifth modernization.”1","PeriodicalId":43573,"journal":{"name":"Telos","volume":"30 1","pages":"134 - 161"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81533292","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are each in their own way monotheistic religions–and I would argue that this unifying factor that links together all three Western religions has profound repercussions upon the conceptualization of God and the allowable limits to political behavior in the name of God that each of these religions would be theologically entitled/permitted to advocate. Plato in his dialogue Parmenides forms a significant part of the pedigree to the emergence of monotheism–and, if not a “pedigree,” because there are conflicting views among historians as to when the texts of Genesis and Exodus actually appeared,1 then a cogent presentation of the same theme. Plato’s version is theologically and logically connected to the simultaneous introduction in the Parmenides of the tenets of negative theology, that we can only say what the One is not, but not what He is. Because negative formulations are inextricably grammatically and logically linked to positive formulations (they can always be rephrased in positive form), Plato’s concession to the intelligibility of negative theology is largely rhetorical, and not substantive.
{"title":"Horizontality vs. Verticality: New Readings in the Understanding of Religion and the Organizing of Politics","authors":"Aryeh Botwinick","doi":"10.3817/0623203109","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3817/0623203109","url":null,"abstract":"Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are each in their own way monotheistic religions–and I would argue that this unifying factor that links together all three Western religions has profound repercussions upon the conceptualization of God and the allowable limits to political behavior in the name of God that each of these religions would be theologically entitled/permitted to advocate. Plato in his dialogue Parmenides forms a significant part of the pedigree to the emergence of monotheism–and, if not a “pedigree,” because there are conflicting views among historians as to when the texts of Genesis and Exodus actually appeared,1 then a cogent presentation of the same theme. Plato’s version is theologically and logically connected to the simultaneous introduction in the Parmenides of the tenets of negative theology, that we can only say what the One is not, but not what He is. Because negative formulations are inextricably grammatically and logically linked to positive formulations (they can always be rephrased in positive form), Plato’s concession to the intelligibility of negative theology is largely rhetorical, and not substantive.","PeriodicalId":43573,"journal":{"name":"Telos","volume":"35 1","pages":"109 - 133"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73611515","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Introduction This paper employs Confucianism to illustrate a kind of differential or benevolent love, which people give in accordance with their relations and roles. In this sense, Confucian benevolent love is more of a duty to create mutual belonging than an emotion of solidarity.1 This benevolent love contrasts with the universal love of liberalism and the resultant solidarity that those who express this form of love feel for one another—these people often being the distant and unacquainted—whose presence would puzzle Confucian leaders in terms of their roles and duties. Confucian roles are, in comparison, contextual, evolving, and reciprocal in order to cope with encountered strangeness. The liberal belief in everyone being ontologically equal and free de-emphasizes the relevance of experiencing the other’s strangeness. As a result of this, a Confucian’s and liberal’s love for one another may ironically cause, in both, a moral outrage qua deprived belonging.2
{"title":"Loving Hong Kong: Unity and Solidarity in the Politics of Belonging","authors":"C. Shih","doi":"10.3817/0323202043","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3817/0323202043","url":null,"abstract":"Introduction This paper employs Confucianism to illustrate a kind of differential or benevolent love, which people give in accordance with their relations and roles. In this sense, Confucian benevolent love is more of a duty to create mutual belonging than an emotion of solidarity.1 This benevolent love contrasts with the universal love of liberalism and the resultant solidarity that those who express this form of love feel for one another—these people often being the distant and unacquainted—whose presence would puzzle Confucian leaders in terms of their roles and duties. Confucian roles are, in comparison, contextual, evolving, and reciprocal in order to cope with encountered strangeness. The liberal belief in everyone being ontologically equal and free de-emphasizes the relevance of experiencing the other’s strangeness. As a result of this, a Confucian’s and liberal’s love for one another may ironically cause, in both, a moral outrage qua deprived belonging.2","PeriodicalId":43573,"journal":{"name":"Telos","volume":"19 1","pages":"43 - 65"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82478394","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
1. Introduction In 2020, when the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) certified Chinese salted pickled vegetables from Sichuan called pao cai, hina’s media, including the state-run Global Times newspaper, reported the news as if China had won the international standard for kimchi making,1 although the ISO clearly stated in the certification document that the certification did not apply to kimchi.2 This reporting provoked Koreans, and it quickly became a cultural dispute between the two countries, at least in the media and social media outlets.
