Pub Date : 2023-09-18DOI: 10.1080/10457097.2023.2255097
John Macias
AbstractThe Traditional Natural Law (TNL) considers the political community a good human beings desire as one of the greatest goods of practical life, while those within the New Natural Law (NNL) camp argue instead that the political community is an instrumental good. Neither side has been able to offer a decisive refutation of the other, despite each offering strong arguments supported by both philosophical argument and textual evidence. In response, I will present Alasdair MacIntyre’s approach to practical reason and political community in hopes of shedding new light on this debate. From a MacIntyrean perspective, the TNL and NNL disagreement is more apparent than real, because the two sides in fact address different objects. MacIntyre presents political community as a constitutive aspect of excellent practical reasoning, but he denies the modern nation-state can be such a community. Disclosure StatementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 Alasdair MacIntyre, “Theories of Natural Law in the Culture of Advanced Modernity,” in Common Truths: New Perspectives in Natural Law, ed. Edward B. McLean (Wilmington, Delaware: ISI Books, 200), 94. See also Alasdair MacIntyre, “Intractable Moral Disagreements,” in Intractable Disputes about the Natural Law: Alasdair MacIntyre and Critics, ed. Lawrence S. Cunningham (Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 2009), 1–52.2 MacIntyre, “Theories of Natural Law,” 92.3 For the background of this debate, see Germain Grisez, “The First Principle of Practical Reason: A Commentary on the Summa Theologiae, 1–2, Question 94, Article 2,” in Aquinas: A Collection of Critical Essays, ed. Anthony Kenny (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1976), 340–382; Ralph McInerny, Aquinas on Human Action: A Theory of Practice (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1); Christopher Tollefsen, “The New Natural Law Theory,” Lyceum 10, (2008): 1–17; John Finnis, Aquinas: Moral, Political, and Legal Theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998); Steven Jensen, Knowing the Natural Law: From Precepts and Inclinations to Deriving Oughts (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2015); John Macias, “John Finnis and Alasdair MacIntyre on Our Knowledge of the Precepts of Natural Law,” Res Philosophica 93 (2016): 103–123; Ryan T. Anderson, editor, “Defense of the New Natural Law,” National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly (2019): 165–329.4 John Finnis, “Is Natural Law Theory Compatible with Limited Government?,” in Natural Law, Liberalism, and Morality, ed. Robert P. George (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 5.5 Finnis, Aquinas, 247.6 Ibid, 247–248.7 Michael Pakaluk, “Is the Common Good of Political Society Limited and Instrumental?” The Review of Metaphysics 55 (2001): 91.8 John Goyette, “On the Transcendence of the Political Common Good: Aquinas versus the New Natural Law Theory,” The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 13 (2013): 155.9 Goyett
