Some Disquiet about 'Difference' 1

This thesis offers a positive reinterpretation of the relevance of Isaiah Berlin’s political thought. It re-examines his work hermeneutically with the double aim of claiming its intrinsic relevance as a work of political theory beyond what most critics have acknowledged, first; and second, with the intention of using it to draw conclusions that will address some of the most pressing discussions found in contemporary liberal political theory, such as the conflicting link between value pluralism and liberalism, or the recent confrontation between political moralism and political realism. This is achieved by reading Berlin hermeneutically, and thus transcending the categorical differentiation between historical and philosophical methods in his work. The argument is presented in three sections. The first one is a biographical introduction that acts as a methodological statement. In it, the dilemma on the nature of values that sits at the heart of Berlin’s work is defined by reference to his biographical context. The second section of the thesis is formed by three chapters that look at the central philosophical aspects of Berlin’s political thought: value pluralism and a neo-Kantian normative ethical theory that emerges in relation to it. By claiming a relationship between Berlin and Kant, and by presenting value pluralism as a meta-ethical theory, the thesis offers an alternative reading of Berlin’s work that deviates substantively from most existing scholarship. The third section of the thesis compares Berlin’s political interpretation of value pluralism with that of Bernard Williams and John Rawls, in order to claim that liberal theory demands a hermeneutic method in its justification. This will show the enduring relevance of Berlin’s contribution to political theory as one that expands beyond his own historical moment, against what many commentators have argued. It also raises a strong claim on the crucial implications of method in political theory, calling for a more hermeneutic approach.

Developments in contemporary analytic political theory have called for political theory to situate itself near political science, to pay attention to political institutions, to follow the research output of the social sciences, and to present sensitivity to method. This empirical and methodological turn has brought about a debate regarding the form and desirability of such empirically grounded political theory. We aim, first, to clarify what the empirical turn in political theory implies for research in political theory. We shall situate such empirically grounded political theory in contemporary analytic political theory, in contemporary analytic political theory’s descriptive and prescriptive steps, and also examine how this turn complements contemporary analytic political theory’s evaluative step. Second, to suggest a defense of this empirical development, as if properly understood, it would assist empirically grounded contemporary analytic political theory to achieve its own stated goals. Third, to provide a template for a research design in empirical contemporary analytic political theory.

This paper aims to advocate a Williamsian approach to political realism and contends that contemporary realist political theory is built on an ‘a-theoretical core’ that the paper will call ‘political realism’ in the broader sense (for a very different approach to Williams, see Hall, 2013). The central tenet of this thesis is that contemporary realist political theory fundamentally differs from mainstream political theory not only in its political outlook, but also in its views about the tasks and prospects of theorizing. In other words, ‘political realism’ imposes severe constraints on theorizing in a realist key and makes contemporary realist political theory especially vulnerable to criticisms coming from mainstream political theory. This paper contends, however, that the inherent limitedness of contemporary realist political theory is a fair price that is worth paying for a more realistic understanding of politics.The argument of the paper is built on the Williamsian assumption that mainstream political theory is ultimately a sort of ‘applied morality’ and that the fundamental problem with mainstream political theory as ‘applied morality’ is not so much its strong commitment to pre-political moral principles as its being fundamentally shaped by an ethical theory.

Critically assesses conceptions of democracy in different republican traditions GBS_insertPreviewButtonPopup(['ISBN:9780748643066','ISBN:9780748677597','ISBN:9780748677610']); This volume directly engages with the relationship and differences between the key strands in contemporary republican political theory. It brings together leading international scholars representing the most important positions in republican political theory today: neorepublicanism, Kantian republicanism, and populist as well as realist republicanism – the first time that these positions actively engage with each other. It expands upon the foundational principle of republicanism - 'freedom as non-domination' - to articulate new theoretical insights into connections between liberty, law and democratic politics, and a radically new conceptualisation of the meaning and structure of democratic institutions and procedures. Key Features Treats historical and theoretical perspectives together to give an alternative to the political and legal theory of contemporary liberalism For students and researchers in political theory and philosophy Contributors include Philip Pettit, John Ferejohn, Rainer Forst, James Bohman, Cécile Laborde, Jack N. Rakove and John P. McCormick "

