| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
185796
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
While scholars within the English School have increasingly approached the traditionally liberal concept of solidarism in a normatively agnostic fashion, the idea of an ‘illiberal solidarism’ and historical manifestations thereof remain underexplored. One notable case in point surrounds the peculiar body of Italian interwar international thought, herein referred to as ‘international Fascism’. By discerning a synchronic outline of international Fascism, alongside the manner by which this project mutated and ultimately failed as it transformed from a vision theorised in the abstract to a practical initiative under the auspices of the Fascist regime, this article offers historical and theoretical insights into the realisability of illiberal forms of solidarism. Combining this historical account with theoretical insights derived from Reus-Smit's study on international order under conditions of cultural diversity, this article argues that the realisation of some form of solidarism necessitates the acceptance of a substantive pluralist component. Yet messianic illiberal visions that endeavour to retain the states-system, while simultaneously asserting the superiority of one community or a highly exclusionary vision of the ‘good life’, ostensibly lack the capacity to reconcile the contradictions inherent in efforts to universalise such projects.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
110473
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The pluralist-solidarist debate in English School theory - which concentrates on discerning the kind of international society in which we live - encourages overgeneralisations that either overstate international society's presumed solidarity or vigorously defend instrumental commitments that underplay actual ethical advances. Building upon insights by Bellamy, Buzan and Hurrell, I attempt to extricate the debate from its current impasse by recasting pluralism and solidarism as ideal-typical assessments of agreements within particular issue areas. The argument is illustrated with reference to human security. Two reasons are behind this choice. Firstly, it allows me to pose more pluralist-friendly claims on a terrain that is presumably ceded to solidarists. Secondly, the contested nature of human security allows me to highlight the fluidity of the concepts, which reveals not necessarily solidarism's cooperative potential or pluralism's minimalist pledges, but rather fissures, uncertainties and dissonances that in the end are resolved by continual mediations between the two.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|