|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
107952
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
As the twentieth century drew to a close, political theorists of various stripes
argued that many aspects of human existence-including not only the subconscious, but also emotions, emotional states, rhetoric, aesthetics, judgments-
play a larger role in politics than does rational argument alone. Some had
argued for the "death of Man," claiming that the human is no longer a meaningful category. In this new century, the three books under review here try to
make arguments for ways to study this displaced subject, actor, human. Each
of the three books is scholarly and erudite; each is more or less successful on
its own terms. What is their contribution to political theory?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
090349
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Many political theorists defend the view that egalitarian justice should extend from the domestic to the global arena. Despite its intuitive appeal, this 'global egalitarianism' has come under attack from different quarters. In this article, we focus on one particular set of challenges to this view: those advanced by domestic egalitarians. We consider seven types of challenges, each pointing to a specific disanalogy between domestic and global arenas which is said to justify the restriction of egalitarian justice to the former, and argue that none of them - both individually and jointly - offers a conclusive refutation of global egalitarianism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
119642
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The conventional story of sovereignty told in the discipline of International Relations (IR) tells us that there is a "traditional" or "Westphalian" meaning of sovereignty that has prevailed since the seventeenth century and that accords states the right to govern themselves free from outside interference. In recent years, the tale goes, this meaning has been challenged for the first time by notions of conditional and responsible sovereignty. This article argues that the supposed "traditional" meaning of sovereignty is not as foundational and timeless as is often assumed. Rather than a right of non-intervention, it was the right to wage (just) war that was first conceived by political theorists to be the external corollary of the internal supremacy of the sovereign. This included the right of war to punish tyranny and rescue the oppressed. This article examines the initial absence and then the gradual emergence of the "traditional" meaning of sovereignty, arguing that it was only firmly established by international society for the first time in the twentieth century. It concludes by considering some of the implications of this revised story of sovereignty for the study of IR.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
096551
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2010.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Hannah Arendt's theory of judgment has been the object of considerable interest in the last three decades. Political theorists in particular have hoped to find in her theory of judgment a viable account of how diverse modern societies can sustain a commitment to dialogue in the absence of shared basic principles. A number of scholars, however, have critiqued Arendt's account of judgment in various ways. This article examines criticisms from Richard Bernstein, Ronald Beiner, George Kateb, Jürgen Habermas, and Linda Zerilli. On the basis of early sources from Arendt's manuscripts and Denktagebuch that have not been used in these debates, this article contends that Arendt's position on judgment can be defended against these critics and that her account warrants further exploration.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
096380
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2010.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The question of the role of normative or historical political theory within the broader discipline of political science has been controversial at least since the founding of the American Political Science Association (see Gunnell 2006 for a brief overview). Perhaps it goes without saying that during that same period people who think of themselves as engaged in political theory have disagreed among themselves about the core concerns of the field, the appropriate kinds of graduate training, the relative value of various authors and texts, and, of course, about theory's role within political science.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
096381
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2010.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article reports the results of a 2008 national survey of political theorists. The results, based on 1,086 responses from professors at accredited, four-year colleges and universities in the United States, provide information about the demographic characteristics of political theorists, opinion data on the place of political theory within political science, the proportion of political theorists in political science departments, teaching loads, expectations for tenure, the experience of political theorists on the academic job market, and, finally, rankings of theorists, journals, publishers, professional organizations, and Ph.D. programs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
096383
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2010.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This survey's importance comes not from what it informs us about political theory as a field, but rather from the function it serves within debates over the component areas of the field of political science. Rather than answering whether political theory "belongs" within political science (an unanswerable question), the survey uses quantification of qualitative experience and data collection to consolidate political theory as a subfield. Thus success of this project relies upon and reinforces disciplinary norms, operating as a process that attempts to bring a normative political theory into existence. The rank ordering of departments, journals, and individual theorists proves appealing not only for the competitive, horse-race valuation of those people and institutions, but also for how they ultimately resist this project by showing the anti-normative heart of political theory: an important and useful survey indeed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
096382
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2010.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Matthew Moore's survey of political theorists in U.S. American colleges and universities is an impressive contribution to political science (Moore 2010). It is the first such survey of political theory as a subfield, the response rate is very high, and the answers to the survey questions provide new information about how political theorists look when compared to political scientists overall. We are roughly the same age, for example, and are slightly more likely to be female. The survey also gives us a picture of political theorists' conditions of employment: about half of us get jobs in the first year upon receiving our Ph.D.s; most of us teach at schools that range from 1,000 to 10,000 students; most of us are not at Ph.D.-granting institutions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|