Suchergebnisse

"As rapid economic development brings increasing uncertainty in East Asia, interest in a new version of republicanism, termed is neo-Roman republicanism, is growing across the region. Conceptualized as liberty as non-domination, this new form of republicanism has inspired not only Western but also East Asian political theorists. However, neo-Roman republican ideas in Northeast Asian countries continue to face serious conceptual and political challenges, which scholarly literature on both republicanism and on East Asian politics has largely failed to confront. This book addresses these challenges by surveying the latest theoretical contributions to the studies of republicanism in Western countries and the latest interpretations of how republicanism, including both communitarian republicanism and neo-Roman republicanism, has been appropriated in countries in East Asia. In particular, it deals with the key question of whether liberty as non-domination can work in non-Western contexts where the fundamental tenets of liberal democracy such as moral individualism and value pluralism, do not predominate. Across three sections, the chapters first provide a conceptual overview of republicanism as a global political theory, they then consider how republicanism has historically been received, resisted, and translated into East Asia, and finally, examine how historically informed possibilities fit with the emergent needs of contemporary Northeast Asian societies"--

Communitarianism and republicanism are closely related schools of thought - so closely related that friend and foe alike sometimes conflate them. The relationship is evident in their Latin roots: communitarians are concerned with communitas, the common life of people who form a community, and republicans are devoted to the res publica, the good of the public. Of the two, however, only republicanism traces its lineage as well as its name to ancient Rome. Indeed, scholars often look beyond Rome to the philosophers and city-states of ancient Greece, particularly Aristotle and Sparta, for the origins of republicanism. For the origins of communitarianism, though, one need look no farther back than the nineteenth century, and it is only since the 1980s that the term 'communitarian' has gained its present currency as a result of the so-called liberal-communitarian debate.

" Continuing the analysis of contemporary issues through the lens of ancient theories beyond the themes of Enduring Empire and the award-winning On Oligarchy, On Civic Republicanism explores the enduring relevance of the ancient concepts of republicanism and civic virtue to modern questions about political engagement and identity. Examining both ancient and early modern conceptions of civic republicanism, the contributors respond to the work of thinkers ranging from Plato and Aristotle to Machiavelli, Montesquieu, and Wollstonecraft. A testament to the continuing influence of the concept and the ongoing scholarly debate which surrounds it, On Civic Republicanism addresses fundamental questions regarding democratic participation, liberal democracy, and the public good. Its essays speak to the many ways in which the idea of the republic still challenges us today."

McCormick opposes Machiavelli's democratic republicanism and Rousseau's aristocratic republicanism by showing that Machiavelli and Rousseau have a very different view of the republican institutions of Rome. Why does Rousseau's "tale of Rome" differ form Machiavelli's "tale of Rome"? Why does Rousseau repudiate Machiavelli's more democratic reconstruction of the Roman Republic? And more generally, why does Rousseau devote so many pages to the republican institutions of Rome? He is looking at Rome to describe a kind of democracy or a kind of aristocracy?

These are but two of the difficult questions that arise when one examines the claim that crime is a public wrong. I take it, though, that their difficulty is an indication of the importance of thinking through the presuppositions and implications of this conception of crime, not a reason to abandon it. A thorough 'thinking through' is too large and complex a task for this chapter, but it is possible to make a case here for the right way to proceed with such an undertaking. That right way, in my view, is to look to the republican tradition of political thought for guidance in unravelling the problems that surround the analysis and practice of criminal law. In particular, I shall argue that republicanism can help us to understand what 'the public' is, how an action may wrong it, and why some of those wrongs should be designated crimes.

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.

The strategy of this article is to consider republicanism in contrast with liberalism. We focus on three aspects of this contrast: republicanism's emphasis on 'social goods' under various conceptualizations of that category; republicanism's emphasis on political participation as an essential element of the 'good life'; and republicanism's distinctive understanding of freedom (following the lines developed by Pettit). In each case, we are skeptical that what republicanism offers is superior to the liberal alternative and indicate the grounds for that skepticism.