Public Reason

I am pleased to announce this call-for-papers for the first annual Philosophers’ Cocoon Philosophy Conference (PCPC), which will be held at the University of Tampa from Friday October 18th-Sunday October 20th, 2013. This conference will be unique in several respects:

• Although attendance at the conference and participating as session chairs or commentators will be open to all members of the profession, paper presenters must be early-career philosophers – basically, anyone who doesn’t have tenure (e.g. graduate students, post-docs, VAP, TT Assistant Profs, independent scholars, etc.)

• Due to the kinds of travel-funding issues that early-career philosophers often face, several paper sessions (the exact number of which will be determined later) will be reserved for Skype presentations in which the author will be projected, and field audience questions, in real time over the internet.

• Although commentators and audience members are encouraged to present objections to papers, a guiding aim of the conference will beconstructive criticism, i.e. helping authors to improve problems (e.g. by not only raising objections, but offering and discussing possible solutions).

• Because successfully navigating the publishing world is one of the most difficult capacities for early-career philosophers to develop, and typical conference-length papers are too short (3,000 words) to publish, we will welcome submissions the length of any typical journal article (20-30 pages double-spaced) — the aim being to help early-career philosophers develop full-length papers into publishable quality. As a rule of thumb, the longer the paper, the higher the standards for acceptance to the conference. Extremely long papers are discouraged.

• In order to defray costs of attendance (once again out of concern for the needs of early-career scholars), there will be no registration fee, and consequently no official banquet, snacks, etc. Tampa is awesome, and there are many affordable places to meet, eat, and congregate around the university.

• We hope to stream all talks live via the internet and, if time permits, take some audience questions from internet viewers by email.

To submit a paper to present at the PCPC, please email the following to marvan@ut.edu by July 1, 2013: (1) a blinded (i.e. anonymized) paper, (2) a separate title page with the author’s name, contract information, and brief paper abstract, and (3) a statement concerning whether you intend to attend the conference in person or only via Skype. Decision emails indicating whether your paper has been accepted will be sent out around August 1, 2013. Finally, please bear the following in mind:

1. In order to ensure that the conference is well-attended, there will be relatively few Skype sessions — so the probability that your paper will be accepted is higher should you state in your submission email that you can attend in person.
2. Submission of a paper comprises a tacit agreement to serve as a commentator or session chair should your paper be accepted and you accept the invitation to present.

I will be organizing a panel on the “Ethics of International Aid” which will be part of the annual Western Canadian Philosophical Association meeting (in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada from October 18-20). The goal is to bring together scholars who are working on some of the normative issues that arise in relation to international aid, broadly understood. If you would like to be considered as a panelist, please submit a short abstract of 200 words to me at meena.krishnamurthy [at] ad.umanitoba by July 15, 2013.

Call for Papers – Paternalism and Libertarian Paternalism

A MANCEPT Workshop in Political Theory, convened by Kalle Grill
4th – 6th September 2013, University of Manchester, UK

Background:

Paternalism continues to be an important topic in moral and political philosophy/theory. But what it is? Most agree that it involves some sort of interference with a person motivated and/or justified by her good.  However, Seana Shiffrin has denied that paternalism need to have this rationale, and proponents of libertarian paternalism typically deny that it need be interfering. It seems even the two most basic elements – interference and benevolence – may not be so basic. What is the most constructive strategy in light of this controversy? Do we keep the conceptual discussion going or can we somehow get around it or do without it?

Libertarian paternalism is a recent political program founded on behavioural research. We now know that what we prefer depends on the context and not only the content of a choice. So our wellbeing can be promoted not only by restricting the content of our choices – blocking or discouraging harmful options, but also by designing or changing the context of our choices – making good options more salient, appealing or otherwise more likely to be chosen. Libertarian paternalists say we should use choice context to promote wellbeing, without restricting content. Can this distinction be maintained? Is libertarian paternalism a coherent strategy? How are pro and con positions on libertarian paternalism related to pro and con positions on paternalism proper?

Suggested topics:

Papers may deal with the importance or lack of importance of the concept of paternalism and/or libertarian paternalism, with the proper or most useful definition of either concept, with the various components of either or both concepts – including benevolence, interference and consent, with choice content versus choice context, or with the normative significance of either or both concepts.

Conceptual investigation of either concept should ideally have some normative use and normative investigation of either concept should ideally be conceptually informed.

