Suchergebnisse

Jacques Derrida and Giorgio Agamben both consider the question of whether there can be politics without violence, offering contrasting responses. In the case of Agamben, the remnant (that which remains) is disruptive and destabilising of present institutions; in the case of Derrida the revenant, the spectre, promises a future that is open. This reading of the two theories suggests that Derrida's response to the question of politics and violence is more persuasive than Agamben's. But the abstraction of his argument, like the tensions and contradictions in Agamben's, means that we are not hereby furnished with the resources to think politically about violence. Adapted from the source document.

Jacques Derrida and Giorgio Agamben both consider the question of whether there can be politics without violence, offering contrasting responses. In the case of Agamben, the remnant (that which remains) is disruptive and destabilising of present institutions; in the case of Derrida the revenant, the spectre, promises a future that is open. This reading of the two theories suggests that Derrida's response to the question of politics and violence is more persuasive than Agamben's. But the abstraction of his argument, like the tensions and contradictions in Agamben's, means that we are not hereby furnished with the resources to think politically about violence.

John Locke (1632—1704) and Georges Sorel (1859—1922) are commonly understood as representing opposed positions vis-a-vis revolution — with Locke representing the liberal distinction between violence and politics versus Sorel's rejection of politics in its pacified liberal sense. This interpretation is shown by a close reading of their works to be misleading. Both draw a necessary link between revolution and violence, and both mediate this link through the concept of `war'. They both depoliticize revolution, as for both of them `war' is understood as extra-political. The revolutions of 1989 emphasize what actually is true of previous revolutions: they cannot coherently be thought of as extra-political.

In contrast to liberal, Christian and other pacifist ethics and to just war theory, a range of 20th-century thinkers sought to normalize the role of violence in politics. This article examines the justificatory strategies of Weber, Sorel, Schmitt, Beauvoir, Merleau-Ponty and Fanon. They each engage in justificatory argument, deploying arguments for violence from instrumentality, from necessity and from virtue. All of these arguments raise problems of validity. However, we find that they are reinforced by the representation of violence in terms of a specific aesthetic, either tragedy or sublimity, and by certain rhetorical textual strategies. We conclude that the persuasive force of these arguments for violence rests as much, if not more, on aesthetics and rhetoric, as it does on argument.

This paper analyses, and examines the interpretation of, sex differences in political knowledge as measured in the context of nationally representative British surveys. The paper discusses the construction and operationalisation of 'knowledge' measures in survey research. British survey research finds striking sex differences in scores on political knowledge items. The inclusion of contextual variables, and of interactions between sex and other relevant variables, attenuates but does not eliminate consistent sex differences.

The concept 'community' is underspecified in the political theory literature – it must have a more specific reference than just some collectivity or some network of social relations. But attempts to specify what is specific about the relation of community are unsatisfactory. And references to 'actual physical' communities overlook the symbolic and imagined aspects of community, which furthermore destabilise putative communities as much as they stabilise them. Analysis of social relations and networks, and theories of what patterns of relations are conducive to human flourishing should deploy more precise sociological categories.

In response to a criticism by Toby Lowe (1996) of the authors' 1994 article "Blind Alleys: Communitarianism" (see abstracts 9712306 & 9712315]), it is suggested that the concept community is underspecified in the political theory literature -- it must have a more specific reference than just some collectivity or network of social relations. But attempts to identify what is specific about the relations of community are unsatisfactory. Additionally, references to actual physical community overlook its symbolic & imagined aspects, which destabilize putative communities as much as they stabilize them. Analysis of social relations & networks, & theories of what patterns of relations are conducive to human flourishing, should deploy more precise sociological categories. 7 References. Adapted from the source document.

This paper is a critical discussion of a number of related themes in John Rawls' Political Liberalism. First, it considers whether Rawls' recent statement of his position proceeds from an adequate methodology for political theory. In particular, it questions whether Rawls has succeeded in accommodating both universalist, analytic and particularist, interpretive aspects of the political theoretical enterprise. Second, it engages in critical analysis of the conceptions of the political and the public which lie at the core of Rawls' theory. In this part of the paper, an important though not exclusive focus will be certain questions raised by Susan Moller Okin and other feminist critics of Rawls about the internal consistency of his conception of justice. It is argued that Political Liberalism neither addresses these questions explicitly nor, contrary to Okin's view, provides implicit conceptual tools which could allow a sympathetic interpreter of Rawls to do so. The direction of the argument will suggest certain preconditions for the development of a more substantively and methodologically adequate approach to political theory.

This article presents 'Communitarianism' in political theory as a 'Blind Alley'. This is on the grounds that it is difficult to find a political theorist who is willing to be called a communitarian, because the literature lacks any well delineated concept of community, and because a number of awkward theoretical questions, notably about power, arise which are not clearly addressed within the literature. Furthermore, communitarianism has been a blind alley for feminists. Although feminism and so-called communitarianism share an opposition to some other varieties of social and political theory, the apparent affinities between feminism and communitarianism mask significant differences.

Argues that communitarianism in political theory represents a "blind alley," based on the grounds that it is difficult to find a political theorist who is willing to be called a communitarian, because the literature lacks any well-delineated concept of community, & because a number of awkward theoretical questions, notably about power, arise that are not clearly addressed. Communitarianism has also been a blind alley for feminists. Although feminism & so-called communitarianism share an opposition to some other varieties of social & political theory, the apparent affinities between them mask significant differences. 30 References. Adapted from the source document.