导论:政治思想史上的人群——人民的视野

Q3 Social Sciences Review of Politics Pub Date : 2023-08-15 DOI:10.1017/S0034670523000347
S. Jaffe, Guillermo Graíño Ferrer
{"title":"导论:政治思想史上的人群——人民的视野","authors":"S. Jaffe, Guillermo Graíño Ferrer","doi":"10.1017/S0034670523000347","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The article introduces the second part of a symposium, “The Crowd in the History of Political Thought,” which is being published as a two-part special issue, and which explores visions of the role of the people and populism in the writings of past thinkers. The articles in this second part are by European scholars with disparate interests and approaches to the history of political thought. Populism proves difficult to define, partly because populist politicians evince different understandings of “the people” and the purpose of government. The liberal, democratic, and national visions of “the people” can be harmonious but can also become disharmonious. Untangling them by exploring how thinkers in the history of political thought distinguished between crowds and peoples can help us to better understand the ideological dynamics of our moment. Articles on Hobbes and Spinoza offer disparate accounts of the differences between peoples and crowds. Herder, by contrast, helps us understand the political self-determination of peoples, while Schmitt and Arendt offer rival visions of the tensions between democratic and liberal principles.","PeriodicalId":52549,"journal":{"name":"Review of Politics","volume":"85 1","pages":"443 - 449"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Introduction: The Crowd in the History of Political Thought—Visions of the People\",\"authors\":\"S. Jaffe, Guillermo Graíño Ferrer\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S0034670523000347\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The article introduces the second part of a symposium, “The Crowd in the History of Political Thought,” which is being published as a two-part special issue, and which explores visions of the role of the people and populism in the writings of past thinkers. The articles in this second part are by European scholars with disparate interests and approaches to the history of political thought. Populism proves difficult to define, partly because populist politicians evince different understandings of “the people” and the purpose of government. The liberal, democratic, and national visions of “the people” can be harmonious but can also become disharmonious. Untangling them by exploring how thinkers in the history of political thought distinguished between crowds and peoples can help us to better understand the ideological dynamics of our moment. Articles on Hobbes and Spinoza offer disparate accounts of the differences between peoples and crowds. Herder, by contrast, helps us understand the political self-determination of peoples, while Schmitt and Arendt offer rival visions of the tensions between democratic and liberal principles.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52549,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Review of Politics\",\"volume\":\"85 1\",\"pages\":\"443 - 449\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Review of Politics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0034670523000347\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Politics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0034670523000347","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文介绍了一个专题讨论会的第二部分,“政治思想史上的人群”,该专题讨论会以两部分的特刊形式出版,探讨了过去思想家作品中人民和民粹主义的作用。第二部分的文章来自欧洲学者,他们对政治思想史有着不同的兴趣和研究方法。事实证明,民粹主义很难定义,部分原因是民粹主义政客对“人民”和政府的目的有着不同的理解。“人民”的自由、民主和国家愿景可以是和谐的,但也可以变得不和谐。通过探索政治思想史上的思想家如何区分群体和民族,解开它们的纠缠,可以帮助我们更好地理解我们这个时代的意识形态动态。关于霍布斯和斯宾诺莎的文章提供了不同的关于民族和群体之间差异的描述。相比之下,赫尔德帮助我们理解了人民的政治自决,而施密特和阿伦特则对民主和自由原则之间的紧张关系提出了对立的看法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Introduction: The Crowd in the History of Political Thought—Visions of the People
Abstract The article introduces the second part of a symposium, “The Crowd in the History of Political Thought,” which is being published as a two-part special issue, and which explores visions of the role of the people and populism in the writings of past thinkers. The articles in this second part are by European scholars with disparate interests and approaches to the history of political thought. Populism proves difficult to define, partly because populist politicians evince different understandings of “the people” and the purpose of government. The liberal, democratic, and national visions of “the people” can be harmonious but can also become disharmonious. Untangling them by exploring how thinkers in the history of political thought distinguished between crowds and peoples can help us to better understand the ideological dynamics of our moment. Articles on Hobbes and Spinoza offer disparate accounts of the differences between peoples and crowds. Herder, by contrast, helps us understand the political self-determination of peoples, while Schmitt and Arendt offer rival visions of the tensions between democratic and liberal principles.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Review of Politics
Review of Politics Social Sciences-Political Science and International Relations
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
94
期刊最新文献
Any Time, Any Place, Any Way, Any Pace: Markets, EdTech, and the spaces of schooling. Ethical Growth in History: Good News and Bad Eric MacGilvray: Liberal Freedom: Pluralism, Polarization, and Politics. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022. Pp. xvi, 221.) Ben Jones: Apocalypse without God: Apocalyptic Thought, Ideal Politics, and the Limits of Utopian Hope. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022. Pp. xiv, 225.) Jean-Yves Frétigné: To Live Is to Resist: The Life of Antonio Gramsci. Translated by Laura Marris. Foreword by Nadia Urbinati. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2021. Pp. xxii, 306.)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1