Calvinists, Arminians, Socinians: Popular Sovereignty and Natural Rights in Early Modern Political Thought

2019 ◽  
pp. 21-35
Author(s):  
James Moore
Keyword(s):  
Eighteenth Century ◽  
Early Modern ◽  
Political Theory ◽  
Political Thought ◽  
John Locke ◽  
Natural Rights ◽  
Popular Sovereignty ◽  
The Political ◽  
Reformed Church ◽  
Hugo Grotius

This chapter focuses upon natural rights in the writings of Hugo Grotius, the Levellers and John Locke and the manner in which their understanding of rights was informed by distinctive Protestant theologies: by Arminianism or the theology of the Remonstrant Church and by Socinianism. The chapter argues that their theological principles and the natural rights theories that followed from those principles were in conflict with the theology of Calvin and the theologians of the Reformed church. The political theory that marks the distinctive contribution of Calvin and the Reformed to political theory was the idea of popular sovereignty, an idea revived in the eighteenth century, in the political writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

C. B. Macpherson, The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism: Hobbes to Locke

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hugh Breakey
Keyword(s):  
Seventeenth Century ◽  
Early Modern ◽  
Political Theory ◽  
John Locke ◽  
Global Financial Crisis ◽  
Global Capitalism ◽  
The Political ◽  
Possessive Individualism ◽  
Core Idea ◽  
The Global Financial Crisis

C. B. Macpherson’s 1962 The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism: Hobbes to Locke challenged the canonical interpretation of seventeenth-century English political theorists by exploring their allegiance to “possessive individualism,” the idea that man’s normative essence consists in his self-ownership. After surveying the work’s impact, this chapter analyzes Macpherson’s concept of possessive individualism and considers the inter-relations amongst its economic, ontological, and psychological postulates. The chapter argues that—while Macpherson’s exegesis erred in trying to graft the concept onto early modern political theorists like John Locke—his core idea remains significant today. Possessive individualism accurately describes an influential normative perspective increasingly pervading and facilitated by contemporary global capitalism, as exemplified in the global financial crisis of 2007–09.

War for Peace

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Murad Idris
Keyword(s):  
Immanuel Kant ◽  
Political Theory ◽  
Political Thought ◽  
Thomas Hobbes ◽  
Desiderius Erasmus ◽  
The Political ◽  
Ibn Khaldun ◽  
Hugo Grotius ◽  
Sayyid Qutb ◽  
The Ideal

Peace is the elimination of war, but peace also authorizes war. We are informed today that this universal ideal can only be secured by the wars that it eliminates. The paradoxical position of peace—opposed to war, authorizing war—is encapsulated by the claim that “war is for the sake of peace.” War for Peace is a genealogy of the political theoretic logics and morals of “peace.” It examines peace in political theory, as an ideal that authorizes war, in the writings of ten thinkers, from ancient to contemporary thought: Plato, Abū Naṣr al-Fārābī, Thomas Aquinas, Desiderius Erasmus, Alberico Gentili, Hugo Grotius, Ibn Khaldūn, Thomas Hobbes, Immanuel Kant, and Sayyid Quṭb. It argues that the ideal of peace functions parasitically, provincially, and polemically. In its parasitical structure, peace is accompanied by other ideals, such as friendship, security, concord, and law, which reduces it to a politics of consensus. In its provincial structure, the universalized content of peace reflects its idealizers’ desires, fears, interests, and constructions of the globe. In its polemical structure, the idealization of peace is the product of antagonisms and it then enables hostility. As idealizations of peace are disseminated across political thought, a core that valorizes peace and necessitates war insistently remains. War for Peace uncovers the genealogical basis of peace’s moralities and the political functions of its idealizations, historically and into the present.

