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 opening, in 2004, of John Rawls's personal archive prompted a new wave of Rawls scholarship. This work has deepened our understanding of the development and impact of Rawls's ideas and of the broader contours of twentieth-century analytical political philosophy. This article places these recent archival histories, for the first time, in the context of the longer history of attempts to historicize Rawls, beginning with the publication ofA Theory of Justicefifty years ago. Doing so does three things. First, it shows that early readers were more interested in how to think historically about Rawls than is sometimes assumed. Second, it reveals that partisan accounts of Rawls's place in history, popularized by those close to him, have sometimes made their way into the archival studies. Third and finally, it offers an opportunity to rethink how the twentieth-century history of political philosophy and political theory is often told.

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.

Introduces a symposium on John Rawls, which considers the degree to which Rawlsian liberalism is shaped by, or potentially useful for, analyzing democratic & international politics. Central concepts employed by Rawls in honing his political philosophy are described, as are primary political roadblocks to social cooperation that formed the political backdrop against which he shaped his mode of liberalism. The participants in this symposium provide a thumbnail of the current political dilemmas for which considerations of Rawls's insights (& weaknesses) may be efficacious. K. Coddon

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.