{"title":"Nationality of Food: Cultural Politics on the UNESCO List of Intangible Cultural Heritage and Food Museums","authors":"E. Hwang, Jin Suk Park","doi":"10.3817/0323202021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3817/0323202021","url":null,"abstract":"1. Introduction In 2020, when the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) certified Chinese salted pickled vegetables from Sichuan called pao cai, hina’s media, including the state-run Global Times newspaper, reported the news as if China had won the international standard for kimchi making,1 although the ISO clearly stated in the certification document that the certification did not apply to kimchi.2 This reporting provoked Koreans, and it quickly became a cultural dispute between the two countries, at least in the media and social media outlets.","PeriodicalId":43573,"journal":{"name":"Telos","volume":"12 1","pages":"21 - 41"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73166105","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Fred Siegel’s passing on May 7th of this year was a profound loss for us all. A frequent guest and participant at our events, he contributed to Telos from the 1980s to the 2020 publication of his last book, The Crisis of Liberalism: Prelude to Trump. His ideas had a defining impact on Paul Piccone and the journal’s development, laying the foundations for what would become the Telos populist critique of liberalism. With a keen ear for the right turn of phrase to describe a complex idea, he titled his seminal essay for Telos “Is Archie Bunker Fit to Rule? Or: How Immanuel Kant Became One of the Founding Fathers.”1 Setting Archie Bunker as the representative of democracy against the intellectual Immanuel Kant, Siegel succinctly crystallized what was at stake as well as the audacity of his argument, especially for a Telos readership that was inclined to support German philosophy over American pop culture. In making his case for Archie Bunker, Siegel attacked with eloquence and perspicacity the intellectual foundations of liberal thinking.
弗雷德·西格尔于今年5月7日去世，这对我们所有人来说都是一个巨大的损失。他是我们活动的常客和参与者，从20世纪80年代到2020年出版他的最后一本书《自由主义的危机:特朗普的前奏》(the Crisis of Liberalism: Prelude to Trump)，他一直为Telos撰稿。他的思想对保罗·皮科内(Paul Piccone)和《华尔街日报》的发展产生了决定性的影响，为后来泰罗斯民粹主义对自由主义的批判奠定了基础。他善于用恰当的措辞来描述一个复杂的想法，他为泰罗斯撰写的开创性文章的标题是《阿奇·邦克适合统治吗?》或者:伊曼努尔·康德如何成为开国元勋之一。1西格尔将阿奇·邦克(Archie Bunker)设定为民主的代表人物，与知识分子伊曼努尔·康德(Immanuel Kant)对抗，简明扼要地阐明了其中的利害关系，以及他的观点的大胆之处，尤其是对于倾向于支持德国哲学而非美国流行文化的《泰罗斯》读者而言。在为阿奇·邦克辩护时，西格尔以雄辩和敏锐的眼光攻击了自由主义思想的知识基础。
{"title":"In Memoriam: Fred Siegel","authors":"D. Pan","doi":"10.3817/0623203177","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3817/0623203177","url":null,"abstract":"Fred Siegel’s passing on May 7th of this year was a profound loss for us all. A frequent guest and participant at our events, he contributed to Telos from the 1980s to the 2020 publication of his last book, The Crisis of Liberalism: Prelude to Trump. His ideas had a defining impact on Paul Piccone and the journal’s development, laying the foundations for what would become the Telos populist critique of liberalism. With a keen ear for the right turn of phrase to describe a complex idea, he titled his seminal essay for Telos “Is Archie Bunker Fit to Rule? Or: How Immanuel Kant Became One of the Founding Fathers.”1 Setting Archie Bunker as the representative of democracy against the intellectual Immanuel Kant, Siegel succinctly crystallized what was at stake as well as the audacity of his argument, especially for a Telos readership that was inclined to support German philosophy over American pop culture. In making his case for Archie Bunker, Siegel attacked with eloquence and perspicacity the intellectual foundations of liberal thinking.","PeriodicalId":43573,"journal":{"name":"Telos","volume":"26 1","pages":"177 - 179"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74025263","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