Introduction

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily C. Nacol
Keyword(s):  
Political Economy ◽  
Eighteenth Century ◽  
Seventeenth Century ◽  
Early Modern ◽  
Political Thought ◽  
The Political ◽  
Political Subject ◽  
For Profit

This chapter briefly discusses three insights into early modern British engagement with risk: the presence of a distinct conceptual refinement in late seventeenth-century sources; the tight relationship between risk and trust in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century political thought and political economy; and the character of the political subject, which is worked out in the early modern engagement with risk. Beyond these three observations, the chapter also argues that early modern British engagement with risk offers two narratives—views of risk that persist in our own time and shape our orientation toward an unknown future. These include accounts of risk as a threat to security, as well as depictions of risk as an opportunity to be exploited for profit or gain.

scholarly journals How to think beyond sovereignty: On Sieyes and constituent power

2016 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-67 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucia Rubinelli
Keyword(s):  
Political Theory ◽  
French Revolution ◽  
Political Thought ◽  
Popular Sovereignty ◽  
The Other ◽  
The Political ◽  
Constituent Power ◽  
Theories Of Sovereignty ◽  
The French Revolution

Historians and political theorists have long been interested in how the principle of people’s power was conceptualised during the French Revolution. Traditionally, two diverging accounts emerge, one of national and the other of popular sovereignty, the former associated with moderate monarchist deputies, including the Abbé Sieyes, and the latter with the Jacobins. This paper argues against this binary interpretation of the political thought of the French Revolution, in favour of a third account of people’s power, Sieyes’ idea of pouvoir constituant. Traditionally, constituent power has been viewed as a variation of sovereignty, but I show it to be an independent conceptualisation of people’s power. Sieyes’ political theory led him to criticise and refuse contemporary theories of sovereignty in favour of what he understood as a fully modern account of people’s power. Based on extensive research in the archives, I show how Sieyes opposed the deployment of sovereignty by the revolutionary Assemblies and recommended replacing it with the idea of constituent power.

scholarly journals Liberal and conservative political thought in nineteenth-century Serbia Vladimir Jovanovic and Slobodan Jovanovic

Balcanica ◽  
2010 ◽  
pp. 131-153
Author(s):  
Boris Milosavljevic
Keyword(s):  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
Political Theory ◽  
Political Thought ◽  
Good Governance ◽  
Popular Sovereignty ◽  
The Political ◽  
Traditional Values ◽  
Liberal State ◽  
Political Views ◽  
Political Scene

Two very influential political philosophers and politicians, Vladimir Jovanovic and Slobodan Jovanovic, differed considerably in political theory. The father, Vladimir, offered an Enlightenment-inspired rationalist critique of the traditional values underpinning his upbringing. The son, Slobodan, having had a non-traditional, liberal upbringing, gradually-through analyzing and criticizing the epoch?s prevail?ing ideas, scientism, positivism and materialism-came up with his own synthesis of traditional and liberal, state and liberty, general and individual. Unlike Vladimir Jovanovic, who advocated popular sovereignty, central to the political thought of his son Slobodan was the concept of the state. On the other hand, Slobodan shared his father?s conviction that a bicameral system was a prerequisite for the protection of individual liberties and for good governance. Political views based on different political philosophies decisively influenced different understandings of parliamentarianism in nineteenth-century Serbia, which in turn had a direct impact on the domestic political scene and the manner of government.

No Right to Resist? Elise Reimarus's Freedom as a Kantian Response to the Problem of Violent Revolt

Hypatia ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 755-773
Author(s):  
Lisa Curtis‐Wendlandt
Keyword(s):  
Eighteenth Century ◽  
Immanuel Kant ◽  
Political Theory ◽  
Social Contract ◽  
Political Thought ◽  
The Political ◽  
Philosophical Dialogue ◽  
Public Expression

One of the greatest woman intellectuals of eighteenth‐century Germany is Elise Reimarus, whose contribution to Enlightenment political theory is rarely acknowledged today. Unlike other social contract theorists, Reimarus rejects a people's right to violent resistance or revolution in her philosophical dialogue Freedom (1791). Exploring the arguments in Freedom, this paper observes a number of similarities in the political thought of Elise Reimarus and Immanuel Kant. Both, I suggest, reject violence as an illegitimate response to perceived political injustice in a way that opposes Locke's strong voluntarism and the absolutism of Hobbes. First, they emphasize the need to maintain the legal state as a precondition for the possibility of external right. Second, they share an optimistic view of the inherently “just” nature of the tripartite republican state. And finally, Reimarus and Kant both outline an alternative, nonviolent response to political injustice that consists in the freedom of public expression and a discourse on the moral enlightenment of man.

