The Experts below are selected from a list of 34248 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Matteo Bonotti - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Justice, Political Obligation and Public Reason: Rethinking Partisanship and Political Liberalism
Res Publica, 2019Co-Authors: Matteo BonottiAbstract:In Partisanship and Political Liberalism in Diverse Societies I examine Political parties and partisanship within the context of John Rawls’s (Political Liberalism, expanded edn. New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 2005a) theory of Political Liberalism. I argue that parties and partisanship are vital to Rawls’s Political Liberalism, since they offer a distinctive and crucial contribution to the process of public justification that is central to it, which combines the articulation of public reasons with the channelling into the public Political realm of the particular values and conceptions of the good emerging from parties’ specific constituencies. Furthermore, I argue, partisanship generates a special kind of Political obligations, and this further contributes to state legitimacy under conditions of reasonable pluralism. In this paper, I respond to three commentators who have raised important criticisms against my argument. More specifically, Section 1 provides a response to Lea Ypi’s argument that my normative account of partisanship wrongly presupposes that existing liberal societies are reasonably just. Section 2 answers Daniel Weinstock’s concerns regarding the plausibility and internal consistency of my account of partisan Political obligations. Finally, Section 3 addresses Kevin Vallier’s criticisms, which challenge my account of public reason and propose an alternative one.
-
Political Liberalism and Democratic Contestation
Oxford Scholarship Online, 2017Co-Authors: Matteo BonottiAbstract:This chapter shows how Political Liberalism nourishes Political parties, by leaving many controversial issues open to democratic contestation. It especially focuses on religious issues, and argues that neither moderate separation nor moderate establishment, intended as regimes of religious governance that fix specific interpretations of principles of social and economic justice, is compatible with Rawls’s Political Liberalism. The chapter then introduces an additional ideal model of religious governance called ‘democratic accommodationism’, which differs both from moderate separation and from moderate establishment. The chapter further examines the place of social and economic issues in Rawls’s Political Liberalism. It shows that Political Liberalism does not warrant the constitutionalization of either classical liberal rights or social rights, and therefore leaves socio-economic issues open to the democratic contestation of partisan politics.
-
Partisanship and Political Liberalism in Diverse Societies
Oxford Scholarship Online, 2017Co-Authors: Matteo BonottiAbstract:Since its publication in 1993, John Rawls’s Political Liberalism has been central to debates concerning Political legitimacy, democratic theory, toleration, and multiculturalism in contemporary Political theory. Yet, despite the immense body of literature which has been produced since Rawls’s work was published, very little has been said or written regarding the place of Political parties and partisanship within Political Liberalism. This book aims to fill this gap in the literature. Its central argument is that Political Liberalism needs and nourishes Political parties, and that Political parties are therefore not hostile but vital to it. First, partisanship generates its own distinctive kind of Political obligations, additional to any Political obligations people may have qua ordinary citizens. Second, contrary to what many critics argue, and despite its admittedly restrictive features, Rawls’s conception of public reason allows significant scope for partisan advocacy and partisan pluralism, and in fact the very normative demands of partisanship are in syntony with those of public reason. Third, parties contribute to the overlapping consensus that for Rawls guarantees stability in diverse societies. Fourth, Political Liberalism nourishes Political parties, by leaving many issues, including religious and socio-economic ones, open to democratic contestation. In summary, parties contribute both to the legitimacy and to the stability of Political Liberalism.
-
Political Liberalism, linguistic diversity and equal treatment
Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 2016Co-Authors: Matteo BonottiAbstract:This article explores the implications of John Rawls’ Political Liberalism for linguistic diversity and language policy, by focusing on the following question: what kind(s) of equality between speakers of different languages and with different linguistic identities should the state guarantee under Political Liberalism? The article makes three claims. First, language policy under Political Liberalism should guarantee the equal basic rights and liberties of all citizens, regardless of language(s) spoken. This may require positive forms of state intervention, such as the provision of interpreters and translators in courts of law or hospitals. Second, while permissible under Political Liberalism, symbolic recognition by the state of all languages is not required, because the notion of self-respect does not involve the ability to identify with the institutions of one’s own Political community. Finally, while neither the protection of citizens’ basic rights and liberties, nor the guarantee of their self-respect, demands multilingual policies, the latter may be required under Political Liberalism by the principle of fair equality of opportunity. This last step involves recourse to democratic deliberation in order to ascertain people’s linguistic identities, the costs they associate with the enjoyment of available opportunities and their resulting demands with regard to language policy.