摘要传统自然法认为政治共同体是人类的一种美好愿望，是现实生活中最伟大的善，而新自然法则认为政治共同体是一种工具性善。尽管双方都提供了强有力的论据，得到了哲学论证和文本证据的支持，但双方都无法对对方提出决定性的反驳。作为回应，我将介绍阿拉斯代尔·麦金泰尔(Alasdair MacIntyre)对实践理性和政治共同体的研究方法，希望能对这场辩论提供新的启示。从麦金太尔的角度来看，TNL和NNL的分歧是明显的，而不是真实的，因为双方实际上处理的是不同的对象。麦金太尔将政治共同体视为优秀实践推理的一个构成方面，但他否认现代民族国家可以是这样一个共同体。披露声明作者未报告潜在的利益冲突。注1 Alasdair MacIntyre，“先进现代性文化中的自然法理论”，载于Edward B. McLean主编的《共同真理:自然法的新视角》(Wilmington, Delaware: ISI Books, 2000)，第94页。参见Alasdair MacIntyre，“棘手的道德分歧”，见《关于自然法的棘手争端:Alasdair MacIntyre和评论家》，劳伦斯·s·坎宁安主编(印第安纳州圣母大学:圣母大学出版社，2009年)，1-52.2。MacIntyre，“自然法理论”，92.3关于这场辩论的背景，见Germain Grisez，“实践理性的第一原则:对神学总论的评论，1-2，问题94，第二条”，《阿奎那》。安东尼·肯尼(圣母大学，印第安纳州:圣母大学出版社，1976)，340-382;拉尔夫·麦金纳尼，《阿奎那论人类行为:实践理论》(华盛顿特区:美国天主教大学出版社，第1版);Christopher Tollefsen:《新自然法理论》，《学刊》2008年第10期，第1-17页;约翰·菲尼斯，《阿奎那:道德、政治和法律理论》(牛津:牛津大学出版社，1998年);史蒂文·詹森:《认识自然法:从戒律和倾向到派生义务》(华盛顿特区:美国天主教大学出版社，2015年);约翰·马西亚斯:《约翰·菲尼斯和阿拉斯代尔·麦金泰尔对自然法规则的认识》，《哲学研究》2016年第93期:103-123;瑞安·t·安德森，编辑，“新自然法的辩护”，国家天主教生物伦理学季刊(2019):165-329.4约翰·菲尼斯，“自然法理论与有限政府兼容吗?《自然法、自由主义与道德》，罗伯特·p·乔治主编(牛津:牛津大学出版社，1996年)，5.5芬尼斯，阿奎那，247.6同上，247-248.7迈克尔·帕卡鲁克，“政治社会的共同利益是有限的和工具性的吗?”《形而上学评论》55 (2001):91.8 John Goyette，“论政治共同利益的超越性:阿奎那与新自然法理论”，《国家天主教生命伦理学季刊》13 (2013):155.9 Goyette, 141;帕卡卢克，“政治社会的共同利益”，芬尼斯，《阿奎那:道德、政治和法律理论》，235.11同上，235-237.12圣托马斯·阿奎那，《神学总论》，II-II, q101, a.1(罗马:版保利纳，1962)，1512.13托马斯·奥斯本，“麦金太尔，托马斯主义和当代共同利益，”分析与批判30(2008):84.14丹尼尔·马克，“新自然法理论和政治共同体的共同利益，”国家天主教生命伦理学季刊19(2019):299。16菲尼斯:《阿奎那:道德、政治与法律理论》，226-227.17阿拉斯代尔·麦金泰尔:《现代性冲突中的伦理:欲望、实践推理与叙事》(剑桥:剑桥大学出版社，2016)，第51页。阿拉斯代尔·麦金太尔，《依赖理性动物:为什么人类需要美德》(芝加哥:Open Court, 1999)， 107.18阿拉斯代尔·麦金太尔，《政治、哲学和共同利益》，载于《麦金太尔读本》，开尔文·奈特主编(圣母大学，印第安纳州:圣母大学出版社，1998)，240页。关于麦金太尔强调实践推理的评论，请参见克里斯托弗·斯蒂芬·卢茨，《阅读阿拉斯代尔·麦金太尔的《美德之后》(纽约:连续国际出版集团，2012)》和《阿拉斯代尔·麦金太尔的实践推理伦理:实践中的道德》，《政治与诗学》第4期(2018);开尔文·奈特，《亚里士多德哲学:从亚里士多德到麦金太尔的伦理与政治》(剑桥:政体出版社，2007);凯莱布·伯纳奇奥和开尔文·奈特，《麦金太尔与政治哲学》，见《向麦金太尔学习》，罗恩·比德尔和杰夫·摩尔主编(俄勒冈州尤金:匹克威克出版社，2020年)，117-139.19。阿拉斯代尔·麦金太尔，《亚里士多德主义如何成为革命的:伦理、抵抗和乌托邦》，《美德与政治:阿拉斯代尔·麦金太尔的革命亚里士多德主义》，保罗·布莱克利奇和开尔文·奈特主编(印第安纳州圣母大学):圣母大学出版社，2011)，1620麦金泰尔，“政治，哲学和共同利益，”241。 21 Alasdair MacIntyre，《美德之后:道德理论研究》(Notre Dame, in: University of Notre Dame Press, 2007)， 187.22 Jeffrey L. Nicholas，“谁代表Un čí makh<e:1>:自由的民族国家、种族主义、自由和自然”，《自由与生态危机:有限星球上的自由》，主编。克里斯托弗·j·奥尔、凯特琳·基什和布鲁斯·詹宁斯(英国牛津郡:劳特利奇出版社，2019)，114.23麦金太尔，“政治、哲学和共同利益”，248.24麦金太尔，“棘手的道德分歧”，23.25麦金太尔，“先进现代性文化中的自然法理论”，93。参见麦金太尔，《现代性冲突中的伦理学》，1989;麦金太尔，《政治、哲学和共同利益》，第247页;麦金太尔，“作为颠覆性的自然法”，48.26麦金太尔，“作为颠覆性的自然法”，49.27麦金太尔，“政治、哲学和共同利益”，248.28麦金太尔，“依赖理性的动物”，135-136.29同上，108.30格雷戈里·弗罗利奇，“Bonum公社的模棱两可地位”，新士林哲学63(1989):38-57.31麦金太尔，“依赖理性的动物”，108.32同上，123.33麦金太尔，“政治、哲学和共同利益”，242.34 Alasdair麦金太尔，“诗歌作为政治哲学”;伯克和叶芝注释”，选自《伦理与政治:散文选集》第二卷(剑桥:剑桥大学出版社，206)，163页。另见阿拉斯代尔·麦金太尔，“对我的批评者的部分回应”，见《麦金太尔之后:对阿拉斯代尔·麦金太尔作品的批判观点》，约翰·霍顿和苏珊·门杜斯主编(印第安纳州圣母大学:圣母大学出版社，1994年)，303.35阿拉斯代尔·麦金太尔，“爱国主义是一种美德吗?”(Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas, 1984)， 13.36同上，11.37麦金泰尔，《政治、哲学与共同利益》，236页。关于麦金太尔对民族国家批判的评论，见Mark C. Murphy，“麦金太尔的政治哲学”，收录于Alasdair MacIntyre主编。Mark C. Murphy(剑桥:剑桥大学出版社，2003)，152-175页;彼得·麦克迈勒，“划分和社会角色:麦金太尔的现代性批判理论”，载于《美德与政治:阿拉斯代尔·
{"title":"Political Reasoning and the Nation-State: A MacIntyrean Consideration of a Thomistic Debate","authors":"John Macias","doi":"10.1080/10457097.2023.2255097","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10457097.2023.2255097","url":null,"abstract":"AbstractThe Traditional Natural Law (TNL) considers the political community a good human beings desire as one of the greatest goods of practical life, while those within the New Natural Law (NNL) camp argue instead that the political community is an instrumental good. Neither side has been able to offer a decisive refutation of the other, despite each offering strong arguments supported by both philosophical argument and textual evidence. In response, I will present Alasdair MacIntyre’s approach to practical reason and political community in hopes of shedding new light on this debate. From a MacIntyrean perspective, the TNL and