Pub Date : 2021-10-29DOI: 10.1177/14748851211050618
Matthew Festenstein
This article surveys recent work in pragmatism and political theory. In doing so, it shows both how recent work on pragmatism has secured the view that at its core is a set of arguments about the character of democracy – although the character of those arguments is open to debate and reimagination – and how pragmatist arguments have been reinterpreted and deployed to address contemporary concerns and approaches. This charts a terrain of live disagreements rather than settled opinion.
{"title":"Spotlight: Pragmatism in contemporary political theory","authors":"Matthew Festenstein","doi":"10.1177/14748851211050618","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14748851211050618","url":null,"abstract":"This article surveys recent work in pragmatism and political theory. In doing so, it shows both how recent work on pragmatism has secured the view that at its core is a set of arguments about the character of democracy – although the character of those arguments is open to debate and reimagination – and how pragmatist arguments have been reinterpreted and deployed to address contemporary concerns and approaches. This charts a terrain of live disagreements rather than settled opinion.","PeriodicalId":46183,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Political Theory","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2021-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42829689","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-20DOI: 10.1177/14748851211048457
P. Sagar
{"title":"Perils of Party","authors":"P. Sagar","doi":"10.1177/14748851211048457","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14748851211048457","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46183,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Political Theory","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2021-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47143635","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-14DOI: 10.1177/14748851211050620
A. Bryan
While it is a point of agreement in contemporary republican political theory that property ownership is closely connected to freedom as non-domination, surprisingly little work has been done to elucidate the nature of this connection or the constraints on property regimes that might be required as a result. In this paper, I provide a systematic model of the boundaries within which republican property systems must sit and explore some of the wider implications that thinking of property in these terms may have for republicans. The boundaries I focus on relate to the distribution of property and the application of types of property claims over particular kinds of goods. I develop this model from those elements of non-domination most directly related to the operation of a property regime: (a) economic independence, (b) limiting material inequalities, and (c) the promotion of common goods. The limits that emerge from this analysis support intuitive judgments that animate much republican discussion of property distribution. My account diverges from much orthodox republican theory, though, in challenging the primacy of private property rights in the realization of economic independence. The value of property on republican terms can be realized without private ownership of the means of production.
{"title":"The material conditions of non-domination: Property, independence, and the means of production","authors":"A. Bryan","doi":"10.1177/14748851211050620","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14748851211050620","url":null,"abstract":"While it is a point of agreement in contemporary republican political theory that property ownership is closely connected to freedom as non-domination, surprisingly little work has been done to elucidate the nature of this connection or the constraints on property regimes that might be required as a result. In this paper, I provide a systematic model of the boundaries within which republican property systems must sit and explore some of the wider implications that thinking of property in these terms may have for republicans. The boundaries I focus on relate to the distribution of property and the application of types of property claims over particular kinds of goods. I develop this model from those elements of non-domination most directly related to the operation of a property regime: (a) economic independence, (b) limiting material inequalities, and (c) the promotion of common goods. The limits that emerge from this analysis support intuitive judgments that animate much republican discussion of property distribution. My account diverges from much orthodox republican theory, though, in challenging the primacy of private property rights in the realization of economic independence. The value of property on republican terms can be realized without private ownership of the means of production.","PeriodicalId":46183,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Political Theory","volume":"22 1","pages":"425 - 444"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2021-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46088719","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-09DOI: 10.1177/14748851211045906
Seungeun Song
Alasia Nuti's Injustice and the Reproduction of History lays out a brilliant structural injustice approach that incorporates the normative significance of the past. This article will introduce Nuti's framework and critically reflect on its original contributions. First, I will explain how Nuti's structural injustice approach successfully incorporates backward-looking dimensions. Second, I will provide a detailed analysis of Nuti's conception of sexism as a specific type of structural injustice. Finally, I will critically engage with Nuti's idea of structural remedy and explore how her analysis could be extended.