-
Political Liberalism free speech and public reason
European Journal of Political Theory, 2015Co-Authors: Matteo BonottiAbstract:In this paper, I critically assess John Rawls' repeated claim that the duty of civility is only a moral duty and should not be enforced by law. In the first part of the paper, I examine and reject the view that Rawls' position may be due to the practical difficulties that the legal enforcement of the duty of civility might entail. I thus claim that Rawls' position must be driven by deeper normative reasons grounded in a conception of free speech. In the second part of the paper, I therefore examine various arguments for free speech and critically assess whether they are consistent with Rawls' Political Liberalism. I first focus on the arguments from truth and self-fulfilment. Both arguments, I argue, rely on comprehensive doctrines and therefore cannot provide a freestanding Political justification for free speech. Freedom of speech, I claim, can be justified instead on the basis of Rawls' Political conception of the person and of the two moral powers. However, Rawls' wide view of public reason already allows scope for the kind of free speech necessary for the exercise of the two moral powers and therefore cannot explain Rawls' opposition to the legal enforcement of the duty of civility. Such opposition, I claim, can only be explained on the basis of a defence of unconstrained freedom of speech grounded in the ideas of democracy and Political legitimacy. Yet, I conclude, while public reason and the duty of civility are essential to Political Liberalism, unconstrained freedom of speech is not. Rawls and Political liberals could therefore renounce unconstrained freedom of speech, and endorse the legal enforcement of the duty of civility, while remaining faithful to Political Liberalism.
Lucien Karpik - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Fates of Political Liberalism in the British Post-Colony
2012Co-Authors: Terence C. Halliday, Lucien Karpik, Malcolm M FeeleyAbstract:What explains divergences in Political Liberalism in new nations that shared the same colonial heritage? This book assembles exciting original essays on former colonies of the British Empire in South Asia, Africa, and South East Asia that gained independence after World War II. The inter-disciplinary country specialists reveal how inherent contradictions within British colonial rule were resolved after independence in contrasting liberal-legal, despotic, and volatile Political orders. Through studies of the longue duree and particular events, this book presents a theory of Political Liberalism in the post-colony and develops rich hypotheses on the conditions under which the legal complex, civil society, and the state shape alternative post-colonial trajectories around Political freedom. This provocative volume presents new perspectives for scholars and students of post-colonialism, Political development, and the politics of the legal complex, as well as for policy makers and publics who struggle to construct and defend basic legal freedoms.
-
Fighting for Political freedom : comparative studies of the legal complex and Political Liberalism
2007Co-Authors: Malcolm M Feeley, Terry Halliday, Lucien KarpikAbstract:Across the world Political Liberalism is being fought for, consolidated and defended. That is the case for nations that have never enjoyed a liberal Political society, for nations that have advanced towards and then retreated from Political Liberalism, for nations that have recently shifted from authoritarian to liberal Political systems, and for mature democracies facing terrorism and domestic conflict. This book tests for the contemporary world the proposition that lawyers are active agents in the construction of liberal Political regimes. It examines the efficacy of a framework that postulates that legal professions not only orient themselves to a market for their services but can frequently be seen in the forefront of actors seeking to institutionalise Political Liberalism. On the basis of some 16 case studies from across the world, the authors present a theoretical link between lawyers and Political Liberalism having wide-ranging application over radically diverse situations in Asia and the Middle East, North and South America, and Europe. They argue that it is not the politics of lawyers alone but the politics of a 'legal complex' of legally trained occupations, centred on lawyers and judges, that drives advances or retreats from Political Liberalism, that Political Liberalism itself is everywhere in play, in countries with established democracies and those without liberal politics and that it is now clear that the legal arena is a central field of struggle over the shape of Political power. The case studies presented here provide powerful evidence that the nexus of bar and bench in transitions towards or away from Political Liberalism is a force which has universal application.
