History and Political Agency: Comments on Chaim Gans’ A Political Theory for the Jewish People

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 172-183
Author(s):  
Avner Inbar
2020 ◽  
pp. 1-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arash Abizadeh

The two traditional justifications for bicameralism are that a second legislative chamber serves a legislative-review function (enhancing the quality of legislation) and a balancing function (checking concentrated power and protecting minorities). I furnish here a third justification for bicameralism, with one elected chamber and the second selected by lot, as an institutional compromise between contradictory imperatives facing representative democracy: elections are a mechanism of people’s political agency and of accountability, but run counter to political equality and impartiality, and are insufficient for satisfactory responsiveness; sortition is a mechanism for equality and impartiality, and of enhancing responsiveness, but not of people’s political agency or of holding representatives accountable. Whereas the two traditional justifications initially grew out of anti-egalitarian premises (about the need for elite wisdom and to protect the elite few against the many), the justification advanced here is grounded in egalitarian premises about the need to protect state institutions from capture by the powerful few and to treat all subjects as political equals. Reflecting the “political” turn in political theory, I embed this general argument within the institutional context of Canadian parliamentary federalism, arguing that Canada’s Senate ought to be reconstituted as a randomly selected citizen assembly.


2017 ◽  
Vol 66 (3) ◽  
pp. 651-666
Author(s):  
Jakob Huber

According to a recent methodological critique, much of contemporary political theory has lost touch with the realities of political life. The aim of this article is to problematise the underlying antagonism between distant ideals and concrete contexts of agency. Drawing on Kant’s notion of pragmatic Belief – the idea that in certain situations we can put full confidence in something we lack sufficient evidence for – I point to the distinctly practical function of political ideals that these disputes pay scant attention to. Particularly in political contexts, action is itself often framed by ‘ideal constructions’ that not only motivate and enable us to pursue uncertain goals but also ultimately feed back onto what is practically possible. The upshot is that especially if we are interested in a kind of theorising that is less detached from political practice, we should be wary of disregarding distant ideals as unduly utopian from the outset.


2010 ◽  
Vol 72 (2) ◽  
pp. 241-269 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie E. Cooper

AbstractHistories of political theory have framed the story of the emergence of sovereign states and sovereign selves as a story about secularization—specifically, a story that equates secularization with self-deification. Thomas Hobbes's investment in modesty and humility demonstrates the need for, and the possibility of, an alternative secularization narrative. Scholars have long insisted that “vainglory” is a key term for the interpretation of Leviathan. But Hobbes's task is not complete once he has discredited vainglory. Hobbes must also envision, and cultivate, contrary virtues—and modesty is one virtue that Hobbes would cultivate. An analysis of Hobbes's attempt to redefine and rehabilitate the virtues of modesty shows that Hobbes warns against the temptation to self-deification. In Leviathan, the political task is not to enthrone humans in sovereign invulnerability, but rather to achieve the right balance between bodily security and consciousness of finitude.


2021 ◽  
Vol 43 ◽  
pp. 9-23
Author(s):  
Joy James

This keynote (article) examines political theory and organizing against anti-Blackness and police violence. It reflects on community, vulnerability and care, and political agency from the perspective of the “Captive Maternal”—a gender diverse or agender function of caretaking, protesting, movement and maroon-building and war resistance emanating from communities stalked by anti-Blackness and the legacy of 500 years of chattel slavery in the Americas.


2017 ◽  
Vol 65 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Julian Nida-Rümelin

AbstractBorders are a constitutive feature of states. Political agency would, therefore, come into conflict with a practice of open borders. This is equally true for the dynamics of unleashed global financial and commodity markets as well as for a global labour market. An unregulated mobility of capital, goods, and people would erode the agency of states and diminish politics to a mere location factor. In the following, I argue in favor of the legitimacy of (state) borders and political control over migratory movements, however, not from a communitarian or even nationalist perspective, but from a cosmopolitan one. Political cosmopolitanism differs from sociological, economic, or cultural variants with regard to the role of politics. While other kinds of cosmopolitanism generally understand globalisation as weakening the agency of states, political cosmopolitanism strives for the establishment of a global institutional order, which allows for democratically legitimised political agency beyond the nation-state. The question is what institutional governance of migration is legitimate in a cosmopolitan framework. The following text discusses the political theory (part 1) and some preliminary philosophical-ethical aspects (part 2) of this topic.


Author(s):  
Phil Cole

‘Framing the Refugee’ looks at the power of representation of liberal political theory with regard to refugees. In the author’s view, legal and political arbitrariness lies in the representing of refugees as lacking agency. His key point is that liberalism fails to conceive of refugees as politically capable actors, and he is thus complicit in the arbitrary neutralisation of their emancipatory potential and participatory powers. This paper emphasises the moral justifiability of that state of affairs by seeking some answers to the question of why liberal political theory construes a concept of the refugee that does not contain any element of political agency. Most obviously, the author acknowledges that refugees perform a significant social role in contemporary societies and are hence active members in them. Nonetheless, they remain neglected in their political role by most political theory. What does it mean to have political agency for the author? It means to have the power of self-representation, that is, of being allowed and even enabled by a given legal system to bring about change in the political order, or at least to participate in that change. But the author also calls attention to the role of ‘theory’ in addressing this downside of the contemporary liberal democratic order. Theory becomes even more crucial at times of urgency, that is, when theorists have a moral responsibility to deepen their philosophical imagination, as Hannah Arendt so forcefully noted. The theoretical task of ‘re-framing’ the refugee entails reconfiguring political philosophy and its traditional categories of sovereignty, citizenship and nationality. The liberal inability to accommodate the political agency of many members of the political community – especially of non-nationals – is a sign of the historical contingency of the current rules of political membership. This inability makes evident the imperative of rethinking politics in ways that avoid the arbitrariness of treatment and aim instead at equality and justice. If political leaders can re-write the rules of membership to suit their own ideological agendas, the same demand should be addressed by – indeed demanded from – political and legal theorists. However, this is not as easy as it seems, according to the author. In his view, political theory is confronted with fundamental challenges, the most obvious one being that ‘theory’ is usually unequipped to defeat its own ‘topology’. Note that in saying this the author is raising a more pressing concern about arbitrary law-making: it may be that arbitrariness – especially the arbitrary treatment of aliens by the sovereign state and by liberal democracies in particular – is inscribed in the very DNA of liberalism. No matter how odd this may seem, the author advances the view that ideas, however creative of a new order, or transformative of a given status quo, never appear in "free form", and are instead deeply rooted in a structure that constrains our imagination. The challenge is thus to develop a meta-theory that reconceptualises the very way liberal political theory frames marginalised sectors of society – such as the "poor" – as a product of an international economic order that robs those sectors of their agency as the very condition of its internal functioning. We must therefore question how the very idea of the refugee is produced, because it symbolises the construction of an inside and an outside that is complicit with the arbitrary play of legal statuses involved in migration policy. The author’s main point regarding this is that certain groups are sidelined by economic, political and social systems because they are already excluded from theoretical systems to start with. Keywords: refugees, agency, political theory, migration


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document