Over the last few decades, the neologisms social imaginary and political imaginary have become ubiquitous in the jargon of the humanities and the theoretical social sciences. And yet, despite the pervasive use, there is remarkably little convergence on what these terms mean. How have they captivated the vernacular of contemporary social, cultural, and political theory? Tracing the sources of the idiom imaginary to phenomenological studies of psychology in 1940s France to the present, this article examines two key historical junctures: the moment when imaginary morphed from an individual to a collective category in 1960s French philosophy and its translation and insertion into anglophone cultural and political theory in the 1980s and ’90s. In contemporary anglophone theory, imaginary has become a proxy for the concepts of ideology and utopia in the wake of the culturalist turn of the 1990s and 2000s. As such, the sprouting of imaginaries is inseparable from an increasingly consensual cultural idealism that dominates contemporary cultural and political theory.

This work seeks to trace a possible connection between the foundational principles of liberal political theory, established primarily by T. Hobbes, J. Locke, and B. Spinoza, and its developed or contemporary practices. These practices are examined in relation to fundamental concepts that were previously understood as integral to the generalized notion of the good human life, such as faith, family, love, manliness, etc., and that, as a result of its influence, underwent significant – sometimes radical – changes in the outline of the liberal logic. The piece formulates key liberal concepts like progress, consumption, and tolerance to elucidate the reasons for liberalism's success, the potential negative implications of this success, and the challenges stemming from the continued unfolding of the liberal logic for concepts like freedom of speech, meritocracy, universal peace, etc. embedded in liberal theory. The analysis, establishing a direct connection between the theoretical foundations of liberal theory and the success of its practices, highlights the impossibility of transforming the latter without reassessing the former. It posits the inadequacy of political opposition to liberalism without a preliminary theoretical resolution of the fundamental issues that liberal theory poses.

1. IntroductionRichard Rorty's place in contemporary political theory is contentious. He has and continues to be a figure that inspires strong reactions. However, reasons for this have not remained constant. While Rorty in past has been understood both as a dangerous philosophical radical, undermining grounds of Western thought and politics, and as a myopic apologist for status quo, disagreement around reading him today surrounds his relevance. Rorty was once incendiary and dangerous. Presently however, he seems commonplace and uncontroversial. While many would still strongly agree or disagree with his ideas, they would not feel need to engage with him in any detail. Consequently, outside pragmatism, Rorty has generally fallen out of wider conversation of social and political thought. While he is often mentioned, he is rarely seriously engaged on any issue. He is a common object of casual dismissal but an infrequent subject for productive engagement. However, when approached in a certain way, engagement with Rorty can yield fundamental critical and reconstructive resources for thinking politics in present.This article confronts this critical situation by arguing for necessity of reading Rorty into contemporary political theory. However, point is not simply to read Rorty but to read him in a certain manner, in relation to a certain question. Against typical readings of him as an end-of-philosophy anti-theorist, we must examine Rorty exactly in terms of sphere that he considered most important for philosophy: metaphilosophy - that is, reflection on activity of philosophy and its role and capacities in human life (Bernstein 2010, 11; West 1989, 199).Rorty uniquely confronted crisis in philosophical foundations and resulting question of role and capacities of a philosophy without grounds in wider political and cultural life. His work was thus consistently oriented to this widest of all philosophical issues. Such a project increases his significance not only because of his ability to engage such intractable issues but for his skill at speaking across traditional boundaries in constellation of Western Political thought (and beyond as well) while doing so. Rorty engaged Analytic thinkers, Pragmatists, Critical theorists and Continental philosophers (amongst others) in an inclusive philosophical dialogue that managed, simultaneously, to speak to all these groups. It is in this sense that he was accurately described as the most influential contemporary American philosopher (Klepp 1990).However, Rorty's importance goes beyond addressing wide issues and many groups. Both of these reasons speak to his relevance only if those issues and groups are still important to political thought.1 Rorty does offer a path away from crisis in foundations which confronts that problem without ignoring it or slipping back into some appeal to a neutral perspective. Further, he does do this by engaging and drawing on many perspectives and attempting to speak to all aforementioned groups. However, how he achieves both these aims is important point, especially for his relevance to contemporary thought. Rorty reorients thought to present. It is both subject and object of his philosophy; that which it speaks to and about. His perspective attempts to subsist without grounds by directly engaging present social and political world, its assumptions and limitations.Further, unlike genealogical approaches which also claim such an orientation, Rorty's does so without an explicitly critical orientation to present. Rather, as will be demonstrated below, Rorty's thought summarizes present. It theorizes it and renders explicit its own self-justification. Due to this unique relation, whereby he draws out and reveals philosophical content underlying much of contemporary liberal democratic politics, Rorty's work offers a distinctive critical and reconstructive site for political and social theory. …

