Civic Republicanism is a valuable critical introduction to one of the most important topics in political philosophy. In this book, Iseult Honohan presents an authoritative and accessible account of civic republicanism, its origins and its problems. The book examines all the central themes of this political theory. In the first part of the book, Honohan explores the notion of historical tradition, which is a defining aspect of civic republicanism, its value and whether a continued tradition is sustainable. (...) She also discusses the central concepts of republicanism, how they have evolved, in what circumstances civic republicanism can be applied and its patterns of re-emergence. In the second part of the book, contemporary interpretation of republican political theory is explored and question of civic virtue and participation are raised. What is the nature of the common good? What does it mean to put public before private interests and what does freedom mean in a republican state? Honohan explores these as well as other questions about the sustainability of republican thought in the kind of diverse societies we live in today. Civic Republicanism will be essential reading for students of politics and philosophy. (shrink)

Freedom as non-domination provides a distinctive criterion for assessing the justifiability of migration controls, different from both freedom of movement and autonomy. Migration controls are dominating insofar as they threaten to coerce potential migrants. Both the general right of states to control migration, and the wide range of discretionary procedures prevalent in migration controls, render outsiders vulnerable to arbitrary power. While the extent and intensity of domination varies, it is sufficient under contemporary conditions of globalization to warrant limits on states’ (...) discretion with respect to admission. Reducing domination requires, rather than removing all immigration restrictions or democratically justifying them to all, that there be certain constraints on states’ freedom to control migration: giving migrants a publicly secured status somewhat analogous to that enjoyed by citizens, subjecting migration controls to higher legal regulation, and making immigration policies and decision contestable by those who are subject to them. (shrink)

Recent claims that civic republicanism can better address contemporary political problems than either liberalism or communitarianism are generating an intense debate. This is a sharp insight into this debate, confronting normative theory with historical and comparative analysis. It examines whether republican theory can address contemporary political problems in ways that are both valuable and significantly different in practice from liberalism. These expert authors offer contrasting perspectives on issues raised by the contemporary revival of republicanism and adopt a variety of methodological (...) approaches to address the practical implications of republican thought within a coherent thematic framework. This book also *clarifies core themes and contested areas of republican thought, especially the notion of liberty, the specific political institutions needed to realize it, and the nature of solidarity among citizens. * shows how republicanism continued to influence the development of liberal thought in nineteenth century Britain * examines the development of alternative republican discourses, including the established political practice and ideology of the French republican tradition * applies republican perspectives to contemporary political concerns such as the creation of social trust and the expansion of public accountability * explores the implications of republican theory for policy areas including houses, education and marriage in diverse multicultural societies This book will be of great interest to researchers and students studying republicanism in political science history, social policy and education. In addition, it is a valuable resource for those concerned with citizenship, democratic theory, multiculturalism, nationalism and patriotism, and politics beyond the nation-state. (shrink)

In Europe and other regions of the world public debate concerning how many immigrants should be admitted, which rights those admitted should have, and which conditions can be required for access to citizenship is intense and enduring, and these have increasingly become central electoral issues. On the one hand, the harsh treatment of migrants is often a matter of public criticism; on the other hand, states are concerned about problems of welfare, security and social unrest that they have come to (...) associate with large-scale migration. At its most fundamental level, this debate concerns the question of how best to balance particularist principles of democratic self-determination and state sovereignty and universalist principles of individual freedom and human rights. The articles in this special issue examine whether the concept of domination can cast a distinctive light on the normative issues arising in this tension between state sovereignty and universal principles with respect to migration and the position of non-citizens in contemporary liberal democratic states. These issues arise both externally insofar as foreigners are subject to migration controls, and internally insofar as migrants live in states of which they are not full members. The issue thus examines the potential of domination as a concept to bring to bear on issues of migration controls, differential residence statuses and access to membership. (shrink)

In response to the environmental and political crisis that we currently face, new ways of thinking and acting that provide alternatives to the current operation of liberal democracy and capitalism...

Does the concept of domination cast new light on issues that arise in the context of migration and citizenship? If citizenship is a status that provides protection from domination, understood as subjection to arbitrary interference, are non-citizens - whether outside or inside the state - necessarily subject to domination by virtue of being non-citizens? Does domination provide a useful basis for considering the harms that migrants suffer? If non-domination is a value to be promoted in politics, what are the implications (...) for the treatment of migrants and resident non-citizens? This book addresses issues of migration and citizenship within the frame of freedom, in terms of domination, understood as being subject to the threat of arbitrary interference. Coming from a variety of perspectives, the chapters examine the issues of migration controls, differential resident statuses, including temporary workers, refugees and long-term residents, and the conditions for access to citizenship in the light of these concerns. This book was published as a special issue of the Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy. (shrink)