Format:

Two 3,5 hour sessions. Room for six papers. Papers/drafts circulated in advance two weeks prior to workshop. Please send an abstract/proposal of 300-700 words to kalle.grill@umu.se before (or on!) May 31st.

Dear all,

Here is an advert for a cool new job at Birmingham in Global Ethics:

http://www.jobs.ac.uk/job/AGL004/senior-lecturer-lecturer-in-global-ethics-deputy-director-of-the-centre-for-the-study-of-global-ethics/

As some of you may know, Birmingham’s Philosophy Department is expanding and transforming and they have appointed some of the best philosophers as Distinguished Research Profs (see: http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/schools/ptr/departments/philosophy/about/expansion.aspx). In addition the Centre is growing as a interdisciplinary and international hub (http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/research/activity/globalethics/index.aspx) and they very involved in leading the Universities research agenda, for instance, in the IAS Saving Humans initiative (http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/research/activity/ias/inaugural-themes/saving-humans.aspx)

All best, -Nicole

International Criminal Tribunals are hailed as great achievement in international law, yet their effectiveness and general legitimacy is questioned.  This conference, in Oslo August 30-31 2014, seeks papers pursuing empirical, normative, comparative or theoretical approaches. We welcome contributions from law and social science, including philosophy, sociology, criminology, psychology and history.  Info  Contact: Professor Cecilia Bailliet c.m.bailliet@jus.uio.no . This conference is part of a ten year research project on the Legitimacy of the Global Judiciary, www.pluricourts.net

Special issue of the journal Global Justice: Theory Practice Rhetoric

Theme: “Global Justice and the Theory and Practice of Development”

Expected date of publication: 2014

Edited by Julian Culp

Global justice is a nearly all-encompassing concept, which not only permits, but makes it mandatory, to reflect upon its importance in the most diverse areas of global politics – trade, migration and tax regulation, for instance. Unsurprisingly, then, most theorists of global justice have analyzed the import of their conception for the practice of development aid/cooperation. Additionally, some also have argued that justice represents the most relevant normative concept for spelling out as to how to understand development.

However, there are many lacunae in this field of research. The continuing criticisms that the existing theories of global distributive justice entail a parochial justification of the development practice and an insufficiently democratic understanding of development demand a revisiting of these theories. Moreover, very little scholarly attention has been devoted so far to the fact that the criteria that are employed to allocate official development assistance may lack a sound normative justification. In addition, new research in development economics on the question as to how to best explain global economic inequality promises to shed new light on moral questions regarding the proper kind of ascription of moral responsibilities for reducing this inequality. And finally, on a more practical level, few theorists of global justice made explicit contributions to the ongoing deliberations about the post-2015 development agenda.

The planned special issue of the journal Global Justice: Theory Practice Rhetoric aims to contribute to filling the existing research gaps concerning the various linkages between global justice and the theory and practice of development. We invite particularly submissions that deal with questions such as the following:

• How, if at all, can a theory of global justice lay a non-parochial moral justificatory basis for certain forms of bi- and multilateral governmental and non-governmental development aid/cooperation?
• Which forms of development aid/cooperation exacerbate global injustices?
• What, if any, is the relevance of a conception of global justice for the justification of the criteria that should be employed for the allocation of official development assistance?
• Does recent research in development economics shed new light on central issues of global distributive justice, especially with regard to the question as to whether the global institutional order is harming the global poor?
• What are the dis-/advantages of conceiving a conception of development on the basis of a specific theory of global justice?
• From the point of view of global justice – which items should be included on the post-2015 development agenda?

For information on the manuscript presentation, please visit:

http://www.theglobaljusticenetwork.org/journal/manuscript-presentation

For information on the journal Global Justice: Theory Practice Rhetoric , please visit:

http://www.theglobaljusticenetwork.org/journal

For queries please contact Julian Culp via culp@em.uni-frankfurt.de

We are pleased to announce we have just published number 2 of the Journal of Political Philosophy Las Torres de Lucca (free-access electronic bilingual magazine, www.lastorresdelucca.org).

