Academic literature on the topic 'Political theory'

If we are interested in questions about how we ought to organize our political lives, what kind of weight, if any, should we give to evidence about what people actually think? The thesis explores this question about the role of public opinion in normative political theory. First, I disentangle a number of distinct justifications for taking account of public opinion. Specifically, the thesis evaluates four views of the status of public opinion: as an epistemic resource; a feasibility constraint; a means of democratizing political theory; or constitutive of moral and political ideals. I defend the epistemic argument, outlining two forms in which popular attitudes represent a valuable epistemic resource. The thesis criticizes the feasibility and democratic accounts of the role of public opinion as these are presented in the existing literature, but suggests more convincing ways of reconstructing these arguments. Finally, I reject the view that public opinion constitutes the ideal of justice, arguing that such an account is subject to a fundamental tension. As well as clarifying the status of popular attitudes, the thesis addresses the methodological difficulties that arise when we seek to bring public opinion to bear on ideas from political theory, whose meaning and status in everyday political thought and discourse is often limited or uncertain. I outline two approaches to integrating normative theory with the investigation of popular attitudes that mitigate the methodological problems that often confront such projects. The second major aim is to situate the question of the role of public opinion in the context of wider debates about the aims and methods of contemporary political theory. In particular, I address recent demands for greater ‘realism’ in political theory, distinguishing two main strands of realist critique and drawing out their contrasting implications for the role of public opinion.

The thesis attempts to reinvigorate the universalist credentials of Western liberal political theory by (1) illustrating the centrality of the concept of human agency for universal political liberalism, (2) arguing for the significance of the concept of agency for understanding the Russian societal transformation, and (3) suggesting that political theory may most usefully be conceived as a universal discourse which is in constant need of appropriating and constructively integrating different accounts and conceptualisations of political liberalism. In order to accomplish this it will be argued that Western political theorists have to take seriously the ways in which Russian scholars think about political liberalism and, to this end, the thesis will present an overview of the Russian debate on political liberalism during the first post-communist decade.

I argue against the claim that normative political theory is 'autonomous' with respect to moral philosophy. I take the simple view that political theory is a form of moral philosophy, and is differentiated by pragmatic rather than theoretically significant criteria. I defend this view by criticizing arguments for the autonomy thesis. In the first three chapters I introduce and analyse the autonomy thesis and provide a framework for understanding the various claims that are made in the literature. In Chapters 4 to 8 I proceed to criticize a series of arguments for the autonomy thesis. In Chapter 4 I explain why Kant's division of morality into ethics and right is not as useful as it may seem to those who wish to defend the autonomy thesis, and argues that Arthur Ripstein gives no reason to think that political philosophy is autonomous that can be endorsed independently of commitment to a Kantian normative theory. In Chapter 5 I examine the political liberal argument for the autonomy thesis, concluding that even if a freestanding political conception of justice can be regarded as autonomous, it does not follow that political philosophy can also. Chapters 6 to 8 tackle various political realist arguments for the autonomy thesis. In Chapter 6 I argue that political theory is not required to deal with empirical facts in any way that distinguishes it from moral philosophy, and any argument for its autonomy that is based on a prior claim about the purpose of political theorizing would be question-begging. In Chapters 7 and 8 I provide various arguments against the idea that there is a distinctively political form of normativity, and diagnose some of the mistaken assumptions about morality that I take to lie at the heart of the realist case. In Chapter 9 I conclude.

The first aim of this thesis is to comprehend the political thought of al-Farabi (d.950) as fully as possible. Special attention is given to his views on types of non-virtuous states and international relations. It goes on to assess whether there is any possibility that his theory of state can be extended to a world state. Lastly, the thesis is concluded by setting out al-Farabi's position in Islamic mediaeval political philosophy and in the world history of political thought. The thesis consists of an introduction, five main chapters, and a conclusion. The introduction deals with the character of al-Farabi as a political thinker in general and examines previous studies of al-Farabi's political thought. The first chapter discusses al-Farabi's concept of 'political science' and his basic philosophical views. The second chapter examines his doctrines of happiness, society and political education. The third chapter is concerned with al-Farabi's framework of the virtuous state. The fourth chapter focuses on the types of the non-virtuous state. The fifth chapter centres on al-Farabi's view of international relations. The conclusion presents al-Farabi's contribution to Islamic political thought and the results of this analysis of his political works.