¿Tiene la teoría política republicana algún recurso que ofrecer a la democracia contemporánea? Dos objeciones son abordadas: que se pone en tela de juicio demasiado internamente que la teoría republicana contemporánea pueda ofrecer una propuesta coherente, y que ninguna idea susceptible de ser valorada es distinguible de la teoría liberal. Mantengo que, a pesar de que hay ciertos lugares comunes entre los republicanos y los liberales, su compromiso para con la democracia muestra diferentes enfoques, tensiones y acuerdos. El republicanismo tiene (...) una subyacente perspectiva coherente y ofrece un enfoque distintivo para fundamentar y concebir la democracia. Su énfasis en la deliberación entre ciudadanos en múltiples esferas públicas, antes que en una soberanía popular unitaria, puede contribuir potencialmente a tratar los problemas que conlleva la compresión y la realización de la democracia a nivel transnacional y global. (shrink)

This reply examines to what extent Claes’s qualitative research on volunteers, meaningfulness and citizenship mirrors dimensions of republican citizenship. Republican citizenship brings together the idea of freedom as membership of a self-governing community and the ideal of commitment of those members to the common good of the community. According to the author, the idea of republican citizenship that emerges from the interviews is connected with An experience of meaningfulness that is self-fulfilling, but at the same time places life in a (...) larger context, A deeper inner side of civic engagement, A notion of civic virtue that is not too demanding due to its inner link with self-discovery through active citizenship, A strong awareness of the plurality of ways of living a human life, and not a passive identification with an abstract, homogeneous social whole. (shrink)

In response to the environmental and political crisis that we currently face, new ways of thinking and acting that provide alternatives to the current operation of liberal democracy and capitalism...

In designing regulation, as has long been recognized in the academic literature, there is a tension between reliance on fixed mechanical “bright line” rules and the flexibility offered by granting a degree of discretion to the regulator subject to guiding principles. The failure of principles-based financial regulation a decade ago reinforced a trend towards mechanical rules. This essay, drawing on practical experience gleaned in the years following the Global Financial Crisis, argues that both are needed; indeed, in many cases, the (...) regulatory policymaker needs some discretion if it is to be sufficiently intrusive. Although regulatory discretion brings its own risks, the growing complexity of products and markets suggests a tilt towards granting greater discretion to the regulator in preference to over-complicating mechanical rules. (shrink)

L’anthropologie philosophique est l’un des fronts sur lesquels s’est développée, ces dernières années, la critique du libéralisme politique : à la figure d’un sujet rationnel et souverain, déjà autonome, certains courants de la théorie politique ont tenté d’opposer une conception alternative du sujet et c’est dans ce contexte qu’a émergé la thématique de la vulnérabilité dont le développement est apparu comme le fondement éventuel d’un dépassement de la problématique libérale. On ne s’étonnera pas de voir la référence à la vulnérabilité (...) figurer en bonne place dans la réflexion néorépublicaine et en particulier dans la théorie de liberté comme non-domination élaborée par Philip Pettit. Comment les néorépublicains définissent-ils la vulnérabilité et quel statut lui accordent-ils ? Quel rôle la vulnérabilité joue-t-elle dans la définition d’une perspective républicaine originale et dans l’élaboration d’une conception non libérale de l’autonomie ? Que nous apprend-elle enfin sur les limites éventuelles du projet néorépublicain ? C’est à ces questions que tentent de répondre les deux articles rassemblés ici. Ces deux textes correspondent aux deux volets d’une étude sur le statut de la catégorie de la vulnérabilité dans la théorie néorépublicaine. Le premier article (« Vulnérabilité, non-domination et autonomie : l’apport du républicanisme ») correspond au volet proprement analytique de notre étude : il propose un état des lieux du statut de la vulnérabilité dans le cadre des théories néorépublicaines, de Pettit à Iseult Honohan, en passant par John Maynor... L’examen de l’articulation entre vulnérabilité et non-domination met en lumière les ressources du néorépublicanisme et son potentiel d’élargissement (via l’intégration des problématiques socialistes, multiculturalistes, écologistes et féministes). Le second article (« Vulnérabilité, non-domination et autonomie : vers une critique du néorépublicanisme ») part de la manière dont les néorépublicains ont souligné la convergence entre l’autonomie telle qu’elle est pensée à l’aune de la non-domination et les approches relationnelles de l’autonomie. Il s’agit pour nous d’interroger ce rapprochement et par là de dégager certaines limites de l’approche néorépublicaine de la vulnérabilité en la confrontant de façon systématique à d’autres conceptions mises en avant dans la théorie des « capabilités », dans les théories de la reconnaissance et dans les éthiques du care. (shrink)