{"title":"Structural injustice and the significance of the past","authors":"Seungeun Song","doi":"10.1177/14748851211045906","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14748851211045906","url":null,"abstract":"Alasia Nuti's Injustice and the Reproduction of History lays out a brilliant structural injustice approach that incorporates the normative significance of the past. This article will introduce Nuti's framework and critically reflect on its original contributions. First, I will explain how Nuti's structural injustice approach successfully incorporates backward-looking dimensions. Second, I will provide a detailed analysis of Nuti's conception of sexism as a specific type of structural injustice. Finally, I will critically engage with Nuti's idea of structural remedy and explore how her analysis could be extended.","PeriodicalId":46183,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Political Theory","volume":"22 1","pages":"647 - 656"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2021-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46465026","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-01DOI: 10.1177/14748851211045914
Andrius Gališanka
John Rawls's A Theory of Justice has reshaped liberal political theory, but what fruitful arguments does it generate today, fifty years after its publication? To show Theory's productive contemporary lives, I outline its key concepts and commitments, focusing on Rawls’ goal to uncover a consensus among reasonable persons. I highlight arguments in global justice and animal rights in which Theory's concept of the basic structure was fruitfully employed. Moreover, I argue that Rawls envisioned consensus as agreement only on very broad terms. Perhaps more than he realized, he left it to citizens to deal with everyday questions about justice, in which identities and power are central. I suggest that to extend Theory to such questions, theorists can combine its central values, such as those of self-respect and autonomy, with independent conceptions of power, so long as these treat arguments as irreducible to power relations.
{"title":"A Theory of Justice Fifty Years Later","authors":"Andrius Gališanka","doi":"10.1177/14748851211045914","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14748851211045914","url":null,"abstract":"John Rawls's A Theory of Justice has reshaped liberal political theory, but what fruitful arguments does it generate today, fifty years after its publication? To show Theory's productive contemporary lives, I outline its key concepts and commitments, focusing on Rawls’ goal to uncover a consensus among reasonable persons. I highlight arguments in global justice and animal rights in which Theory's concept of the basic structure was fruitfully employed. Moreover, I argue that Rawls envisioned consensus as agreement only on very broad terms. Perhaps more than he realized, he left it to citizens to deal with everyday questions about justice, in which identities and power are central. I suggest that to extend Theory to such questions, theorists can combine its central values, such as those of self-respect and autonomy, with independent conceptions of power, so long as these treat arguments as irreducible to power relations.","PeriodicalId":46183,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Political Theory","volume":"20 1","pages":"782 - 792"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48041477","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-13DOI: 10.1177/14748851211041906
Benjamin Boudou
This article argues for reading the Algerian-French sociologist Abdelmalek Sayad (1933–1998) as a political theorist of migration. Various contributions have recently called to move away from the court-like assessment of claims by host states and foreigners and to engage more frankly with empirical work more attentive to concrete experiences and power relations. I contend that Sayad’s sociological work constitutes a substantial empirical and normative resource for ethical and political theory of migration, pointing to the persistence of ‘state thought’ and presenting original normative perspectives on emigration, inclusion in democracy, naturalization or postcolonial relationships. Such a reading of Sayad from a political theory perspective would then constitute a prime example of the cross-fertilization of empirical and normative approaches.
{"title":"Migration and the critique of ‘state thought’: Abdelmalek Sayad as a political theorist","authors":"Benjamin Boudou","doi":"10.1177/14748851211041906","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14748851211041906","url":null,"abstract":"This article argues for reading the Algerian-French sociologist Abdelmalek Sayad (1933–1998) as a political theorist of migration. Various contributions have recently called to move away from the court-like assessment of claims by host states and foreigners and to engage more frankly with empirical work more attentive to concrete experiences and power relations. I contend that Sayad’s sociological work constitutes a substantial empirical and normative resource for ethical and political theory of migration, pointing to the persistence of ‘state thought’ and presenting original normative perspectives on emigration, inclusion in democracy, naturalization or postcolonial relationships. Such a reading of Sayad from a political theory perspective would then constitute a prime example of the cross-fertilization of empirical and normative approaches.","PeriodicalId":46183,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Political Theory","volume":"22 1","pages":"399 - 424"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2021-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42779920","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-13DOI: 10.1177/14748851211020625
Terry Macdonald
Over the last several years, democratic citizens and theorists have been grappling with an upsurge in political commentary on the crisis and decline of democratic legitimacy around the world. Increasingly, theoretical attention is turning from the philosophical justification of ambitious moral ideals of democracy, to the interpretation of potentials within existing political practice for democratic renewal and repair. This review article examines three new books at the forefront of this theoretical turn towards engagement with the real-world political dynamics of democratic crisis and revival: Open Democracy by Hélène Landemore; Hope for Democracy by John Gastil and Katherine Knobloch; and Mending Democracy by Carolyn Hendriks, Selen Ercan and John Boswell. It begins by surveying the new contributions of these books – highlighting the importance all attribute to creative political agency as a source of revival in democratic practice. It then discusses several questions left unresolved by these books – concerning the problem of democratic legitimacy, the normativity of democratic standards and the power dynamics undergirding democratic agency – which jointly mark out an important agenda for future theoretical work on pathways out of democratic crisis.