NNL disagreement is more apparent than real, because the two sides in fact address different objects. MacIntyre presents political community as a constitutive aspect of excellent practical reasoning, but he denies the modern nation-state can be such a community. Disclosure StatementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 Alasdair MacIntyre, “Theories of Natural Law in the Culture of Advanced Modernity,” in Common Truths: New Perspectives in Natural Law, ed. Edward B. McLean (Wilmington, Delaware: ISI Books, 200), 94. See also Alasdair MacIntyre, “Intractable Moral Disagreements,” in Intractable Disputes about the Natural Law: Alasdair MacIntyre and Critics, ed. Lawrence S. Cunningham (Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 2009), 1–52.2 MacIntyre, “Theories of Natural Law,” 92.3 For the background of this debate, see Germain Grisez, “The First Principle of Practical Reason: A Commentary on the Summa Theologiae, 1–2, Question 94, Article 2,” in Aquinas: A Collection of Critical Essays, ed. Anthony Kenny (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1976), 340–382; Ralph McInerny, Aquinas on Human Action: A Theory of Practice (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1); Christopher Tollefsen, “The New Natural Law Theory,” Lyceum 10, (2008): 1–17; John Finnis, Aquinas: Moral, Political, and Legal Theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998); Steven Jensen, Knowing the Natural Law: From Precepts and Inclinations to Deriving Oughts (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2015); John Macias, “John Finnis and Alasdair MacIntyre on Our Knowledge of the Precepts of Natural Law,” Res Philosophica 93 (2016): 103–123; Ryan T. Anderson, editor, “Defense of the New Natural Law,” National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly (2019): 165–329.4 John Finnis, “Is Natural Law Theory Compatible with Limited Government?,” in Natural Law, Liberalism, and Morality, ed. Robert P. George (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 5.5 Finnis, Aquinas, 247.6 Ibid, 247–248.7 Michael Pakaluk, “Is the Common Good of Political Society Limited and Instrumental?” The Review of Metaphysics 55 (2001): 91.8 John Goyette, “On the Transcendence of the Political Common Good: Aquinas versus the New Natural Law Theory,” The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 13 (2013): 155.9 Goyett","PeriodicalId":55874,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Political Science","volume":"57 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135148662","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 : 2023-09-05DOI: 10.1080/10457097.2023.2251360
Matthew T. Cantirino
Alexis de Tocqueville, one of James J. Sheehan’s guiding lights,1 described “the real work” of the French Revolution as being “to abolish those political institutions [...] which we normally describe as feudal, in order to replace them with a more uniform and simple social and political regime based upon social equality.”2 Like Tocqueville, though, Sheehan knows the story is longer and subtler than that: the work of replacement began at least a century before 1789, unfolded in a piecemeal and sometimes half-conscious way, and continued on long after, though with increasing coherence.3 Like Tocqueville, Sheehan knows such sweeping change could not simply be the product of one single revolution, calendar year, or theorist, but that broader forces and concepts must be at play in such a transformation.
