Suchergebnisse

The reception of Rawls in France has been an extremely complex story where forces of innovation have been, in the end, overwhelmed by the resistance of 'philosophical nationalism'. This is surprising as, in many ways, France was going through tremendous changes & modernization at the time of the translation of A Theory of Justice in 1987. In that context, Rawls's project seemed to have something useful & suggestive to offer: bridging the gap between freedom & equality in a new version of social democracy, combining social justice & market efficiency, respecting the plurality of values within civil society & creating a consensus on democratic legitimacy. But the intellectual obstacles, represented mostly by the French idiosyncratic brand of republicanism, were to prove too strong to allow for a true 'liberalization' of French intellectual & political life. Whereas a number of lawyers, economists & political scientists as well as proportion of the French civil service saw all the benefits of a rigorous engagement with Rawls, philosophers & the intelligentsia on the whole, with the exception of Paul Ricoeur, reacted negatively to Rawls. 1 Appendix. [Copyright 2002 Sage Publications Ltd.]

The article has three parts. The first is devoted to the analysis of some features of Italian philosophy that might be used to explain why analytic philosophy of politics, & analytic philosophy in general, has few practitioners. The second part gives an explanation of the relatively small audience Rawls has among liberals in Italy. Some features of the Italian liberal tradition might be helpful in explaining this fact; hence a short presentation of these features (as exemplified by Croce) is outlined. The third part deals with the reception of Rawls's ideas among the small group of analytic political philosophers in Italy. 1 Appendix. [Copyright 2002 Sage Publications Ltd.]

This article analyses the reception of John Rawls's thought by Otfried Hoffe, Jurgen Habermas & other political theorists on the German liberal left. It argues that, ironically, as Rawls's theory has become more historically self-conscious & sociologically oriented since A Theory of Justice, Habermas, while denying any fundamental difference between him & Rawls in this 'neo-Kantian family quarrel', has moved in the opposite direction. One might even say that there has been some mid-Atlantic convergence in political theory. Nevertheless, there remain peculiarities of German political thought, in particular its more sociological bent, a (positive or negative) fixation on the state, & the persistently felt need finally to reconcile a perceived conflict between liberalism & democracy. 1 Appendix. [Copyright 2002 Sage Publications Ltd.]

The reception of Rawls in France has been an extremely complex story where forces of innovation have been, in the end, overwhelmed by the resistance of `philosophical nationalism'. This is surprising as, in many ways, France was going through tremendous changes and modernization at the time of the translation of A Theory of Justice in 1987. In that context, Rawls's project seemed to have something useful and suggestive to offer: bridging the gap between freedom and equality in a new version of social democracy, combining social justice and market efficiency, respecting the plurality of values within civil society and creating a consensus on democratic legitimacy. But the intellectual obstacles, represented mostly by the French idiosyncratic brand of republicanism, were to prove too strong to allow for a true `liberalization' of French intellectual and political life. Whereas a number of lawyers, economists and political scientists as well as proportion of the French civil service saw all the benefits of a rigorous engagement with Rawls, philosophers and the intelligentsia on the whole, with the exception of Paul Ricoeur, reacted negatively to Rawls.

This article discusses the reception of Rawls's work in Britain. A number of difficulties are first identified in attempting to distinguish a distinctively British context of reception. Because of the extensive commonality with British political theory, Rawls's work was almost instantly absorbed within political theory in Britain. Important early criticisms focused on Rawls's methodology, his conception of the original position & his treatment of liberty. Reactions on the left indicated a failure to appreciate the extent of Rawls's egalitarianism. It is further suggested that certain features of his work -- its abstractness, relative lack of an historical dimension, strongly normative character, constitutionalism & anti-political bent -- have fitted less comfortably within British political theory. It is also noted that Rawls's impact on political thought in Britain outside of academic political theory has been negligible. The article concludes by speculating that Rawls's influence on political theory in Britain may be on the wane. 1 Appendix. [Copyright 2002 Sage Publications Ltd.]