ABSTRACTThis article examines liberal political theory’s limits and possibilities in relation to indigenous self-determination. It shows that while the liberal tradition has provided theoretical rationale to the colonial project it is also equipped to rationalise a politics of substantive indigenous inclusion. The article introduces the recourses that exist within liberal theory for non-colonial interpretations of citizenship, democracy and sovereignty. It shows how these concepts may be interpreted to contribute to a liberal theory of indigeneity as a theory emphasising independent indigenous authority on the one hand and culturally contextualised and substantive participation in the politics of the state on the other.

Bernard Williams’s “Realism and Moralism in Political Theory” is without question one of the central texts of liberal political realism. The success of the text is due to its influential critique of dominant liberal approaches – primarily that of John Rawls –, and in its distinct approach to the grounding of liberalism itself. Even though Williams’s text had a great impact on contemporary political theory, understanding its philosophical foundations is unfairly neglected in academic discourse. The aim of this paper is to show the fundamental view behind Williams’s rejection of moralism that dominates political thinking. The strength of Williams’s approach is that it makes it clear that rationality has a limited authority in morality as well as in politics, and that it redefines the relation between morality and politics. Williams’s view has its own set of challenges, which come forward expressly in his account of legitimacy. Nevertheless, Williams’s realist arguments are indeed compelling for contemporary theorists.

This ambitious and lively book argues for a rehabilitation of the concept of 'human needs' as central to politics and political theory. Contemporary political philosophy has focused on issues of justice and welfare to the exclusion of the important issues of political participation, democratic sovereignty, and the satisfaction of human needs, and this has had a deleterious effect on political practice. Lawrence Hamilton develops a compelling positive conception of human needs: the evaluation of needs must be located within a more general analysis of institutions, but can in turn help to justify forms of coercive authority that are directed toward the transformation of political and social institutions and practices. His argument is animated throughout by provocative and original discussions of topics such as autonomy, recognition, rights, civil society, liberalism and democracy, and will interest a wide range of readers in political and social philosophy, political theory, law, development and policy.

The article examines the imperatives of applying contemporary political-theoretical intelligence to political knowledge and political truth. The limits of the contemporary political theory`s tasks are being set, which is gradually updated after the post-behavioral turn. The relativism of contemporary political knowledge associated, with the peculiarities of political activity is studied. The significance of the fundamental justifications` structure of the political existence of the present day is investigated. The influence of political doctrines, which has a claim not only on the correction of macro-political governance and the transformation of the life of society on certain ideological principles, but also of universal significance, is outlined. Hypotheses are put forward on political truth as part of the conceptual-categorical apparatus of modern political science, which allows conducting an examination of the concepts` correspondence and interaction between the political system and the global ecosystem. The significance of political epistemicity is determined in accordance with the priorities and criteria of effective political decisions. The distinction between politicization of ethnicity and ethnization of politics, which introduces an element of instability into political systems of countries of the world, is substantiated. Emphasized the importance of concept of political truth applying within contemporary theoretical discussions and political practice. The influence of the content establishing and the integrated value of political truth as a symbol and a real phenomenon in political science and political life of the modern world is considered. The peculiarities of evolutionary epistemology as a paradigm of ordering ideas about ways of obtaining a plausible political knowledge are studied. The specificity of political epistemism in the evolutionary-cultural context as a result of a long process of approbation of scientific and applied provisions is analyzed. The conditions of establishing possible and used connotations of the notion of truth in the modern scientific environment of political science are revealed. The processes of the constitution of political epistemology, as a subdiscipline, focused on the answers to the fundamental questions of contemporary political theory, are given attention.The main scientific-methodological and philosophical directions of interpretation of the concept of truth in relation to the main components of the political system and political process are considered. Established problems of finding the truth in modern political conditions characterized by variability and dynamism.New centers of authoritative substantiation, which can become only institutionalized scientific communities, research centers, association of expert centers on the local, regional, national and global level, are considered.The need to form an interdoclining and even deligative, based on the discussion and the open approval of political truth is analyzed. It is concluded that the epistemological dimension of political truth, focused on achieving reliable political knowledge on the basis of the intensive development of modern political theory, theoretical political knowledge goes through the improvement of the concept-categorical apparatus and previously established conceptual content.

