Suchergebnisse

Introduction : what is republicanism? -- Republican ideas in the ancient world -- Renaissance republicanism -- Early modern republicanism -- English republicanism -- Post-revolutionary English republicanism -- Republicanism during the Enlightenment -- The American Revolution -- The French Revolution -- Republicanism in the nineteenth century -- Republicanism today.

A Rawlsian interpretation of citizenship that combines both liberal & republican themes is argued to provide an account of citizenship more appropriate for modern democracies than alternative interpretations, eg, that offered by communitarian critics of political liberalism. Liberal republicanism gives a convincing interpretation of the nature & value of citizenship & provides the basis for a radical political agenda. 35 References. Adapted from the source document.

A review essay on books by Philip Pettit, (1) The Common Mind: An Essay on Psychology, Society and Politics (Oxford: Oxford U Press, 1993); & (2) Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government (Oxford: Clarendon, 1997). These volumes represent a recapitulation of the many articles & co-authored works produced by Pettit over the last 20 years. They cover the philosophy of mind, the philosophy of social science, & political philosophy, without any serious attempt to link them under one theoretical umbrella. Instead, they illustrate how philosophy is related to practical arenas of political & social life. The Common Mind presents a fairly traditional metaphysical & epistemological view of a physical world whose underlying processes realize higher-level systems with both emergent & distinct properties. Knowledge relies on the right causal relation between the knower & the world. Republicanism supports a special sense of freedom for political theory that is a prerequisite for other social values, including justice. A second theme focuses on the contrast between consequential & deontological approaches in relation to how freedom should be articulated in social institutions. Pettit's transition from social metaphysics to his social, political conceptions is examined. J. Lindroth

Introduces a collection of critical responses to Michael Hardt & Antonio Negri's Empire (2000), a text about globalization & multitude that contributes to academic interest in the global revolution against capital & on behalf of labor. Hardt & Negri's approach to politics, centered on economic production, is compared to Hannah Arendt's thought, which separates politics from economics. Hardt & Negri's postmodern republicanism, which sees the demise of boundaries, is then contrasted with Arendt's position, wherein the preservation of politics & freedom relies on such distinctions. The emancipatory potential of this breakdown in boundaries is evident in Hardt & Negri's thought on geographic changes, organizational changes in economic production, & changes in labor. While Hardt & Negri share with Arendt an idea of Foucauldian biopolitics, the former's normative conclusions for political life derived from this diverge sharply from the latter's. Three reasons are provided for why Hardt & Negri assess labor differently from Arendt: (1) Labor's value is beyond measure. (2) Labor provides the ontological basis for global democracy, for the emergence of multitude. (3) That labor is productive of life indicates its excessive value. Hardt & Negri's celebration of deterritorialization as the condition of possibility for absolute democracy, ie, the formation of the multitude, is illustrated via French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin's 14 Feb 2003 UN speech against the impending US invasion of Iraq. Analysis of the notion of the place (ie, the UN) from whence the political action (the speech) emanates suggests that Arendt's republicanism, which relies on the preservation of constituted forms of power, may mask authoritarianism. It is argued that Hardt & Negri wish to challenge all forms of constituted power. Some attention is then given to relating the thought of Niccolo Machiavelli & Antonio Gramsci to Hardt & Negri's work. J. Zendejas

A re-examination of two heavily covered 2008 legal battles -- the "virginity" & "burqa" affairs -- illustrates the capacity of the secular spirit to resist the religious spirit in France. These two affairs served as occasions for confirming & consolidating the republican consensus that had in 2004 been forged over the law prohibiting the wearing of religious symbols in public schools. This consensus places strict limits on the recognition of cultural & religious (especially Muslim) religious particularisms in the Republic. Some of its ambiguities, however, are worth unpacking -- in particular, the confusion between arguments drawn from republican law & those drawn from French culture. In contrast to this conservative republicanism, critical republicanism takes care not to posit that the institutions & norms specific to a particular community -- up to & including that of the French Republic -- are necessarily in keeping with republican principles. While it is absent from the Stasi Commission Report (France 2003), a similar line of reasoning can be found in the Bouchard-Taylor Report, which offers a republican justification for certain practices based on "reasonable compromises" (Quebec 2008). Adapted from the source document.

THE AUTHOR ARGUES THAT IN THE MIDDLE AGES MONARCHY AND REPUBLICANISM WERE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE; HIERARCHY AND ORGANICISM WERE NOT SPECIFICALLY CHRISTIAN IDEAS AND SHOULD NOT, THEREFORE, BE SEEN AS THE CHRISTIAN ELEMENT IN REPUBLICAN THOUGHT. ONE SHOULD NOT ASSUME THAT CHRISTIANITY OR ANY OTHER HISTORICAL IDEOLOGY HAS AN ESSENTIAL CORE OF UNCHANGING CHARACTERISTICS.