-
lawyers and the rise of western Political Liberalism europe and north america from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries
The American Historical Review, 2000Co-Authors: Kermit L Hall, Terence C. Halliday, Lucien KarpikAbstract:1. Politics Matter: a Comparative Theory of Lawyers in the Making of Political Liberalism 2. Barristers, Politics, and the Failure of Civil Society in Old Regime France 3. Builders of Liberal Society: French Lawyers and Politics 4. Mrs Thatcher Against the Little Republics: Ideology, Precedents, and Reactions 5. Lawyers and Political Liberalism in Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-century England 6. State, Capitalism, and the Organization of Legal Counsel: Examining an Extreme Case - the Prussian Bar, 1700-1914 7. Lawyers and the Limits of Liberalism: the German Bar in the Weimar Republic 8. Making the Courts Safe for the Powerful: the Commercial Stimulus for Judicial Autonomy in Reforms of the United States Bankruptcy Law 9. The Politics of Professionalism: the creation of Legal Aid and the strains of Political Liberalism in America, 1900-1930 Postscript: Lawyers, Political Liberalism, and Globalization
Christie Hartley - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
John Rawls - A Feminist Defense of Political Liberalism
John Rawls, 2020Co-Authors: Christie Hartley, Lori WatsonAbstract:Some feminists claim that liberal theories lack the resources necessary for fully diagnosing and remedying the social subordination of persons as members of social groups. Part of the problem is that liberals focus too narrowly on the state as the locus of Political power. However, equal citizenship is also affected by systems of power that operate in the background culture and that construct social hierarchies in which persons are subordinated as members of social groups. This chapter argues that Political Liberalism, properly understood, entails a commitment to substantive equality such that it has the internal resources to address the kinds of inequality produced by unjust forms of social power. Although some will claim that if the basic structure is the subject of justice, Political Liberalism will still fall short of securing gender justice, we explain why this worry is misplaced.
-
Oxford Scholarship Online - Political Liberalism and Marriage
Oxford Scholarship Online, 2018Co-Authors: Christie HartleyAbstract:This chapter considers whether Political liberals can and should recognize and support legal marriage as a matter of basic justice. A general account of how Political liberals should evaluate the issue of legal marriage as matter of basic justice is offered. It is argued that, in certain conditions, the recognition of some form of legal marriage may be the best way to protect the fundamental interests of women as equal citizens in freely chosen associations. Or it may be that, in certain conditions, to secure the social conditions necessary for gays, lesbians, and bisexuals to be free and equal citizens, some form of legal marriage can or should be recognized. It is claimed that an underappreciated point about Political Liberalism is that the particular institutions that are justifiable or required as a matter of basic justice depend in part on the conditions of a particular Politically liberal society. Political Liberalism, public reason, marriage, marriage contracts, sex equality, feminism, polygamy, monogamy
-
Is a Feminist Political Liberalism Possible?
Oxford Scholarship Online, 2018Co-Authors: Christie HartleyAbstract:This chapter makes the case that Political Liberalism is a feminist Liberalism. It is argued that Political Liberalism’s ideas of reciprocity and equal citizenship limit reasonable Political conceptions of justice to only those that include principles that yield substantive equality for all, including women (and other marginalized groups). To this end, it is claimed that the criterion of reciprocity calls for (1) the eradication of social conditions of domination and subordination relevant to democratic deliberation among free and equal citizens and (2) the provision of the social conditions of recognition respect. As a result, the criterion of reciprocity limits reasonable Political conceptions of justice to those that provide genuine equality for women along various dimensions of social life central to equal citizenship.
-
Oxford Scholarship Online - Is a Feminist Political Liberalism Possible
Journal of Ethics & Social Philosophy, 2017Co-Authors: Christie Hartley, Lori WatsonAbstract:Is a feminist Political Liberalism possible? Political Liberalism’s regard for a wide range of comprehensive doctrines as reasonable makes some feminists skeptical of its ability to address sex inequality. Indeed, some feminists claim that Political Liberalism maintains its position as a Political Liberalism at the expense of securing substantive equality for women. We claim that Political Liberalism’s core commitments actually restrict all reasonable Political conceptions of justice to those that secure genuine substantive equality for all, including women and other marginalized groups. In particular, we argue that Political Liberalism’s criterion of reciprocity limits reasonable Political conceptions of justice to those that eliminate social conditions of domination and subordination relevant to reasonable democratic deliberation among equal citizens and that the criterion of reciprocity requires the social conditions necessary for recognition respect among persons as equal citizens. As a result, we maintain that the criterion of reciprocity limits reasonable Political conceptions of justice to those that provide genuine equality for women along various dimensions of social life central to equal citizenship.