This article discusses three main orientations in recent works of legal and political theory about the family—contract-based, community-based, and rights-based—and argues that none of these takes adequate account of two paradoxical features of family life and of the family's relationship to the state. A coherent political and legal theory of the family in the contemporary United States requires recognition of the relational rights and responsibilities intrinsic to family life.

Feminist political thought is a capacious term that for these purposes includes works pertaining not only to the fields of “political theory” (in political science) and “political philosophy” (in philosophy) but also to writings generally designated under the rubric of “feminist theory” or “feminist studies” that address politics and political systems, structures, and relations by problematizing gender, sex, sexual difference, and sexuality. If it is not remotely possible to argue that all political thought is “feminist,” it is surely the case that almost all feminist thought is in some palpable sense “political,” insofar as it emerges in academia from out of historical and contemporary movements for women’s liberation and through critiques of gender inequality and patriarchal relations of power and domination. Yet at the same time the term “feminist” is impossible to define with any specificity, given the differences and divisions that constitute it as a multifaceted academic field propelled by epistemological and political contestations over agency, subjectivity, identity, and power that trouble the very coherence of the terms “woman” and “women” themselves. Consequently, this bibliography takes a heterogeneous outlook on its subject matter rather than one that solely focuses “feminist” within the field of political theory, much less in terms of a particular methodology. Three additional notes: First, readers expecting the perhaps familiar designation of various ideological “isms” sometimes associated with the categorization of feminist political thought (e.g., “liberal”; “radical”; “socialist”; “anarchist”; “lesbian”; “eco”; “postmodern”; “posthuman”) will more often find instead categories that specify problems and instigate debates that often cross ideological rubrics and positions. Second, the organization of categories does not follow the standard designation of “first, second, and third waves,” opting instead for as many disruptions and displacements of those textbook conventions as possible. Finally, it is important to acknowledge that feminist political thought is enmeshed with other contemporary disciplinary knowledges and fields of inquiry (e.g., queer theory; new materialisms; masculinities; posthumanist orientations; critical race studies; queer of color critique; global ecologies; neoliberalism; postcolonial and transnational studies) in ways that require some attention to these intersections as well.

Sidney and Beatrice Webb were social reformers, influential early members of the Fabian Society, and principal founders of both the London School of Economics and the New Statesman . Their writings on trade unionism, the cooperative movement, labor history, and local government had a considerable effect on contemporary political theory and practice. Theirs was, on the face of it, an unlikely partnership. Beatrice Potter Webb was the daughter of a wealthy businessman. Sidney Webb, in contrast, was the son of a London shopkeeper. Their intellectual partnership, however, was productive. They married in 1892 and for the next 50 years jointly worked toward creating a science of society.

Can liberalism continue to serve feminist purposes as the most practical vehicle for gaining the reforms needed for women to lead fuller and freer lives, or are feminism’s aspirations incompatible with the underlying premises of liberal theory? This book explores the troubled relationship between feminist theory and liberal political theory by examining the work of three contemporary feminists – Martha Nussbaum, Susan Moller Okin and Jean Hampton – who are unwilling to give up on liberalism. Abbey examines why, and in what ways, each of these theorists believe that liberalism offers the normative and political resources for the improvement of women’s situations. In doing this the book explores issues at the heart of recent debates in feminist and political theory, including the sexual contract, public/domestic separation, structures of power, intersectionality, care and dependency. The Return of Feminist Liberalism offers new insights into the tension between feminism and Rawlsian liberalism and will be welcomed by a wide range of readers in political theory, political philosophy, gender studies and feminist theory.