L’anthropologie philosophique est l’un des fronts sur lesquels s’est développée, ces dernières années, la critique du libéralisme politique : à la figure d’un sujet rationnel et souverain, déjà autonome, certains courants de la théorie politique ont tenté d’opposer une conception alternative du sujet et c’est dans ce contexte qu’a émergé la thématique de la vulnérabilité dont le développement est apparu comme le fondement éventuel d’un dépassement de la problématique libérale. On ne s’étonnera pas de voir la référence à la vulnérabilité (...) figurer en bonne place dans la réflexion néorépublicaine et en particulier dans la théorie de liberté comme non-domination élaborée par Philip Pettit. Comment les néorépublicains définissent-ils la vulnérabilité et quel statut lui accordent-ils ? Quel rôle la vulnérabilité joue-t-elle dans la définition d’une perspective républicaine originale et dans l’élaboration d’une conception non libérale de l’autonomie ? Que nous apprend-elle enfin sur les limites éventuelles du projet néorépublicain ? C’est à ces questions que tentent de répondre les deux articles rassemblés ici. Ces deux textes correspondent aux deux volets d’une étude sur le statut de la catégorie de la vulnérabilité dans la théorie néorépublicaine. Le premier article (« Vulnérabilité, non-domination et autonomie : l’apport du républicanisme ») correspond au volet proprement analytique de notre étude : il propose un état des lieux du statut de la vulnérabilité dans le cadre des théories néorépublicaines, de Pettit à Iseult Honohan, en passant par John Maynor... L’examen de l’articulation entre vulnérabilité et non-domination met en lumière les ressources du néorépublicanisme et son potentiel d’élargissement (via l’intégration des problématiques socialistes, multiculturalistes, écologistes et féministes). Le second article (« Vulnérabilité, non-domination et autonomie : vers une critique du néorépublicanisme ») part de la manière dont les néorépublicains ont souligné la convergence entre l’autonomie telle qu’elle est pensée à l’aune de la non-domination et les approches relationnelles de l’autonomie. Il s’agit pour nous d’interroger ce rapprochement et par là de dégager certaines limites de l’approche néorépublicaine de la vulnérabilité en la confrontant de façon systématique à d’autres conceptions mises en avant dans la théorie des capabilités, dans les théories de la reconnaissance et dans les éthiques du care. (shrink)

This final reply responds to Honohan’s invitation to articulate the Arendtian tone of the key-note paper. It spells out the philosophical intuition that the political life of citizens, at least potentially, is capable of making visible what makes human life worthwhile and fully meaningful, and the philosophical curiosity to see whether traces of this deep political awareness can be retrieved in dialogues with volunteers. In response to Dekker’s critical doubts, this final reply clarifies the central stakes of Claes’s paper. (...) The core argument was not to show that the biographical model of meaningfulness is the prevailing approach of meaning in/of volunteering, but to assess the potentials and limits of the model’s interpretive power. Moreover, the paper argues for an alternative, existential model of meaningfulness. This approach refers to deep experiences of meaning that emerge from the practice of volunteering and that shift into powerful political experiences of hope, and a lived sense of equality. (shrink)