詹姆斯·J·希恩（James J.Sheehan）的指路明灯之一亚历克西斯·德·托克维尔（Alexis de Tocqueville，希恩知道这个故事比这更长、更微妙：替代工作至少在1789年前一个世纪就开始了，以一种零碎的、有时是半意识的方式展开，并在此后很长一段时间内继续进行，尽管越来越连贯。3和托克维尔一样，希恩知道这种彻底的变化不可能仅仅是一场革命、日历年或理论家的产物，但在这种转变中，更广泛的力量和概念必须发挥作用。
{"title":"Making a Modern Political Order: The Problem of the Nation State","authors":"Matthew T. Cantirino","doi":"10.1080/10457097.2023.2251360","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10457097.2023.2251360","url":null,"abstract":"Alexis de Tocqueville, one of James J. Sheehan’s guiding lights,1 described “the real work” of the French Revolution as being “to abolish those political institutions [...] which we normally describe as feudal, in order to replace them with a more uniform and simple social and political regime based upon social equality.”2 Like Tocqueville, though, Sheehan knows the story is longer and subtler than that: the work of replacement began at least a century before 1789, unfolded in a piecemeal and sometimes half-conscious way, and continued on long after, though with increasing coherence.3 Like Tocqueville, Sheehan knows such sweeping change could not simply be the product of one single revolution, calendar year, or theorist, but that broader forces and concepts must be at play in such a transformation.","PeriodicalId":55874,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Political Science","volume":"52 1","pages":"232 - 235"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44890499","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 : 2023-08-08DOI: 10.1080/10457097.2023.2243194
Joseph M. Knippenberg
Patrick J. Deneen’s Regime Change is a sequel to his ambitious and provocative Why Liberalism Failed, published in 2018. If anything, it is even more ambitious and provocative than its predecessor, calling for “regime change” where the first book simply and modestly recommended “the patient encouragement of new forms of community that can serve as havens in our depersonalized political and economic order” (WLF, xv). Since they provide a clear and in some cases compelling perspective on our current cultural and political predicament, both books deserve the attention they have gotten and are getting. Deneen’s is an important and distinctive voice in our debate, one we neglect at our peril. But to attend to Deneen’s argument is not necessarily to assent to it, as I hope this review demonstrates. We might first of all ask why Deneen’s patience has been replaced by such a sense of urgency that he is willing to call for the adoption of “Machiavellian means to achieve Aristotelian ends” (RC, 167), a proposal in bold-face type in the book, and to echo Vladimir Lenin in titling the third part of the book “what is to be done.” Perhaps the political setting has changed, with the first book largely written before Donald Trump took office and the second in the middle of the Biden Administration. Perhaps some political or judicial possibilities have emerged, making “aristopopulism” conceivable in a way heretofore impossible. Perhaps the development of an embryonic multiethnic working-class coalition has opened new vistas for Deneen. Perhaps the comprehensive embrace of antiracism and intersectionality on the Left made its soft totalitarianism even more evident to those with eyes to see. Perhaps COVID made it impossible to ignore the yawning chasm between the haves, who could continue to work in the relative safety of their homes, and the have-nots, who lost their jobs or risked their health to keep them. Perhaps doors opening and doors slamming shut encouraged urgency and discouraged patience. Nevertheless, it makes more sense to attend to what Deneen actually says in the book than to speculate about events and circumstances that he does not explicitly or extensively address. While both books share a critical analysis of liberalism—developed fully in the first book and sketched in the second—Regime Change focuses its attention on the class analysis first mentioned in Why Liberalism Failed. The “new aristocracy” (WLF, 131) of the latter gets a much fuller treatment in Regime Change. Building upon the work of Charles Murray’s Coming Apart, Michael Lind’s The New Class War, and Michael Sandel’s The Tyranny of Merit, Deneen offers a well-developed account of the current iteration of the age-old conflict between “the few” and “the many,” those who in our time have successfully adapted to the placeless high-tech marketplace, embracing constant innovation, change, and creative destruction, on the one hand, and those who sought refuge—for the most part unsuccessfully—
帕特里克·J·德宁的《政权更迭》是他2018年出版的《自由主义为什么失败》的续集。如果说有什么不同的话，那就是它比前一本书更具野心和挑衅性，呼吁“政权更迭”，第一本书简单而温和地建议“耐心鼓励新形式的社区，这些社区可以成为我们去个人化的政治和经济秩序中的避风港”（WLF，xv）。由于它们对我们当前的文化和政治困境提供了一个清晰的、在某些情况下令人信服的视角，这两本书都值得关注。德宁在我们的辩论中是一个重要而独特的声音，我们忽视了这一点，后果自负。但是，正如我希望这次审查所表明的那样，关注德宁的论点并不一定意味着同意它。我们可能首先会问，为什么德宁的耐心被这样一种紧迫感所取代，以至于他愿意呼吁采用“马基雅维利式的手段来实现亚里士多德式的目的”（RC，167），这是本书中的一个大胆的提议，并在书的第三部分命名为“该做什么”时呼应弗拉基米尔·列宁，第一本书主要是在唐纳德·特朗普上台之前写的，第二本书是在拜登政府中期写的。也许已经出现了一些政治或司法的可能性，使得“贵族主义”以一种迄今为止不可能的方式被想象出来。也许一个萌芽的多民族工人阶级联盟的发展为德宁打开了新的前景。也许左翼对反种族主义和交叉性的全面拥抱，使其软极权主义对那些有眼光的人来说更加明显。也许新冠肺炎让我们无法忽视富人和穷人之间的巨大鸿沟，前者可以继续在相对安全的家中工作，后者失去了工作或冒着健康风险保住了工作。也许门的打开和门的关上鼓励了紧迫感，也挫伤了耐心。尽管如此，关注Deneen在书中的实际言论比推测他没有明确或广泛提及的事件和情况更有意义。虽然这两本书都对自由主义进行了批判性分析——在第一本书中得到了充分发展，在第二本书中进行了概述——但《政权更迭》将注意力集中在《为什么自由主义失败》中首次提到的阶级分析上。后者的“新贵族”（WLF，131）在政权更迭中得到了更充分的待遇。在查尔斯·默里（Charles Murray）的《分崩离析》（Coming Apart）、迈克尔·林德（Michael Lind）的《新阶级战争》（the New Class War）和迈克尔·桑德尔（Michael Sandel，一方面是创造性的破坏，以及那些从威胁他们生计和社区的非个人力量中寻求庇护的人，他们是我们新的全球经济秩序中的“赢家”和“输家”，但大多没有成功。为了阐明这场冲突的理论维度，德宁依赖于一些熟悉的来源（亚里士多德、马基雅维利和马克思等）和一个意想不到的来源——约翰·洛克，他在阶级冲突理论家的万神殿中的存在在一定程度上被要求将自由主义者解释为这场混战中的自觉战斗者。特别是，德宁提请我们注意他在《为什么自由主义失败》中不止一次引用的一段话，洛克在其中提到了“勤奋和理性的人”与“争吵和有争议的人”之间的区别（见洛克，第二篇论文，第34节，例如RC，72和WLF，136）。Deneen将这种Lockean的区别解读为雄心勃勃的原始资本家和人民之间的区别，人民是一种“潜在的‘激进’力量，尤其是嫉妒和怨恨可能破坏自由财产权”（RC，74）。鉴于洛克后来所说的