{"title":"Reviving democracy: Creating pathways out of legitimacy crises","authors":"Terry Macdonald","doi":"10.1177/14748851211020625","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14748851211020625","url":null,"abstract":"Over the last several years, democratic citizens and theorists have been grappling with an upsurge in political commentary on the crisis and decline of democratic legitimacy around the world. Increasingly, theoretical attention is turning from the philosophical justification of ambitious moral ideals of democracy, to the interpretation of potentials within existing political practice for democratic renewal and repair. This review article examines three new books at the forefront of this theoretical turn towards engagement with the real-world political dynamics of democratic crisis and revival: Open Democracy by Hélène Landemore; Hope for Democracy by John Gastil and Katherine Knobloch; and Mending Democracy by Carolyn Hendriks, Selen Ercan and John Boswell. It begins by surveying the new contributions of these books – highlighting the importance all attribute to creative political agency as a source of revival in democratic practice. It then discusses several questions left unresolved by these books – concerning the problem of democratic legitimacy, the normativity of democratic standards and the power dynamics undergirding democratic agency – which jointly mark out an important agenda for future theoretical work on pathways out of democratic crisis.","PeriodicalId":46183,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Political Theory","volume":"22 1","pages":"181 - 191"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2021-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49489052","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-06DOI: 10.1177/14748851211020626
Orlando Lazar
This article analyses the phenomenon of ‘micro-domination’, in which a series of dominated choices are individually inconsequential for a person’s freedom but collectively consequential. Where the choices concerned are objectively inconsequential, micro-domination poses a problem for ‘objective threshold’ accounts of domination which either prioritise particularly bad forms of domination or exclude powers that do not risk causing serious harm to their victims. Where the choices concerned are subjectively inconsequential to the victim, micro-domination poses a problem for the common republican strategy of creating arenas of contestation for victims of domination, which rely on victims objecting strongly enough to a dominating relationship to sound the alarm. This kind of invigilation may systematically fail victims of micro-domination. Throughout the article, I suggest some ways of better accounting for and responding to cases of micro-domination.
{"title":"Micro-domination","authors":"Orlando Lazar","doi":"10.1177/14748851211020626","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14748851211020626","url":null,"abstract":"This article analyses the phenomenon of ‘micro-domination’, in which a series of dominated choices are individually inconsequential for a person’s freedom but collectively consequential. Where the choices concerned are objectively inconsequential, micro-domination poses a problem for ‘objective threshold’ accounts of domination which either prioritise particularly bad forms of domination or exclude powers that do not risk causing serious harm to their victims. Where the choices concerned are subjectively inconsequential to the victim, micro-domination poses a problem for the common republican strategy of creating arenas of contestation for victims of domination, which rely on victims objecting strongly enough to a dominating relationship to sound the alarm. This kind of invigilation may systematically fail victims of micro-domination. Throughout the article, I suggest some ways of better accounting for and responding to cases of micro-domination.","PeriodicalId":46183,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Political Theory","volume":"22 1","pages":"217 - 237"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2021-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45358354","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-08-20DOI: 10.1177/14748851211025875
Alasia Nuti
As a Western citizen, am I responsible for the serious injustices, such as sweatshop labour, characterising our global economy? Benjamin McKean’s terrific new book, Disorienting Neoliberalism: Global Justice and the Outer Limit of Freedom, shows why this is a misleading question – one that will not properly orient us in relation to the neoliberal economy. McKean argues that we need to recognise that we are unfree under unjust transnational economic institutions and thus we have a shared interest in resisting neoliberalism. This means that we should become disposed to heed the calls for solidarity by others across the world whose freedom is also impaired by neoliberal institutions. McKean’s book offers a powerful and persuasive new account of global (in)justice and solidarity; it is an inspiring call to arms for egalitarian theorists. Although I will raise two friendly critical observations about McKean’s argument, I recognise that this book is a major contribution to international political theory and that it sets a superb example of how to combine scholarly rigour with what might be called activist theorising.