From now on, we accept submissions of articles and book reviews for our next issue (2013, second semester).

n. 2 contents:

Filosofía de la alteridad intercultural en América Latina
Álvaro B. Márquez-Fernández

El jardinero feliz: sobre populismo, democracia y espectros
Julián A. Melo

Terrorism, Hegel, Honneth
Sinkwan Cheng

Un análisis de las nociones de abundancia y esclavitud para reinterpretar el carácter universal de la teoría de la apropiación de John Locke
Joan Severo Chumbita

FILIPPI, ALBERTO (dir.), Argentina y Europa. Visiones españolas. Ensayos y documentos (1910-2010), Buenos Aires, Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, 2011
Hugo E. Biagini

ROIG, ARTURO E.; Vermeren, Patrice; et. al. Repensando el siglo XIX desde América latina y Francia: Homenaje al filósofo Arturo A. Roig. Compilado por Marisa Muñoz y Patrice Vermeren. Buenos Aires: Colihue, 2009
Diego A. Fernández Peychaux

Issue n. 2

Edited by Peter Balint, Eszter Kollar, Patti Tamara Lenard and Tiziana Torresi

For many advocates of global justice, one important strategy in fostering development is to address women’s specific development needs. One of the principal aims of this strategy is to improve the status of maternal and infant health, and thereby to improve the status of women more generally. Moreover, such improvements are considered central to the achievement of development goals, since improvements in women’s conditions are believed to translate into development gains for the whole community. For most scholars and practitioners working to eradicate poverty, this focus is unambiguously a good thing, since women (and their children) are among the most vulnerable members of their own communities, and are therefore most likely to suffer from the devastating effects of poverty more generally.

Yet the devastating effects of poverty can be compounded by the ways in which gender bias is so often focused on women’s bodies; the ways in which policy makers’ attempts to control women’s bodies, politically and culturally, serve to preserve their highly vulnerable positions in society. This focus often produces policies that unfairly burden women, including mandatory breastfeeding laws, population control measures, and so on. This special issue of Global Justice: Theory, Practice and Rhetoric focuses on the ways in which women, and their bodies, are the target of deliberate attempts to sustain women’s inferior position and attempts to improve their status, which may nevertheless have unintended negative consequences or be unfairly burdensome.

We especially welcome papers that combine normative and empirical elements, as well as papers that both critique and defend this approach to global poverty eradication. We welcome particularly submissions that deal with questions such as the following:

• How do cultural and institutional forms of gender inequality stand in the way of global poverty eradication? Can cultural and institutional forms of gender inequality be harnessed to serve the cause of global poverty eradication?

• In what ways do cultural/religious/institutional practices that focus on women’s bodies stand in the way of (or serve) global poverty eradication? How should we think about these practices from a normative perspective? Examples might include (but are not limited to) sex-selective abortion, female genital mutilation, international surrogacy arrangements, international adoption, and so on. In what ways do women’s bodies become the vehicle for global poverty eradication? Are these justified? Do they restrict or support women’s agency more generally?

• In what ways does discrimination in health care provision serve to perpetuate women’s vulnerable status in developing and developed states? What is the relevance, for global poverty eradication, of the fact that women’s health outcomes and health access, in most developing states, are lower than men’s? Which policies seem suitable to address this issue?

• From a moral/normative perspective, how should we think about policies that target women’s (and children’s) bodies in the name of global poverty eradication? Examples might include making breastfeeding mandatory (as has been done in Indonesia), drug distribution policies aimed specifically at women, policies aimed at controlling population growth, and conditional cash-transfers to women (contingent on their making sure children stay in school, are vaccinated etc.).

• What are the advantages/disadvantages, from a normative perspective, of targeting women in development policies to eradicate global poverty?

• Should we abandon the focus on women and focus instead on “gender” in our discussions of global poverty eradication? Does a focus on women steer us away from challenges to eradicating poverty that can be overcome only with a more expansive focus on gender?

Deadline for submission: November 30, 2013

For questions or expressions of interest, please contact Patti Tamara Lenard, patti.lenard@uottawa.ca.

For information on the manuscript presentation, please visit:

http://www.theglobaljusticenetwork.org/journal/manuscript-presentation

For information on the journal Global Justice: Theory Practice Rhetoric, please visit:

http://www.theglobaljusticenetwork.org/journal

I will be convening an author-meets-critics session on Nicole Hassoun’s 2012 book Globalization and Global Justice: Shrinking Distance, Expanding Obligations (Cambridge University Press) at the 2013 MANCEPT workshops at the University of Manchester this September 4-6th. I hope to publish the papers emerging from this session in a special journal issue (TBD). Anyone interested in contributing as a “critic” should send me their CV and/or a paper on Hassoun’s book (if you do not presently have a paper on her book, your CV will suffice for the time being). My email address is marvan@ut.edu. Those whose submissions are selected for inclusion in the session will be contacted with further details. Thanks for your time!