{"title":"Regime Change","authors":"Joseph M. Knippenberg","doi":"10.1080/10457097.2023.2243194","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10457097.2023.2243194","url":null,"abstract":"Patrick J. Deneen’s Regime Change is a sequel to his ambitious and provocative Why Liberalism Failed, published in 2018. If anything, it is even more ambitious and provocative than its predecessor, calling for “regime change” where the first book simply and modestly recommended “the patient encouragement of new forms of community that can serve as havens in our depersonalized political and economic order” (WLF, xv). Since they provide a clear and in some cases compelling perspective on our current cultural and political predicament, both books deserve the attention they have gotten and are getting. Deneen’s is an important and distinctive voice in our debate, one we neglect at our peril. But to attend to Deneen’s argument is not necessarily to assent to it, as I hope this review demonstrates. We might first of all ask why Deneen’s patience has been replaced by such a sense of urgency that he is willing to call for the adoption of “Machiavellian means to achieve Aristotelian ends” (RC, 167), a proposal in bold-face type in the book, and to echo Vladimir Lenin in titling the third part of the book “what is to be done.” Perhaps the political setting has changed, with the first book largely written before Donald Trump took office and the second in the middle of the Biden Administration. Perhaps some political or judicial possibilities have emerged, making “aristopopulism” conceivable in a way heretofore impossible. Perhaps the development of an embryonic multiethnic working-class coalition has opened new vistas for Deneen. Perhaps the comprehensive embrace of antiracism and intersectionality on the Left made its soft totalitarianism even more evident to those with eyes to see. Perhaps COVID made it impossible to ignore the yawning chasm between the haves, who could continue to work in the relative safety of their homes, and the have-nots, who lost their jobs or risked their health to keep them. Perhaps doors opening and doors slamming shut encouraged urgency and discouraged patience. Nevertheless, it makes more sense to attend to what Deneen actually says in the book than to speculate about events and circumstances that he does not explicitly or extensively address. While both books share a critical analysis of liberalism—developed fully in the first book and sketched in the second—Regime Change focuses its attention on the class analysis first mentioned in Why Liberalism Failed. The “new aristocracy” (WLF, 131) of the latter gets a much fuller treatment in Regime Change. Building upon the work of Charles Murray’s Coming Apart, Michael Lind’s The New Class War, and Michael Sandel’s The Tyranny of Merit, Deneen offers a well-developed account of the current iteration of the age-old conflict between “the few” and “the many,” those who in our time have successfully adapted to the placeless high-tech marketplace, embracing constant innovation, change, and creative destruction, on the one hand, and those who sought refuge—for the most part unsuccessfully—","PeriodicalId":55874,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Political Science","volume":"52 1","pages":"227 - 231"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44353001","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 : 2023-07-24DOI: 10.1080/10457097.2023.2232286
W. Morrisey
Abstract Raymond Aron understood political science not as a technical exercise of reducing politics to formulas—whether mathematical or ideological. Drawing upon the examples of Aristotle and Tocqueville, he addressed scholars and non-specialists alike as fellow citizens to be engaged in dialogues on the major public issues of their time and place. Nathan Orlando analyzes Aron’s critiques of Sartre, Hayek, and de Gaulle as examples of his practice..
{"title":"Raymond Aron and His Dialogues in an Age of Ideologies","authors":"W. Morrisey","doi":"10.1080/10457097.2023.2232286","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10457097.2023.2232286","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Raymond Aron understood political science not as a technical exercise of reducing politics to formulas—whether mathematical or ideological. Drawing upon the examples of Aristotle and Tocqueville, he addressed scholars and non-specialists alike as fellow citizens to be engaged in dialogues on the major public issues of their time and place. Nathan Orlando analyzes Aron’s critiques of Sartre, Hayek, and de Gaulle as examples of his practice..","PeriodicalId":55874,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Political Science","volume":"21 1","pages":"217 - 226"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139355643","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 : 2023-07-05DOI: 10.1080/10457097.2023.2228658
J. Bernstein
24. Sheehan, 144. 25. As Sheehan points out, this high-minded justification, though widely resonant with the populations of modern democratic nation-states, can lead to serious conflicts in the pursuit of legibility (see, for example, the mass transfer of populations in Europe following World War II, the long and bloody wars of national liberation in Algeria and Angola, or the numerous slow-burning crises in the Balkans and Eastern Europe). This is one reason the nation-state may be a “problem,” as in the subtitle of the book. 26. Barack Obama, “Remarks by the President in Address to European Youth,” transcript of speech delivered at Palais des Beaux Arts, Brussels, Belgium, March 26, 2014. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-pressoffice/2014/03/26/remarks-presiden t-address-European-youth 27. Sheehan, 115–61. 28. Sheehan, 166. 29. Sheehan, 165. This is the English title of Manent’s 2001 book. 30. Pierre Manent, Democracy Without Nations? The Fate of Self-Government in Europe, trans. Paul Seaton (Wilmington, DE: ISI Books, 2007), 14. 31. Manent, “Modern Democracy as a System of Separations,” 114. 32. Sheehan, 164.