The relationship of language to the study and practice of political theory is the subject of the following analysis. Though by no means a "new" or even overlooked topic, it has experienced keen and lively debate. This was especially the case in the 1960s and 1970s, when advocates of political theory's "demise" and/or "rebirth" as a field of inquiry both took recourse in what they deemed to be the "lessons" of language. Today, however, debate has focused on the question of whether or not a more directly linguistic approach to the study and practice of political theory (as is exhibited, for example, in the works of, among others, Habermas, Flathman, and Shapiro) is in fact "political." Increasingly, the position is today that it is not. Some (Baumgold, 1981; Gunnell, 1979) even claim language a threat to theory's properly political foundations (Chapter One). I argue the contrary. Building from both the Wittgensteinian and Habermasian schools of thought (Chapters Two and Three) and, even more importantly, from the linguistic practices of Hobbes and Tocqueville (Chapter Four), study reveals language not only relevant but central to the discipline as even Baumgold and Gunnell understand it. As will be shown below, language's significance is grounded in its value as both a unit for political analysis and as a medium for political participation.

This thesis brings the concept of humanitarianism sharply into focus within the discourse of international political theory. Existing literature examines humanitarianism obliquely, via debates on military humanitarian intervention or human rights, resulting in an impoverished account of a vital idea. Meanwhile, a vibrant discussion among professional humanitarians has recently questioned the nature of their endeavour, along lines that clearly fit the remit of international political theory. Bringing together these two discussions in the course of its critical analysis, the thesis argues that humanitarianism should be conceptualised as a political context in which we articulate, negotiate and defend our understandings of common humanity. Central to this politics are the ways in which we react to and conceptualise human suffering, through humanitarian crises that are often "crises of humanity". In sparking concern and mobilising responses to suffering, the affective underpinnings of the humanitarian impulse create a complex and shifting backdrop to extensions of solidarity and humanitarian action. At the heart of this action is the idea of rescue, a crucial "presumptive occasion" of our moral life. But an important part of humanitarian action consists in the efforts to institutionalise the humanitarian impulse. In this sense human rights and projects of global justice represent important crystallisations of humanitarian concern, yet neither can fully capture the more contingent workings of the humanitarian impulse. What emerges is an understanding of humanitarianism as a broad discussion, central to the identity of contemporary liberal international political theory, but with a scope best gleaned not from cosmopolitan accounts, but from a more fluid internationalist tradition of thought. The thesis concludes that the importance of this theoretical approach will be borne out by the complex and far-reaching practical challenges that humanitarianism is set to confront over coming decades, not least the "crisis of humanity" threatened by climate change.

Territory is an important part of contemporary political debates but there is an odd silence about the concept of territory in contemporary political theory. The unraveling of colonization and concerns over global justice should make territory a central aspect of political theory, yet it is not. This silence has the curious feature of recalling the original justifications for territorial acquisition. Because territory is neglected by contemporary thinkers, it is important to return to theorists such as Grotius, Hobbes, Locke, Pufendof and Kant for a critical engagement with the concept of territory. Understanding the arguments of these thinkers illuminate the presuppositions of present day theorists and contributes to the understanding of contemporary theoretical problems. The thesis is organized into eight chapters. The first two chapters consider the neglect of territory in political theory the role of territory in international law. This sets up the three middle chapters which are critical engagements with historical thinkers organized around three conceptions of territory: territory as possession, as property and as jurisdiction. Contemporary cosmopolitanism is inspired, in part, by unraveling of colonization and a concern for global justice. Chapter 6 considers the relationship between contemporary cosmopolitanism and the legacy of the historical conceptions of territory. The next chapter investigates the communitarian critique of cosmopolitanism and the role of identity in territorial claims. At first glance there seems to be good reasons for contemporary theory to presuppose or ignore territory. However, the answer, though skeptical, is more subtle. Following Rawls and others, contemporary theory is right to remain silent about territory and about property in territory. The main skepticism is about arguments for colonial restitution or global redistribution of resources. This is because many take a crude territory as property view - which when abandoned seems to leave the world un-owned and therefore subject to equal distribution or claims. Yet skepticism is not the only alternative. Jurisdiction entails some elements of the territory as property view. This is a more sophisticated claim than the straight territory as property argument. Here ownership is a secondary but important claim states make in the absence of a binding universal norm. As a result there is a prima facie but not indefeasible right to particular territory. Identity plays a role in linking peoples to places. It also raises the bar to colonial restitution and global resource redistribution. This legitimates the current view of territory in political theory and international law where territory is pre-supposed but not theorized.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2010.<br>Title from electronic title page (viewed Jun. 23, 2010). "... in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Classics." Discipline: Classics; Department/School: Classics.