For details of the MANCEPT Workshops in Political Theory 2013 please visit http://manceptworkshops2013.wordpress.com.

Marcus Arvan, University of Tampa

Response to Chambers

Simone Chambers raises several good questions, but I focus on two. First, Chambers claims that the loss that comes from banning hateful viewpoints falls well short of the Invasive State. Canada, for instance, has laws banning hate speech, but they are seldom used. So, why worry about largely dormant restrictions on hate speech?

I think it is important to appeal on this point to an intuition that is often brought out most clearly by republican theorists such as Phillip Pettit. Our autonomy may be restricted, not only by actual instances of punishment, but also by the perceived threat of it (or what Pettit calls possible acts of domination). Part of the worry here is the familiar one about the possible chilling effects of threatened punishment. I might not be speaking out of fear of being punished.

But apart from the chilling effects, I think laws have to be judged as if they were invoked. Consider, for instance, a law that gave the death penalty for parking violations. It might be that no one would be so foolish to test that law because the risk of punishment was too high. But I take it that it would still be a unjust law, because the punishment would be disproportionate to the crime. The law would still be unjust even if no one violated it, and the punishment were never imposed.

Second, Chambers wonders about my “means based limit” on democratic persuasion. According to this limit, democratic persuasion should not be pursued through bans or threats that amount to coercion. She suggests that my willingness to use state spending and tax deductible status as a means of democratic persuasion (as we will discuss in reference to chapter 4) seems tantamount to coercion.

In response, Peter Stone suggests that the liberal tradition has always drawn the line at coercion, and that I am following in the footsteps of past versions of liberalism. I want to bring out the liberal principle behind the notion that democratic persuasion can use the state’s spending power but not its coercive power to ban behavior. Namely, spending incentives leave a choice for individuals to reject the incentive or the benefit, without having to face the drastic restriction on their freedom of imprisonment. Coercive bans do not leave this choice open to citizens. They demand a particular outcome or point of view for citizens to remain free of imprisonment. On my view, it is the ability to reject a financial incentive that honors the idea of autonomy. It leaves a decision up to the individuals. Coercive bans do no such thing and thus are not autonomy protecting. As the Bob Jones case showed, a group can have the financial benefits of tax privileges discontinued, and still continue to exist and exercise their rights to dissent from the endorsement of democratic values.

Response to Rubinstein and Pevnick

Those who tend to fear the Invasive State more than the Hateful Society will be concerned that democratic persuasion is too robust in its condemnation of some viewpoints. Jennifer Rubinstein has the opposite worry. In contrast to Chambers, Rubenstein claims that it is too weak in its use of persuasive power. Rubinstein suggests there is a risk of reinforcing equally problematic but more subtle forms of racism and misogyny if democratic persuasion is only used in the most egregious cases of rejection of the ideal of free and equal citizenship. After all, institutional racism is no less dangerous than outright racism to the ideal of free an equal citizenship.

I note first that my examples go beyond the most obvious cases of organizations that reject the ideal of free and equal citizenship. The proposal to revoke nonprofit status for the Boy Scouts of America is likely to be quite controversial. I also include in democratic persuasion the step of denying tax privileges and public benefits to discriminatory groups. For instance, the state may refuse to rent public store fronts to a discriminatory group.

But when it comes to the topic of this chapter, namely the use of state spending and non-profit status to criticize hateful and discriminatory viewpoints, there is a need for a clear guide that can be codified into law. Institutional racism and sexism are so prevalent, however, that a rule that targeted it might exclude any institution from nonprofit status.

The substance and means based limits do not mean the government cannot speak out against more subtle forms of racism sexism and homophobia. Indeed, when it speaks generally it should encourage a self examination of the kind I discuss in chapter two. Reflective revision is precisely the process of looking for our own, perhaps hidden, forms of racism and sexism. But encouraging reflective revision is a way of recognizing the subtlety of institutional racism and its prevalence. Using the stronger means I discuss in chapter 4 I think would fail to recognize this subtlety.