{"title":"Leo Strauss and Islamic Political Thought","authors":"J. Bernstein","doi":"10.1080/10457097.2023.2228658","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10457097.2023.2228658","url":null,"abstract":"24. Sheehan, 144. 25. As Sheehan points out, this high-minded justification, though widely resonant with the populations of modern democratic nation-states, can lead to serious conflicts in the pursuit of legibility (see, for example, the mass transfer of populations in Europe following World War II, the long and bloody wars of national liberation in Algeria and Angola, or the numerous slow-burning crises in the Balkans and Eastern Europe). This is one reason the nation-state may be a “problem,” as in the subtitle of the book. 26. Barack Obama, “Remarks by the President in Address to European Youth,” transcript of speech delivered at Palais des Beaux Arts, Brussels, Belgium, March 26, 2014. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-pressoffice/2014/03/26/remarks-presiden t-address-European-youth 27. Sheehan, 115–61. 28. Sheehan, 166. 29. Sheehan, 165. This is the English title of Manent’s 2001 book. 30. Pierre Manent, Democracy Without Nations? The Fate of Self-Government in Europe, trans. Paul Seaton (Wilmington, DE: ISI Books, 2007), 14. 31. Manent, “Modern Democracy as a System of Separations,” 114. 32. Sheehan, 164.","PeriodicalId":55874,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Political Science","volume":"52 1","pages":"235 - 237"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46680748","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 : 2023-07-05DOI: 10.1080/10457097.2023.2226046
J. Gibbins
Abstract George Orwell’s political writing was adept at capturing crises. Totalitarianism, nationalism, colonialism, class, poverty, the Cold War, and the early atomic age all cast a sinister shadow during his short lifetime. Within international relations, and coupled to his own life experiences, these dangers caused an obvious preoccupation with certain states and entities most notably the USSR, Spain, India, France, and Europe amongst others. The United States somewhat sat out of Orwell’s orbit which is paradoxical considering the country’s seismic role in a twentieth century marred by upheavals and ruin. This paper seeks to address this gap by examining what his essays, journalism, and letters tell us about how the US and specifically its national identity was fashioned. The findings concern culture and language, wealth and race, and power and empire. As such, despite America initially featuring as peripheral to his concerns, its literary prowess, economic might, and international influence all inspired Orwell to produce a number of important observations on American national identity.
{"title":"George Orwell and American National Identity","authors":"J. Gibbins","doi":"10.1080/10457097.2023.2226046","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10457097.2023.2226046","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract George Orwell’s political writing was adept at capturing crises. Totalitarianism, nationalism, colonialism, class, poverty, the Cold War, and the early atomic age all cast a sinister shadow during his short lifetime. Within international relations, and coupled to his own life experiences, these dangers caused an obvious preoccupation with certain states and entities most notably the USSR, Spain, India, France, and Europe amongst others. The United States somewhat sat out of Orwell’s orbit which is paradoxical considering the country’s seismic role in a twentieth century marred by upheavals and ruin. This paper seeks to address this gap by examining what his essays, journalism, and letters tell us about how the US and specifically its national identity was fashioned. The findings concern culture and language, wealth and race, and power and empire. As such, despite America initially featuring as peripheral to his concerns, its literary prowess, economic might, and international influence all inspired Orwell to produce a number of important observations on American national identity.","PeriodicalId":55874,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Political Science","volume":"52 1","pages":"175 - 182"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45948107","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 : 2023-06-28DOI: 10.1080/10457097.2023.2192633
J. M. Patterson
Abstract Recently, so-called Catholic “postliberal” conservatives have condemned the American regime as fundamentally liberal and, hence, parasitic on pre-liberal institutions. I argue that this view unduly conflates liberalism and republicanism and thereby confuses an ideology with the principles of the regime. American Catholic clergy have historically condemned liberalism in favor of a Catholic republicanism. This trend began with the political thought of Charles Carroll of Carrollton and Bishop John Carroll who advocated for republican government in conjunction with “conciliarism” in the Church. Archbishop “Dagger” John Hughes of New York condemned “nothingarianism,” an early form of liberalism, while also arguing that Irish minorities were capable of republican self-rule during the School Controversy of 1840–43. Later, during the 1880s and 1890s, Archbishop John Ireland of St. Paul, Minnesota, condemned liberalism, but also provided an alternative vision of post-Civil War racial reconciliation and of Catholic patriotism. Even as he disparaged liberalism, Venerable Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen rescued the “Americanism” condemned by Pope Leo XIII in 1899 to argue against totalitarian states of the twentieth century, while, at the same time, Fr. John Courtney Murray, no liberal, sought a religious truce in America in favor of common political action in areas of agreement. In short, these clergy opposed liberalism, but they couched their opposition in terms of support of the American Republic, often arguing that the Catholic Church, especially in parochial schooling, provided the best foundation for good government. However, the recent decline of hierarchical support of Catholic republicanism has led to the present disillusionment of American Catholics, who are at risk of turning to reactionary politics to their own peril.