David Graeber and David Wengrow, The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2021. Pp. 704. The Dawn of Everything is not just a massive book in terms of its total number of pages but also in the amount of archaeological evidence discussed concerning human “prehistory.” The authors range over current disputes within their disciplines as well as discussing in some detail political philosophies of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. In spite of its size and range, the book has been widely reviewed and has had a publication success rarely seen with academic works. Attention to it may be in part due to the publishing career of its co-author David Graeber, who tragically died in 2020 just before the book appeared in print. The reason I mention this point is that Graeber’s work had both an academic and non-academic audience, in such books as Bullshit Jobs: A Theory, Debt: The First 5,000 Years, and The Democracy Project: A History, a Crisis, a Movement. He also had a public profile during the Occupy Wall Street movement beginning in 2011, which highlighted his advocacy of anarchism. Graeber’s political philosophy plays a significant role in this book.
大卫·格雷伯和大卫·温格罗，《万物的黎明:人类的新历史》。纽约:Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2021。704页。《万物的黎明》不仅在总页数上是一本巨著，而且在关于人类“史前”的考古证据的数量上也是一本巨著。作者在各自学科的范围内讨论了当前的争论，并详细讨论了17世纪和18世纪的政治哲学。尽管它的规模和范围，这本书得到了广泛的评论，并取得了出版成功罕见的学术著作。这本书受到关注的部分原因可能是它的合著者大卫·格雷伯(David Graeber)的出版生涯，他在2020年该书出版前不幸去世。我提到这一点的原因是，格雷伯的作品既有学术读者，也有非学术读者，比如《胡扯的工作:一种理论》、《债务:最初的5000年》和《民主工程:一段历史、一场危机、一场运动》。在2011年开始的占领华尔街运动期间，他也有了公众形象，这突显了他对无政府主义的支持。格雷伯的政治哲学在本书中发挥了重要作用。
{"title":"The Savage Savants","authors":"R. D'amico","doi":"10.3817/0323202145","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3817/0323202145","url":null,"abstract":"David Graeber and David Wengrow, The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2021. Pp. 704. The Dawn of Everything is not just a massive book in terms of its total number of pages but also in the amount of archaeological evidence discussed concerning human “prehistory.” The authors range over current disputes within their disciplines as well as discussing in some detail political philosophies of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. In spite of its size and range, the book has been widely reviewed and has had a publication success rarely seen with academic works. Attention to it may be in part due to the publishing career of its co-author David Graeber, who tragically died in 2020 just before the book appeared in print. The reason I mention this point is that Graeber’s work had both an academic and non-academic audience, in such books as Bullshit Jobs: A Theory, Debt: The First 5,000 Years, and The Democracy Project: A History, a Crisis, a Movement. He also had a public profile during the Occupy Wall Street movement beginning in 2011, which highlighted his advocacy of anarchism. Graeber’s political philosophy plays a significant role in this book.","PeriodicalId":43573,"journal":{"name":"Telos","volume":"474 1","pages":"145 - 154"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"91038494","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The University of Notre Dame Kellogg Institute’s 2021 conference on “Inalienable Rights and the Traditions of Constitutionalism” was, for me, a breath of oxygen because it brought together many who understand that human rights are more than simply reflections of particular political preferences of some societies at particular times, and that to understand human rights that way reduces them to the level of arbitrary positive law. Human rights are based in human nature, and in nature itself, not simply in international legislation. Today, the idea of human rights serves many masters: utilitarianism, consequentialism, communitarianism, socialism, postmodernism, intersectionality—not to mention numerous regimes that defend human rights violations with human rights rhetoric. But the conferees seemed to generally agree that human rights are principles, rooted in human nature, that can protect our moral and political freedom.