作为一名西方公民，我是否应对我们全球经济中的严重不公正现象负责，比如血汗工厂劳动？本杰明·麦肯（Benjamin McKean）的精彩新书《颠覆新自由主义：全球正义与自由的外部极限》（Disoriending Neoliberalism:Global Justice and the Outer Limit of Freedom）表明了为什么这是一个误导性的问题——一个无法正确引导我们与新自由主义经济联系的问题。麦肯认为，我们需要认识到，在不公正的跨国经济体制下，我们是不自由的，因此，我们在抵制新自由主义方面有着共同的利益。这意味着，我们应该听从世界各地其他人的团结呼吁，他们的自由也受到新自由主义制度的损害。麦肯的书对全球正义与团结进行了有力而有说服力的新描述；对于平等主义理论家来说，这是一个鼓舞人心的号召。尽管我将对麦肯的论点提出两个友好的批评意见，但我承认这本书是对国际政治理论的重大贡献，它为如何将学术严谨与所谓的活动家理论相结合树立了一个极好的榜样。
{"title":"Resisting the global neoliberal economy","authors":"Alasia Nuti","doi":"10.1177/14748851211025875","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14748851211025875","url":null,"abstract":"As a Western citizen, am I responsible for the serious injustices, such as sweatshop labour, characterising our global economy? Benjamin McKean’s terrific new book, Disorienting Neoliberalism: Global Justice and the Outer Limit of Freedom, shows why this is a misleading question – one that will not properly orient us in relation to the neoliberal economy. McKean argues that we need to recognise that we are unfree under unjust transnational economic institutions and thus we have a shared interest in resisting neoliberalism. This means that we should become disposed to heed the calls for solidarity by others across the world whose freedom is also impaired by neoliberal institutions. McKean’s book offers a powerful and persuasive new account of global (in)justice and solidarity; it is an inspiring call to arms for egalitarian theorists. Although I will raise two friendly critical observations about McKean’s argument, I recognise that this book is a major contribution to international political theory and that it sets a superb example of how to combine scholarly rigour with what might be called activist theorising.","PeriodicalId":46183,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Political Theory","volume":"22 1","pages":"346 - 353"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2021-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43143943","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-08-20DOI: 10.1177/14748851211034106
M. Bevir, K. Y. Chan
Deliberative systems theorists have not explained what a deliberative system is. There are two problems here for deliberative systems theory: an empirical problem of boundaries (how to delineate the content of a deliberative system) and a normative problem of evaluation (how to evaluate the deliberation within a deliberative system). We argue that an adequate response to these problems requires a clear ontology. The existing literature suggests two coherent but mutually exclusive ontologies. A functionalist ontology postulates self-sustaining deliberative systems with their own functional goals and logics independent of human intentionality. In contrast, an interpretive ontology conceives of deliberative systems as the products of the beliefs and actions of the actors in the relevant practices—deliberative systems derive from human intentionality. We conclude by showing how these conflicting ontologies lead to different empirical and normative agendas.
{"title":"What is a deliberative system? A tale of two ontologies","authors":"M. Bevir, K. Y. Chan","doi":"10.1177/14748851211034106","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14748851211034106","url":null,"abstract":"Deliberative systems theorists have not explained what a deliberative system is. There are two problems here for deliberative systems theory: an empirical problem of boundaries (how to delineate the content of a deliberative system) and a normative problem of evaluation (how to evaluate the deliberation within a deliberative system). We argue that an adequate response to these problems requires a clear ontology. The existing literature suggests two coherent but mutually exclusive ontologies. A functionalist ontology postulates self-sustaining deliberative systems with their own functional goals and logics independent of human intentionality. In contrast, an interpretive ontology conceives of deliberative systems as the products of the beliefs and actions of the actors in the relevant practices—deliberative systems derive from human intentionality. We conclude by showing how these conflicting ontologies lead to different empirical and normative agendas.","PeriodicalId":46183,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Political Theory","volume":"22 1","pages":"445 - 464"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2021-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49013279","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","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：