The article has three parts. The first is devoted to the analysis of some features of Italian philosophy that might be used to explain why analytic philosophy of politics, and analytic philosophy in general, has few practitioners. The second part gives an explanation of the relatively small audience Rawls has among liberals in Italy. Some features of the Italian liberal tradition might be helpful in explaining this fact; hence a short presentation of these features (as exemplified by Croce) is outlined. The third part deals with the reception of Rawls's ideas among the small group of analytic political philosophers in Italy.

This article analyses the reception of John Rawls's thought by Otfried Höffe, Jürgen Habermas and other political theorists on the German liberal left. It argues that, ironically, as Rawls's theory has become more historically self-conscious and sociologically oriented since A Theory of Justice, Habermas, while denying any fundamental difference between him and Rawls in this `neo-Kantian family quarrel', has moved in the opposite direction. One might even say that there has been some mid-Atlantic convergence in political theory. Nevertheless, there remain peculiarities of German political thought, in particular its more sociological bent, a (positive or negative) fixation on the state, and the persistently felt need finally to reconcile a perceived conflict between liberalism and democracy.

This article discusses the reception of Rawls's work in Britain. A number of difficulties are first identified in attempting to distinguish a distinctively British context of reception. Because of the extensive commonality with British political theory, Rawls's work was almost instantly absorbed within political theory in Britain. Important early criticisms focused on Rawls's methodology, his conception of the original position and his treatment of liberty. Reactions on the left indicated a failure to appreciate the extent of Rawls's egalitarianism. It is further suggested that certain features of his work - its abstractness, relative lack of an historical dimension, strongly normative character, constitutionalism and anti-political bent - have fitted less comfortably within British political theory. It is also noted that Rawls's impact on political thought in Britain outside of academic political theory has been negligible. The article concludes by speculating that Rawls's influence on political theory in Britain may be on the wane.

In a comprehensive assessment of the penetration of Rawls's ideas in the Netherlands since 1971 five debates are discerned in which different aspects are highlighted or play a role. Some of these debates are more or less ongoing ones, some overlap with each other, & some can be pinpointed more precisely in time. In the first 15 years following the publication of A Theory of Justice, attention was focused on the distributive implications of 'justice as fairness'. Next, the 'liberalism-communitarianism debate' came to the fore. More recently, Kantian aspects of Rawls's theory have been discussed. A fourth, also more recent debate relates to problems of multiculturalism. Finally, in recent years, & more or less in conjunction with the debate on multiculturalism, the current situation of the Dutch welfare state has been discussed. Here we get back to the core of Rawlsian theory, its distributive implications. But now it is argued that his theory focuses too much on equality at the expense of responsibility & incentives. 1 Appendix. [Copyright 2002 Sage Publications Ltd.]

Perhaps because John Rawls attempts to separate ideal theory & non-ideal theory too sharply from each other, The Law of Peoples formulates principles to govern cooperative international relations only among the ideal states that Rawls labels 'peoples'. An important & presumably numerous category of non-peoples are those he calls 'outlaw states'. To guide international relations between peoples & outlaw states Rawls offers only principles of just war. Either Rawls is assuming in a kind of Hobbesian pessimism that large numbers of actual states are in a permanent state of war with each other, or he has neglected to formulate principles to govern non-hostile international relations between peoples & outlaw states. This article explores whether, within Rawls's own categories, it might be possible to specify a minimal content for a form of international public reason in accord with which some peoples & some outlaw states could avoid war with each other & treat each other with reciprocity. It is essential to incorporate the fact, which Rawls acknowledges but generally ignores, that not all internally repressive states are externally aggressive. It may be possible for peoples to coexist peacefully with the subset of outlaw states that are non-aggressive. One great danger, however, is that reciprocally acceptable terms for international relations would need to leave unchallenged too much violation of human rights within the repressive states. [Copyright 2002 Sage Publications, Ltd.]