My argument for a clear legally modifiable standard for revoking 501c3 status also helps to answer Ryan Pevnick’s worry about the abuse of state power in pursuit of democratic persuasion. Currently, the tax privileges of 501c3 status hinges on an overly broad discretion by the IRS about what is and what is not a “charitable” purpose that confers a public benefit. My proposal is to clarify the meaning of what qualifies as a “charitable” organization to exclude certain hateful viewpoints. Clarifying the standard, in fact, would allow less discretion to the IRS and other administrative agencies . Pevnick’s worry about the abuse of state power apply more to the current understanding of 501c3 status, and less to my theory of democratic persuasion, which has a clearer and less arbitrary understanding of what charitable organizations can receive tax privileges.

Response to Vallier, Schwartzman and Stiltz

The exchange between Kevin Vallier and Micah Schwartzman focuses on my account of transformation and religious freedom. Vallier suggests that my account of transformation commits me to a state role in making theological judgments. If I think that the state should criticize religious groups, even churches that reject the ideal of free and equal citizenship, does that make the state a theologian?

Schwartzman disagrees, replying that I am merely defending a set of democratic values that might or might not conflict with theological values. That is not engaging in theology, although it might impact theological institutors, notably churches like Westboro.

Not surprisingly I agree with Schwartzman. My aim is to have the state promote a set of democratic values, and not to make theological judgments. I am seeking to defend the reasons for rights, including the reasons that undergird the right to free exercise of religious. That right is based on an ideal of free and equal citizenship. To defend religion we must defend these values even in the face of religious opposition. This means engaging in judgment about the meaning of religious freedom, but that is not theological judgment.

But I do think Kevin is correct that some religious groups will find that democratic persuasion impinges on their theological commitments. Some religious groups have no trouble seeing how their theology leads them to endorse an ideal of free and equal citizenship. But others, such as the Westboro Church, will find their theological commitments at odds with the state’s promotion of the ideal of free and equal citizenship. Their central commitment as they see it, namely that God hates gays, is at odds with the ideal of equality for gays under law. To the extent that the government promotes an ideal of equality, it inevitably criticizes homophobia that is grounded in Westboro’s view of theology.

I do not think I could say here either that these are merely unintended or unforeseeable effects of democratic persuasion. I take Vallier’s point to be that we know these effects will happen. But recognizing that democratic persuasion might impact theological viewpoints is not the same as saying that it is itself theological or engages in theology. The state is not endorsing a belief in Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, or any religion at all. Rather, the state is promoting a set of political, democratic values even when they conflict with other values, including those grounded in some theologies.

Relatedly Anna Stiltz also worries that democratic persuasion might undermine theological authority. Ultimately she says my view requires that religious groups accept a grounding of political authority as being secular and not religious. She worries that might have too great a theological impact.

In responding to this related concern, I think it is important to remind the reader of the many instances in which there is not such a conflict. Many religions accept the ideal of equality under law for various statuses. Indeed every major religion currently has variants that accept these values at least as a matter of law. This shows that there is no instance of these values being at odds with religion wholesale.

But what about the impact on those religions that are at odds with these values? As Annie makes clear they can simply opt out of democratic persuasion by refusing non-profit status and government funding. But am I saying they cannot be good citizens?

I think that goes too far. Citizenship is multifaceted and has many dynamics. Members of these groups might be good citizens in paying taxes, obeying the law, and performing national service. I think though, that we should acknowledge that as far as they reject free and equal citizenship, they do not endorse the highest ideal of democratic citizenship, and they are denying the respect that is owed to their fellow citizens as free and equal.

The 2013 Spring Philosophy Symposium at the University of Tennessee will take place April 27-28. Organized this year by Prof. Adam Cureton, the symposium will address philosophical issues raised by social norms and will feature presentations by Barbara Herman, Brad Hooker, Tom Hill, Henry Richardson, and Adam Cureton. The Symposium is free and open to the public. Additional information is available here: http://web.utk.edu/~acureto1/workshop-on-social-norms/Social Norms Poster

In September 2013, the Department of Politics and International Studies at SOAS, University of London will start a new MSc in Comparative Political Thought, the first programme in the UK devoted to this field of study. The degree builds upon the School’s wealth of regional and linguistic expertise to offer a comprehensive and cross-regional approach to comparative political thought. The SOAS MSc programme will introduce students to key approaches, debates, and questions in the comparative study of ideas. By reframing the study of political ideas in Asia, Africa and the Middle East to the analysis of both texts and practices, this programme will develop a new approach to the comparative study of political thinking. The SOAS Masters programme combines a unique range of core and optional courses. Students will acquire the disciplinary skills and regional knowledge needed to understand ideas in context in Asia, Africa and the Middle East, and will develop the methodological tools to appreciate how concepts relate to political action. By bringing such ideas and concepts into conversation with the Western political theoretic canon, this approach seeks to revise the way in which political theory itself is understood. The MSc in Comparative Political Thought will prepare students to undertake further advanced research in political theory, as well as in Islamic, Indian, African, Chinese and other political ideas. It will also equip students with transferrable skills suitable for employment in multicultural and international contexts.