最近，所谓的天主教“后自由主义”保守派谴责美国政权从根本上是自由主义的，因此是寄生于前自由主义制度之上的。我认为这种观点不恰当地将自由主义和共和主义混为一谈，从而混淆了意识形态和政权原则。美国天主教神职人员历来谴责自由主义，支持天主教共和主义。这一趋势始于卡罗尔顿的查尔斯·卡罗尔和约翰·卡罗尔主教的政治思想，他们主张共和政府与教会的“和解主义”相结合。纽约大主教“匕首”约翰·休斯(John Hughes)谴责自由主义的早期形式“虚无主义”(nothingarianism)，同时在1840-43年的学校争议(School Controversy)期间，他也认为爱尔兰少数民族有能力进行共和自治。后来，在19世纪80年代和90年代，明尼苏达州圣保罗大主教约翰·爱尔兰(John Ireland)谴责了自由主义，但也为内战后的种族和解和天主教爱国主义提供了另一种视角。即使在他贬低自由主义的同时，尊敬的富尔顿·j·希恩大主教拯救了1899年被教皇利奥十三世谴责的“美国主义”，以反对二十世纪的极权主义国家，而与此同时，不是自由主义者的约翰·考特尼·默里神父(Fr. John Courtney Murray)在美国寻求宗教休战，支持在有共识的领域采取共同的政治行动。简而言之，这些神职人员反对自由主义，但他们以支持美利坚共和国的方式表达自己的反对，他们经常辩称，天主教会，尤其是在教区教育方面，为良好的政府提供了最好的基础。然而，最近对天主教共和主义的等级支持的下降导致了美国天主教徒目前的幻灭，他们面临着转向反动政治的风险，这是他们自己的危险。
{"title":"Catholic Republicanism in America","authors":"J. M. Patterson","doi":"10.1080/10457097.2023.2192633","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10457097.2023.2192633","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Recently, so-called Catholic “postliberal” conservatives have condemned the American regime as fundamentally liberal and, hence, parasitic on pre-liberal institutions. I argue that this view unduly conflates liberalism and republicanism and thereby confuses an ideology with the principles of the regime. American Catholic clergy have historically condemned liberalism in favor of a Catholic republicanism. This trend began with the political thought of Charles Carroll of Carrollton and Bishop John Carroll who advocated for republican government in conjunction with “conciliarism” in the Church. Archbishop “Dagger” John Hughes of New York condemned “nothingarianism,” an early form of liberalism, while also arguing that Irish minorities were capable of republican self-rule during the School Controversy of 1840–43. Later, during the 1880s and 1890s, Archbishop John Ireland of St. Paul, Minnesota, condemned liberalism, but also provided an alternative vision of post-Civil War racial reconciliation and of Catholic patriotism. Even as he disparaged liberalism, Venerable Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen rescued the “Americanism” condemned by Pope Leo XIII in 1899 to argue against totalitarian states of the twentieth century, while, at the same time, Fr. John Courtney Murray, no liberal, sought a religious truce in America in favor of common political action in areas of agreement. In short, these clergy opposed liberalism, but they couched their opposition in terms of support of the American Republic, often arguing that the Catholic Church, especially in parochial schooling, provided the best foundation for good government. However, the recent decline of hierarchical support of Catholic republicanism has led to the present disillusionment of American Catholics, who are at risk of turning to reactionary politics to their own peril.","PeriodicalId":55874,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Political Science","volume":"52 1","pages":"106 - 118"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46374004","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 : 2023-06-16DOI: 10.1080/10457097.2023.2218144
David N. Levy
Abstract It is commonly held that the traditional European classics or Great Books cannot constitute the basis of an inclusive liberal education because they do not reflect the diverse cultural identities of contemporary students. This essay argues for a return to the older view, memorably expressed by W.E.B. Du Bois, that the classics are radically inclusive because they speak to a common human identity. This view is best understood in light of the ancient Greek distinction between physis (nature) and nomos (custom or law). Greek philosophic universalism has shown an ability to transcend profound cultural differences, such as those separating Alfarabi from Maimonides, or Shakespeare from Du Bois. The essay rebuts the frequently heard objections that the universalism of the classics is really a mask for white male hegemony and that it fails to do justice to the unique personal experiences of the oppressed and marginalized. The essay affirms that education must be particularistic as well as universalistic, but it argues that the universalism of the classics remains the key to the most perfect form of inclusion, namely, the friendship of those seeking the truth.