The association of poetry and femininity … excluded women poets. For the female figures onto whom the men projected their artistic selves—Tennyson’s Mariana and Lady of Shalott, Browning’s Pippa and Balaustion, Arnold’s Iseult of Brittany—represent an intensification of only a part of the poet, not his full consciousness: a part, furthermore, which is defined as separate from and ignorant of the public world and the great range of human experience in society. Such figures could not write their own poems; (...) the male poet, who stands outside the private world of art, has to do that for them. The Lady of Shalott could not imagine someone complex and experienced enough to imagine the world beyond range of her windows, or to imagine her. A woman poet who identified herself with such a stock figure of intense and isolated art would hardly be able to write at all. Or, like the Lady of Shalott preparing her death-ship, she could write only her own name, only herself. For a man, writing poetry meant an apparent withdrawal from the public sphere , but for a woman it meant just the opposite: a move toward public engagement and self-assertion in the masculine world. She could not just reverse the roles in her poetry and create a comparable male self-projection, since the male in this set of opposites is defined as experienced, complexly self-conscious, and part of the public world and therefore could not serve as a figure for the poet. We can formulate the problem like this: a man’s poem which contains a female self-projection shows to distinctly different figures, poet and projection; in a woman’s poem on the same model, the two would blur into one.Furthermore, it’s not really poets that are women, for the Victorians: poems are women. The cliché that style is the man arises more readily and with much greater literalness and force when the stylist is a woman, and it is often charged with erotic intensity. The young lovers in Gilbert and Sullivan’s Iolanthe describe their perfect love by singing that he is the sculptor and she the clay, he the singer and she the song. Ladislaw in Middlemarch tells Dorothea that she needn’t write poems because she is a poem. Edgar Allan Poe remarks in a review of Barrett Browning’s works that “a woman and her book are identical.” In her love letters Barrett Browning herself worried about the problem of her identity—was she her poems, were they she, which was Browning in love with? “I love your verses with all my heart, dear Miss Barrett,” he had written disconcertingly in his first letter, “… and I love you too.” […] As we can see in Tennyson’s The Princess, the lyric in particular seemed female to Victorians—private, nonlogical, purely emotional—and it is surely no accident that large numbers of English and American women began to publish poetry in the nineteenth century, when the lyric established its dominance. Victorian poems like Victorian women were expected to be morally and spiritually uplifting, to stay mostly in the private sphere, and to provide emotional stimulus and release for overtasked men of affairs.9 All this may have encouraged women to write poetry, but at the same time it made writing peculiarly difficult because it reinforced the aspects of conventional Victorian femininity—narcissism, passivity, submission, silence—most inimical to creative activity. Since women already are the objects they try to create, why should they write? 9. John Woolford points this out in “EBB: Woman and Poet,” Browning Society Notes 9 : 4. Dorothy Mermin is professor and chairman in the department of English at Cornell University. She is the author of The Audience in the Poem and is currently working on a critical study of Elizabeth Barrett Browning. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:M. C. Dillon LOVE IN WOMEN IN LOVE: A PHENOMENOLOGICAL ANALYSIS Despite his sexism, his turgid prose, and his antiquated social conscience, Lawrence is on every bookshelf. This is not merely because of the vicarious erotic entertainment to be found in the saga of John Thomas and Lady Jane, but because Lawrence remains a major guru of romance. We take him seriously, look to him for guidance, measure ourselves (...) against Ursula and Birkin. If he is on our shelves—and his thoughts not far from our pillows—then his ideas starid in need of scrutiny. Women in Love is as much a treatise as a novel: we witness more talking about than making of love. The agon of ideas engulfs the agon of flesh. Hence, the book suits the present purpose. It cannot be taken as Lawrence's definitive statement on love—later works, notably Lady Chatterly's Lover, move in different directions—but it is his most philosophical treatment and, I think, most clearly expresses his conceptual framework, the parameters which define and limit his thinking. What he says about love in Women in Love may therefore illumine his depictions of the behavior of lovers in other works. Lawrence is a romantic. In the popular sense of the word he is one who makes of romance or erotic adventure a dominant life value. Lawrence is also a romantic in another sense insofar as he takes the transcendence or unattainability of the other as essential to the project of loving. These two senses are conceptually compatible but existentially in conflict. That is, if one's major undertaking in life is to seek erotic satisfaction, and if one desires only so long as the object is beyond reach, then one has established the groundwork for continual frustration. This, I will try to show, is what Lawrence has done. I Many writers have tried to bring the ideas implicitly present in and constitutive of romantic love to the level of explicit reflective awareness. 190 M.C.Dillon191 The most successful treatment I know is given by a writer who did not know—or at least did not say—that he was writing about romantic love. Sartre purports to reveal the inner structures of love itself—the unqualified, unrestricted essence of love. As I have tried to show elsewhere,1 he fails at this. But he succeeds admirably in unveiling the inner contradictions of romantic love. Our project here is to draw upon Sartre's insights: first, to develop a conception of romantic love, and then to discern the model of Eros which informs Women in Love. The key idea in romantic love is transcendence. Something is transcendent when it is beyond me, when I cannot adequately prehend it conceptually or master it with my will. The role of transcendence in romantic love is demonstrated clearly in Denis de Rougemont's book on Love in the Western World.2 There he shows that Tristan's passion for Iseult is directly proportional to her distance from him: he is increasingly attracted as she becomes further removed. On the other hand, when through various deeds of gallantry and subterfuge, he succeeds in winning her to his side, he loses interest and must create circumstances which put her again beyond his reach. The culmination of romantic love, according to de Rougemont, is death—it sets the other absolutely beyond reach. It also arrests and preserves at their apices the youth and beauty of the lovers and the intensity of the erotic relationship. It is, I believe, this complex of ideas that led Kierkegaard to this cynical reflection on the nature of romantic love: "When two beings fall in love with one another and begin to suspect that they were made for each other, it is time to have the courage to break it off; for by going on they have everything to lose and nothing to gain."3 The same idea, qualified by increased optimism, underlies Stendhal's notion of crystallization in his book On Love.* Love is predicated on the attribution of perfection to the beloved. Just as a plain bough emerges from the salt-saturated waters of the Salzburg mines encrusted with beautiful crystals... (shrink)

A consideration of one of the perennial paradoxes of Western society, which upholds monogamous marriage as the ethical norm, and yet is forever fascinated by romantic passion outside of marriage. The treatment of this fascination by the medieval legend of Tristan and Iseult, and the subsequent reappearance of this legend or its theme in Western literature down to the present, is examined. A theory of the eros-agape dichotomy is developed. The author concludes that the appeal of extra-attachment is illusory.--W. (...) S. L. (shrink)