Further information and application procedures are available at http://www.soas.ac.uk/politics/

A MANCEPT Workshop in Political Theory, convened by Robert Jubb and Enzo Rossi

4th – 6th September 2013, University of Manchester, UK

The current realist movement in political theory promises to change the way in which we approach first-order normative questions. It suggests that mainstream political philosophy is overly reliant on pre-political moral beliefs and so fails to adequately engage with the reality of politics. Politics is about the coercive provision of structuring orders rather than conforming to moral ideals, which its tools and problems may make impossible anyway. However, what difference does this make to the prescriptions that normative political philosophy aims at making? Some realists urge that political philosophers should turn their attention from the contemporary concern with the allegedly moral issue of justice to questions of the properly political virtue of legitimacy; questions of legitimacy should override the traditional contemporary concern with justice; others, noting that moral ideals are not discovered or created in political or historical vacuums, press charges of false consciousness, obfuscation and ideology on liberal-democratic thought. These arguments are clearly connected. But do those insights actually produce radically different accounts of political authority? The aim of this workshop is to move the realist current beyond methodological debates and into normative theorising, with particular attention to the issue of legitimacy and its connection to the problem of ideology. What would taking the
historical specificity of political problems and the resources available to solve them mean, and how would this differ from more directly moralised accounts?

We would particularly welcome papers on the relationship between legitimacy and
ideology, and their connections to justice, democracy, modernity, collective responsibility, and related topics.

Please send a 300-word abstract to R.Jubb@ucl.ac.uk and enzo.rossi@newport.ac.uk by 24 May 2013.

General information on the MANCEPT Annual Workshops: http://manceptworkshops2013.wordpress.com/

Apologies for cross-posting.

BRAVE NEW WORLD FINAL CALL FOR PAPERS

Deadline for submission of abstract: 22nd March 2013

Brave New World 2013, the Seventeenth Annual Postgraduate Conference organised under the auspices of the Manchester Centre for Political Theory (MANCEPT), will take place on Thursday 27th and Friday 28th June 2013 at the University of Manchester.

We are pleased to announce that our guest speakers this year are:

Samuel Scheffler (NYU)
Michael Otsuka (UCL)

The Brave New World conference series is now established as a leading international forum dedicated exclusively to the discussion of postgraduate research in political theory. Participants will have the chance to meet and talk about their work with eminent academics, including members of faculty from the University of Manchester and guest speakers, who will deliver keynote addresses at the event.

Guest speakers in previous years have included: Richard Arneson, Brian Barry, Simon Caney, G.A. Cohen, Roger Crisp, Cecile Fabre, Jerry Gaus, Peter Jones, Chandran Kukathas, Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen, Susan Mendus, David Miller, Onora O’Neill, Michael Otsuka, Bhikhu Parekh, Carole Pateman, Anne Phillips, Thomas Pogge, Joseph Raz, Andrea Sangiovanni, Quentin Skinner, Hillel Steiner, Adam Swift, Philippe Van Parijs, Leif Wenar, Andrew Williams and Jonathan Wolff.

SUBMISSION GUIDELINES: The deadline is 22nd March 2013. If you would like to present a paper, then please submit a title and abstract of approximately 300 words. Papers focusing on any area of political theory or political philosophy are welcome. Abstracts should be prepared for blind review in MS Word format. Graduate submissions should be sent by e-mail to Brave.New.World@manchester.ac.uk. Please also include in your email your name and institutional affiliation. Notices of acceptance will be sent by 26th April 2013. A number of bursaries are available for presenters and will be allocated in accordance with need. If you wish to be considered for a bursary, please say so when submitting your abstract. Please note that apart from these bursaries the conference is self-financed and participants are responsible for seeking their own funding. For further details please contact us at Brave.New.World@manchester.ac.uk.