{"title":"Shakespeare Winces Not: On Inclusion in Liberal Education","authors":"David N. Levy","doi":"10.1080/10457097.2023.2218144","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10457097.2023.2218144","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract It is commonly held that the traditional European classics or Great Books cannot constitute the basis of an inclusive liberal education because they do not reflect the diverse cultural identities of contemporary students. This essay argues for a return to the older view, memorably expressed by W.E.B. Du Bois, that the classics are radically inclusive because they speak to a common human identity. This view is best understood in light of the ancient Greek distinction between physis (nature) and nomos (custom or law). Greek philosophic universalism has shown an ability to transcend profound cultural differences, such as those separating Alfarabi from Maimonides, or Shakespeare from Du Bois. The essay rebuts the frequently heard objections that the universalism of the classics is really a mask for white male hegemony and that it fails to do justice to the unique personal experiences of the oppressed and marginalized. The essay affirms that education must be particularistic as well as universalistic, but it argues that the universalism of the classics remains the key to the most perfect form of inclusion, namely, the friendship of those seeking the truth.","PeriodicalId":55874,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Political Science","volume":"52 1","pages":"208 - 216"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49158797","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 : 2023-06-12DOI: 10.1080/10457097.2023.2218140
Nathan Gibbs
Abstract The application of Thomistic Aristotelian principles to contemporary constitutionalism has involved many shifts and transformations: from postwar Christian democracy to post-liberalism. In order to evaluate these changing assessments, the article discusses and compares the work of Pierre Manent and John Milbank who provide a useful long term historical perspective on the relevant issues. The article explores how Manet’s emphasis on the theologico-political problem seems inescapable in one form of another in appraising the origin, development and the future of the liberal regime as well as any possible alternatives. Nevertheless, Milbank’s work points to more fruitful post-liberal institutional forms capable of sustaining an Aristotelian conception of political association. Despite this, the theologico-political problem arguably still affects how such political structures are to be thought and developed with tensions involving the realization of cardinal and supernatural virtues intrinsic to the balances that need to be struck.
{"title":"Post-Liberalism: The Problem of Political Form and Regime","authors":"Nathan Gibbs","doi":"10.1080/10457097.2023.2218140","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10457097.2023.2218140","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The application of Thomistic Aristotelian principles to contemporary constitutionalism has involved many shifts and transformations: from postwar Christian democracy to post-liberalism. In order to evaluate these changing assessments, the article discusses and compares the work of Pierre Manent and John Milbank who provide a useful long term historical perspective on the relevant issues. The article explores how Manet’s emphasis on the theologico-political problem seems inescapable in one form of another in appraising the origin, development and the future of the liberal regime as well as any possible alternatives. Nevertheless, Milbank’s work points to more fruitful post-liberal institutional forms capable of sustaining an Aristotelian conception of political association. Despite this, the theologico-political problem arguably still affects how such political structures are to be thought and developed with tensions involving the realization of cardinal and supernatural virtues intrinsic to the balances that need to be struck.","PeriodicalId":55874,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Political Science","volume":"52 1","pages":"165 - 174"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46157518","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 : 2023-06-08DOI: 10.1080/10457097.2023.2218138
Kacper Grass
Abstract Since its publication, Alexander Wendt’s Social Theory of International Politics has become nearly synonymous with the constructivist school in the study of International Relations. Despite its innovative methodological approaches and bold challenges to neorealism’s hegemonic prevalence in the field, Wendt’s social theory faces issues on both theoretical and empirical grounds. With respect to the former, this critical evaluation of the social theory focuses primarily on Wendt’s neglect of causal questions in the examination of state formation as well as his omission of the psychological and sociological levels of analysis in the examination of cultural development. With respect to the latter, the evaluation focuses on instances in which the historical record contradicts Wendt’s proposed distinction between the Hobbesian culture of the past and the Lockean culture of the present as well as on instances in which international socialization and the establishment of commonly observed ideas and norms have not proven effective in preventing the exercise of power politics among states.
{"title":"Alexander Wendt’s “Social Theory of International Politics”: A Realist Critique","authors":"Kacper Grass","doi":"10.1080/10457097.2023.2218138","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10457097.2023.2218138","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Since its publication, Alexander Wendt’s Social Theory of International Politics has become nearly synonymous with the constructivist school in the study of International Relations. Despite its innovative methodological approaches and bold challenges to neorealism’s hegemonic prevalence in the field, Wendt’s social theory faces issues on both theoretical and empirical grounds. With respect to the former, this critical evaluation of the social theory focuses primarily on Wendt’s neglect of causal questions in the examination of state formation as well as his omission of the psychological and sociological levels of analysis in the examination of cultural development. With respect to the latter, the evaluation focuses on instances in which the historical record contradicts Wendt’s proposed distinction between the Hobbesian culture of the past and the Lockean culture of the present as well as on instances in which international socialization and the establishment of commonly observed ideas and norms have not proven effective in preventing the exercise of power politics among states.","PeriodicalId":55874,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Political Science","volume":"52 1","pages":"145 - 150"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46351444","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：