Kevin Vallier - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
on jonathan quong s sectarian Political Liberalism
Criminal Law and Philosophy, 2017Co-Authors: Kevin VallierAbstract:Jonathan Quong’s book, Liberalism without Perfection, provides an innovative new defense of Political Liberalism based on an “internal conception” of the goal of public justification. Quong argues that public justification need merely be addressed to persons who affirm liberal Political values, allowing people to be coerced without a public justification if they reject liberal values or their priority over comprehensive values. But, by extensively restricting members of the justificatory public to a highly idealized constituency of liberals, Quong’s Political Liberalism becomes objectionably sectarian. Coercing citizens without a public justification if they hold non-liberal comprehensive views is no different from the sectarian perfectionist view that people can be coerced without a public justification if they hold false comprehensive views. Quong argues that some degree of sectarianism is unavoidable in formulating a conception of Political Liberalism. While this may be, I maintain that the internal conception is nonetheless excessively sectarian. To demonstrate this, I develop an attractive competitor conception, the convergence conception, which addresses public justification to a diverse, moderately idealized justificatory public. If convergence is a viable interpretation of Political Liberalism, I argue, then the internal conception is excessively sectarian.
-
On Jonathan Quong’s Sectarian Political Liberalism
Criminal Law and Philosophy, 2014Co-Authors: Kevin VallierAbstract:Jonathan Quong’s book, Liberalism without Perfection, provides an innovative new defense of Political Liberalism based on an “internal conception” of the goal of public justification. Quong argues that public justification need merely be addressed to persons who affirm liberal Political values, allowing people to be coerced without a public justification if they reject liberal values or their priority over comprehensive values. But, by extensively restricting members of the justificatory public to a highly idealized constituency of liberals, Quong’s Political Liberalism becomes objectionably sectarian. Coercing citizens without a public justification if they hold non-liberal comprehensive views is no different from the sectarian perfectionist view that people can be coerced without a public justification if they hold false comprehensive views. Quong argues that some degree of sectarianism is unavoidable in formulating a conception of Political Liberalism. While this may be, I maintain that the internal conception is nonetheless excessively sectarian. To demonstrate this, I develop an attractive competitor conception, the convergence conception, which addresses public justification to a diverse, moderately idealized justificatory public. If convergence is a viable interpretation of Political Liberalism, I argue, then the internal conception is excessively sectarian.
-
The Origin and Future of Political Liberalism
Journal of Moral Philosophy, 2014Co-Authors: Kevin VallierAbstract:This essay reviews Paul Weithman’s new work – Why Political Liberalism? On John Rawls’s Political Turn. Weithman’s book has two aims, first to explain why Rawls recast his Political theory and second, to defend a particular interpretation of Political Liberalism. In contrast to other reviews, this essay addresses the latter aim. I challenge Weithman’s defense of Political Liberalism on two grounds: (1) that it fails to adequately grapple with pluralism about justice and (2) that it does not provide an adequate model of stability for the right reasons. I conclude that these two weaknesses in an otherwise excellent book suggest a promising future for the Political liberal tradition, one that is more comfortable with indeterminacy and less comfortable with deliberative restraint.
Fevzi Bilgin - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Political Liberalism in Muslim Societies
2011Co-Authors: Fevzi BilginAbstract:1. Introduction 2. The Idea of Political Liberalism 3. Political Liberalism and Islam 4. Political Liberalism in Muslim Societies 5. Tolerating Religion 6. Religion and Impartiality of the State 7. Conclusion
-
The Prospects for Political Liberalism in Non‐Western Societies
Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 2007Co-Authors: Fevzi BilginAbstract:This article assesses the prospects for the adoption of Rawls’s Political Liberalism in non-Western contexts. The argument centers on the religious resurgence in non-Western societies and presents an evaluation of the viability and acceptability of Political liberal principles in the face of the normative, theoretical and practical challenges posed by this development. Political Liberalism emerges as a significant theoretical and normative resource; nevertheless, the socio-Political conditions in non-Western societies may fall short of satisfying the sociological requirements of Political Liberalism. A strong historical interpretation of Rawls’s sociological assumptions suggests that relatively younger and developing democracies where religious movements are in the ascendant, will have to wait centuries to live up to the social and moral standards of Political Liberalism. This article comes to a less negative conclusion. The normative arguments of Political Liberalism can rest on weaker sociological assumptions that do not require such a long period of time to emerge as Rawls appears to suppose. Indeed, the institution of a Political liberal regime may be the condition of its own success, encouraging in its own right the necessary Political reasonableness amongreligious views.