Suchergebnisse

The polder—a strip of land redeemed from the sea—is a symbol in the Dutch collective consciousness for the successful struggle against threatening inundations. Implicit in this struggle is the idea of strong civic communities, because cooperation is mandatory in the building of dikes to keep out the water. It is therefore appropriate to describe the work of Meindert Fennema currently one of the Netherland's leading political theorists, as a view of political reality from the perspective of the polder. This is not meant in a provincial sense, however, for the polder is a form of shelter and as Eric Voegelin wrote in the Introduction to his long unpublished notes on the "History of Political Ideas," "the function proper of [political] order is the creation of a shelter in which a man may give to his life a semblance of meaning." "Political Theory in Polder Perspective" is therefore a fitting title for this review article on the work of the contemporary Dutch political theorist, Meindert Fennema, longtime member of the Faculty of Political Science at the University of Amsterdam.

Examines biographical, national, & political influences on Meindert Fennema's committed, Marxist-informed yet nondogmatic body of work. His perspectives on networks & their relation to policy formation demonstrates his debt to Gramsci; Gordon K. Lewis's work on the Caribbean was also a key influence on Fennema's views about the semi-autonomy of ideas & the importance of race & colonialism. Like Eric Voegelin, Fennema posits ideas as a vital aspect of the development of political/democratic thought. His more recent work focuses on the emergence of the nationalistic, xenophobic right in European politics & the tensions between postmodernism's privilege of difference & democratic struggle. The reviewer ultimately concludes that Fennema's opus on political theory is creatively & intellectually vibrant despite the lack of metaphysical grounding for the Enlightenment principles on which the work draws. K. Coddon

In 1966, I published a review article hailing Leo Strauss's Thoughts on Machiavelli as an instant classic. I also expressed some reservations or "second thoughts" about its conclusions. In the intervening years my appreciation for the profundity and originality of Strauss's interpretation has only increased, but many of my doubts have also remained. Here I wish to restate both my admiration and reservations with particular attention to parts of Strauss's chapter on Machiavelli published in the 1972 edition of his History of Political Philosophy, co-edited with Joseph Cropsey.Let me at the outset state the obvious: Strauss's interpretation of Machiavelli is well — indeed overwhelmingly — supported by textual evidence, given Strauss's manner of reading between the lines. No interpreter, therefore, is entitled to dismiss it out of hand, even if he or she disagrees with Strauss's methodology, in whole or in part. In this respect, Claude Lefort has provided a model for scholars whose philosophical orientation differs widely from that of Strauss. Strauss has given us a truly fresh look at the great Florentine.