David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Inquiry 33 (1):81 – 98 (1990)
Although the notion of an essentially contested concept may shed light on the logic of disputes over the proper application of some key political terms, it nevertheless plays no genuine role in explaining the intractability of these disputes. The notion of an essentially contested concept is defended against some influential criticisms, showing how it is possible for one conception of an essentially contested concept to be justifiably regarded as superior to other competing conceptions. Two possible answers are distinguished to the question of why disputes over essentially contested concepts should be regarded as inevitable, but neither provides us with a plausible explanation for why they are so intractable. Disagreements over the proper use of key political concepts are better explained by features of moral and political discourse, such as the short reach of ?intellectual authority? and the fact that consensus is not one of its primary aims, in conjunction with empirical hypotheses from the social sciences, rather than by essential contestedness theses
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Thomas S. Kuhn (1996/2012). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
Bernard Arthur Owen Williams (1981). Moral Luck: Philosophical Papers, 1973-1980. Cambridge University Press.
G. A. Cohen (2000). Karl Marx's Theory of History: A Defence. Oxford University Press.
W. B. Gallie (1955). Essentially Contested Concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 56 (1):167 - 198.
Citations of this work BETA
Pekka Väyrynen (2014). Essential Contestability and Evaluation. Australasian Journal of Philosophy (3):1-18.
William Rehg & James Bohman (1996). Discourse and Democracy: The Formal and Informal Bases of Legitimacy in Habermas' Faktizität Und Geltung. Journal of Political Philosophy 4 (1):79–99.
Thomas Clarke (1999). Feyerabend, Rorty, Mouffe and Keane: On Realising Democracy. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 2 (3):81-118.
Similar books and articles
William E. Connolly (1983). The Terms of Political Discourse. Princeton University Press.
C. McKnight (2003). Medicine as an Essentially Contested Concept. Journal of Medical Ethics 29 (4):261-262.
W. B. Gallie (1956). Art as an Essentially Contested Concept. Philosophical Quarterly 6 (23):97-114.
S. A. Merrill (1992). ?Person? As Essentially Contested Concept in the Commonwealth of Discourse. Metaphilosophy 23 (4):363-377.
Andrew Mason (1993). Explaining Political Disagreement. Cambridge University Press.
Siegfried Van Duffel (2007). Sovereignty as a Religious Concept. The Monist 90 (1):126-143.
Eric Reitan (2001). Rape as an Essentially Contested Concept. Hypatia 16 (2):43-66.
Adaeze Okoye (2009). Theorising Corporate Social Responsibility as an Essentially Contested Concept: Is a Definition Necessary? [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 89 (4):613 - 627.
Kenneth M. Ehrenberg (2011). Law is Not (Best Considered) an Essentially Contested Concept. International Journal of Law in Context 7:209-232.
Samantha Miles (2012). Stakeholder: Essentially Contested or Just Confused? [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 108 (3):285-298.
Added to index2009-01-30
Total downloads32 ( #121,202 of 1,792,839 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #345,624 of 1,792,839 )
How can I increase my downloads?