The Early Modern Foundations of Classic Liberalism

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey Collins
Keyword(s):  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
Early Modern ◽  
David Hume ◽  
Political Theology ◽  
John Locke ◽  
Adam Smith ◽  
Natural Rights ◽  
Popular Sovereignty ◽  
Historical Interpretation ◽  
Classic Liberalism

The term “liberalism” is of nineteenth-century vintage, but only the most pedantic historian would limit its use to that period. By then, David Hume and the utilitarians had undermined traditional accounts of rights and contract, and “liberalism” largely denoted a reforming mode of political economy. Nineteenth-century liberals were heirs more of Adam Smith than of John Locke, and in this sense the term “liberalism” post-dated the development of “classic,” natural-rights liberalism. Two schemas have tended to structure the historical interpretation of the seventeenth century. “Proto-liberalism” is presumed to be the victorious foe either of Christian political theology, or of antique republicanism. This article explores liberalism's theoretical fundaments, including a dedication to monopolistic sovereignty; belief in the artificiality of political order; an atomistic individualism; dedication to natural equality and popular sovereignty; deployment of the juridical language of rights and contract; a privileging of stability as the primary end of politics.

FOUNDING LIBERALISM, PROGRESSIVE LIBERALISM, AND THE RIGHTS OF PROPERTY

2011 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 56-73 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald J. Pestritto
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Eighteenth Century ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Political Theory ◽  
Progressive Era ◽  
Natural Rights ◽  
Original Version ◽  
The Political ◽  
American Liberalism ◽  
Fundamental Transformation

AbstractThis article contends that liberalism in America underwent a fundamental transformation during the Progressive Era. This transformation took place, partly, through the Progressives' reinterpretation of the doctrine of property rights that had served as a foundation for founding-era liberalism. Progressives rejected the eighteenth-century, natural-rights principles which had privileged individual rights to life, liberty, and property as the fundamental aims of any just government, and argued instead that America at the turn of the twentieth century was beset by a tyranny of the minority which was employing property rights to inhibit genuine freedom for the bulk of the population. This article examines the character of founding-era liberalism and points to the connection between the political theory of the Declaration of Independence and John Locke's Second Treatise of Government. It then provides an account of the Progressive critique of this original version of American liberalism. The Progressive critique is shown to take two forms: a rejection of property rights in principle, followed by a rejection of them in practice.

Rousseau and Republicanism

2015 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-80 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annelien de Dijn
Keyword(s):  
Eighteenth Century ◽  
Early Modern ◽  
Political Theory ◽  
Political Thought ◽  
Important Resource ◽  
Philip Pettit ◽  
Tyranny Of The Majority

Rousseau was arguably one of the most important and influential of eighteenth-century republican thinkers. However, contemporary republican theorists, most notably Philip Pettit, have written him out of the republican canon by describing Rousseau as a “populist” rather than a republican. I argue that this miscasting of Rousseau is not just historically incorrect but that it has also led to a weakening of contemporary republican political theory. Rousseau was one of the few early modern republican thinkers to take seriously the problem of the tyranny of the majority and to attempt to formulate a cogent answer to that problem. Ignoring his contribution to republican political thought therefore cuts off contemporary republicans from an important resource for thinking about this problem.

Philosophic Pride

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Brooke
Keyword(s):  
Early Modern ◽  
Political Thought ◽  
Historical Context ◽  
Vital Role ◽  
Intellectual Life ◽  
Marcus Aurelius ◽  
Hugo Grotius ◽  
History Of ◽  
Early Modern Era ◽  
Modern Era

This is the first full-scale look at the essential place of Stoicism in the foundations of modern political thought. Spanning the period from Justus Lipsius's Politics in 1589 to Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Emile in 1762, and concentrating on arguments originating from England, France, and the Netherlands, the book considers how political writers of the period engaged with the ideas of the Roman and Greek Stoics that they found in works by Cicero, Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius. The book examines key texts in their historical context, paying special attention to the history of classical scholarship and the historiography of philosophy. The book delves into the persisting tension between Stoicism and the tradition of Augustinian anti-Stoic criticism, which held Stoicism to be a philosophy for the proud who denied their fallen condition. Concentrating on arguments in moral psychology surrounding the foundations of human sociability and self-love, the book details how the engagement with Roman Stoicism shaped early modern political philosophy and offers significant new interpretations of Lipsius and Rousseau together with fresh perspectives on the political thought of Hugo Grotius and Thomas Hobbes. The book shows how the legacy of the Stoics played a vital role in European intellectual life in the early modern era.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document