圣母大学凯洛格研究所(University of Notre Dame Kellogg Institute) 2021年关于“不可剥夺的权利和宪政传统”的会议对我来说是一次呼吸，因为它汇集了许多人，他们明白人权不仅仅是某些社会在特定时期的特定政治偏好的反映，而且以这种方式理解人权会将其降低到武断的成文法的水平。人权的基础是人性和自然本身，而不仅仅是国际立法。今天，人权观念为许多大师服务:功利主义、结果主义、社群主义、社会主义、后现代主义、交叉性——更不用说许多用人权修辞为侵犯人权辩护的政权。但与会者似乎普遍同意，人权是根植于人性的原则，可以保护我们的道德和政治自由。
{"title":"Human Rights Practice and Natural Law","authors":"Aaron A. Rhodes","doi":"10.3817/0623203047","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3817/0623203047","url":null,"abstract":"The University of Notre Dame Kellogg Institute’s 2021 conference on “Inalienable Rights and the Traditions of Constitutionalism” was, for me, a breath of oxygen because it brought together many who understand that human rights are more than simply reflections of particular political preferences of some societies at particular times, and that to understand human rights that way reduces them to the level of arbitrary positive law. Human rights are based in human nature, and in nature itself, not simply in international legislation. Today, the idea of human rights serves many masters: utilitarianism, consequentialism, communitarianism, socialism, postmodernism, intersectionality—not to mention numerous regimes that defend human rights violations with human rights rhetoric. But the conferees seemed to generally agree that human rights are principles, rooted in human nature, that can protect our moral and political freedom.","PeriodicalId":43573,"journal":{"name":"Telos","volume":"8 1","pages":"47 - 58"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84085145","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Human rights organizations for the past few decades have generally attempted to promote international law against the principle of state sovereignty in order to establish human rights norms worldwide. This approach presumes the universality of human rights is in fundamental opposition to the principle of sovereignty because this principle can be used by governments to shield themselves from outside criticism. By contrast, the U.S. State Department’s Report of the Commission on Unalienable Rights has outlined an approach that emphasizes not just the compatibility between universal human rights and state sovereignty but even their dependence on each other.1 We see the results of this clash in the response to the Report by Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch and one of the expert witnesses during the commission’s proceedings.2 He sees in the Report’s foregrounding of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights “a frontal assault on international human rights law” because it shifts attention away from international law and toward more informal documents such as the Universal Declaration, which lays out a set of goals rather than legally binding commitments.
{"title":"Human Rights and Nation-State Sovereignty","authors":"D. Pan","doi":"10.3817/0623203099","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3817/0623203099","url":null,"abstract":"Human rights organizations for the past few decades have generally attempted to promote international law against the principle of state sovereignty in order to establish human rights norms worldwide. This approach presumes the universality of human rights is in fundamental opposition to the principle of sovereignty because this principle can be used by governments to shield themselves from outside criticism. By contrast, the U.S. State Department’s Report of the Commission on Unalienable Rights has outlined an approach that emphasizes not just the compatibility between universal human rights and state sovereignty but even their dependence on each other.1 We see the results of this clash in the response to the Report by Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch and one of the expert witnesses during the commission’s proceedings.2 He sees in the Report’s foregrounding of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights “a frontal assault on international human rights law” because it shifts attention away from international law and toward more informal documents such as the Universal Declaration, which lays out a set of goals rather than legally binding commitments.","PeriodicalId":43573,"journal":{"name":"Telos","volume":"47 1","pages":"99 - 108"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79704384","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Imbuing Liberalism with Lost Spirit: Timothy Stacey","authors":"Andrew M. Wender","doi":"10.3817/0923204175","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3817/0923204175","url":null,"abstract":"Timothy Stacey, Saving Liberalism from Itself: The Spirit of Political Participation. Bristol: Bristol University Press, 2022. Pp. vii + 196.","PeriodicalId":43573,"journal":{"name":"Telos","volume":"51 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135006903","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：