Further details to follow at: Further details to follow at:
http://www.socialsciences.manchester.ac.uk/disciplines/politics/events/bnw2013/

Call for applications
Post-doctoral Fellowships

Political Theory/Political Philosophy

University of Frankfurt – Centre for Advanced Studies „Justitia Amplificata: Rethinking Justice – Applied and Global”

http://www.justitia-amplificata.de/index.html

Duration and Starting Date: 12 months, starting on either September 1st or October 1st 2013, according to the fellows’ convenience.
The Centre for Advanced Studies „Justitia Amplificata: Rethinking Justice – Applied and Global”, funded by the German Research Council (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG) at the University of Frankfurt is seeking to appoint up to three post-doctoral fellows in political theory/political philosophy for the academic year 2013/2014.

Candidates should have completed, or be close to the completion of, a doctorate in political theory/political philosophy, and should have proven potential to conduct and publish research at an international level. Candidates’ research should fall within the Centre’s areas of focus, namely global justice and applied theories of justice, as well as methodological questions on how to apply theories of justice to non-ideal circumstances.

Please send your application in English (a 2-3 page research project, CV, writing sample of preferably not more than 7,000 words [can be an excerpt], and two letters of reference) to the administrative officer of Justitia Amplificata, Ms Valérie Bignon, bignon@em.uni-frankfurt.de.

Closing date is April 7st 2013.

Has something happened to the Equality Exchange? I haven’t visited the site for a while, but now I cannot find it. The last address I had for it was http://mora.rente.nhh.no/projects/EqualityExchange/. Sorry if this is old news.

CONFERENCE:  “Democratic Rights – Democratic Duties”

Charles Sturt University, Bathurst, New South Wales

3-4^th July 2013

The Faculty of Arts at Charles Sturt University organises a conference on the topic “Democratic Rights – Democratic Duties”. The event aims to bring together academics working in the humanities, to foster discussion over what rights and duties are bestowed upon citizens of democratic countries. Papers will cover topics such as political participation, the ethics of voting, just war theory, the language of democracy, human rights.

Speakers:

Jason Brennan (Georgetown, USA)

Tom Campbell (CAPPE)

Russell Daylight (Charles Sturt University)

Piero Moraro (Charles Sturt University)

Massimo Renzo (Warwick, UK)

Sarah Sorial (University of Wollongong)

Kevin Walton (University of New South Wales)

Academics interested in offering a response to one of the above presentations should send their CV and a short statement of how the themes of the conference bear on their research interests (150 words max.)  to Piero Moraro (pmoraro@csu.edu.au) by 15^th March 2013. Respondents’ accommodation and catering costs will be subsidised.

Starting today Crooked Timber is rolling out this seminar (review symposium) on Jack Knight & James Johnson The Priority of Democracy: Political Consequences of Pragmatism (Princeton UP, 2011).  Contributors are Chris Ansell (Berkeley), Melissa Schwartzberg (Columbia), Peter Boettke (George Mason), Ingrid Robeyns (Erasmus), Adrian Vermeule (Harvard), Henry Farrell (George Washington) and Cosma Shalizi (Carnegie Mellon). Knight (Duke) and Johnson (Rochester) reply.

University of Edinburgh - School of Social and Political Science

We seek to appoint an outstanding candidate for a Chair in Political Theory, with a focus on the normative dimensions of public and international affairs. The Chair will be located in the Politics and International Relations subject area of the School of Social and Political Science.

The successful candidate will be internationally recognised as a leader in the research field; will possess teaching and supervision skills and experience of exceptional quality; and will further the School’s international reputation for research and its commitment to excellence in teaching and administration.

The position is available from 1st August 2013.

This is a Grade 10 post (attracting a salary of between  54,826 – 75,109 per annum).

Closing Date: 8th March 2013

Vacancy Reference: 010123

Links:

http://www.jobs.ac.uk/job/AFY849/chair-in-political-theory/

http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/human-resources/jobs

UCL DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY

Research Associate (Post-Doctoral) x 2

Grade 7

Post/ Hours per week (%FTE) 2 Full-time posts / (at 36.5 hours per week)

Salary £32,375 – £39,132 per annum inclusive of London allowance (starting salary at £32,375 per annum)

Duties and Responsibilities

The School of Public Policy, UCL wishes to appoint two full-time Postdoctoral Research Associates to work with Professor Cécile Laborde on an ERC (European Research Council) funded research project entitled ‘Is Religion Special? Secularism and Religion in Contemporary Legal and Political Theory’. This 5-year-long project interrogates the special status of religion (ethics, epistemology and practices) in western political and legal theory, and assesses the normative implications of the contemporary shift towards ‘post-secular’ approaches for the relationship between politics and religion.

The successful candidates will be undertaking research duties in connection with the project; and pursue their own research in one of the following areas: (i) the intellectual history of politics and religion (ii) religion in legal theory (iii) secularism in political philosophy.

Please note that one post will be for 2 years and the other for 3 years. These full-time appointments are available from 1st September 2013.

Key Requirements

To be appointed as a Research Associate the successful candidates must hold (or be near completion of) a PhD in political philosophy, law, intellectual history or a related subject; have a broad knowledge of Theories of Religion and Politics and a good research project; and experience of planning and conducting academic research independently. They must also possess excellent writing, communication and organisational skills.

Candidates who have not yet completed a PhD will be considered. Please note that appointment at Grade 7 is dependent upon having been awarded a PhD; if this is not the case, initial appointment will be at research assistant Grade 6 (salary £28,338 – £29,881 per annum) with payment at Grade 7 being backdated to the date of final submission of the PhD thesis.

Further Details

Information about the Department of Political Science is available at www.ucl.ac.uk/spp. A job description and person specification are attached.

Informal enquiries may be made to Professor Cécile Laborde (c.laborde@ucl.ac.uk ). If you have any queries regarding the vacancy or the application process, please contact Sydonnie Hyman, email s.hyman@ucl.ac.uk , tel +44 (0)20 7679 4944 quoting reference number 1308895.

Closing Date: 5pm, 31st March 2013

It is anticipated that interviews will be held in April 2013.

Professor Cecile Laborde

Director, Legal and Political Theory Programme

Department of Political Science

School of Public Policy

UCL

29/30 Tavistock Square

London WC1H 9QU

Tel +442076794945

Fax +442076794969

c.laborde@ucl.ac.uk

www.ucl.ac.uk/spp/people/cecile-laborde

Please note the new deadline for abstracts below:

RHETORIC, BETWEEN THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF POLITICS

International Conference 

CEHUM, University of Minho

Braga, Portugal

June 21-22, 2013

Invited Speakers:

Benedetto Fontana (CUNY)

Bryan Garsten (Yale University)

Eugene Garver (St. John’s University)

Marco Geuna (University of Milan)

James Martin (Goldsmiths, University of London)

Kari Palonen (University of Jyväskylä)

Javier Roiz (Complutense University)

Call for papers

As one of the consequences of the lingering process of corrosion of the rationalist assumptions of the Enlightenment project, in the last decades we have witnessed an attempt in different areas of the humanities to revive the central role rhetoric used to have in antiquity. Despite its political origins, however, the contribution of political theory to this important endeavour has only come of late, as more and more theorists have started to expose the rhetorical nature of politics in multiple manners: showing how it can be used to offer more sophisticated accounts of public deliberation, more attentive toward emotive aspects and contexts; or revealing it as an important manifestation of practical reason; or studying its presence in canonical thinkers and critical moments in the history of political thought; or finally, taking it as an inspiring source for a post-foundationalist emancipatory political theory.

This variety of approaches testifies to the pervasiveness of the rhetorical dimensions in the whole realm of politics, from action to theory. The aim of this conference is to bring together scholars coming from disciplines such as political theory, philosophy, history, literature, or communication, to debate the multifaceted significance of rhetoric in politics and to explore new ways to incorporate a ‘rhetorical perspective’ in the study of political thought. Our hope is that this event could offer an important moment to assess and foster the still incipient revival of rhetoric in this area.

The conference will be organized in plenary and parallel sessions. Proposals for the latter are invited on, but not limited to, topics such as: rhetoric and the limits of rational deliberation, rhetoric as a manifestation of practical reason, rhetoric and civic education, rhetoric and the public intellectual, rhetoric and post-foundationalist political theory, rhetoric and political change, rhetoric and the symbolic space of politics, rhetoric in canonical political thinkers and in the history of political thought.
In order to propose a paper, an abstract of no more than 500 words should be sent to rhetoricandpolitics2013@gmail.com

(with “Rhetoric and Politics 2013 Submission” in the subject line of the message)

The deadline for the abstract is now 10 February 2013

In addition to the abstract, please include in your proposal your academic title, name, affiliation, and the title of your contribution

Website

https://sites.google.com/site/cehumfilosofiapolitica/destaques-1/upcoming-events/cfp-rhetoric-between-the-theory-and-practice-of-politics