October 2010

You are currently browsing the monthly archive for October 2010.

Conference: The Margins of Citizenship

Citizenship is a central concept in normative political philosophy, law, and public policy. It marks out those to whom we owe special attention, those who have the right to determine their society’s shape, and those who can command the full set of entitlements made available by the state. Full citizenship is a highly prized position. Many members of society, however lack the full status of citizenship, because they do not possess the full set of citizenship rights (resident aliens, children, prisoners), and/or because, even if they do, economic forces and social norms tend to push them to the margins. Equal citizenship continues to be the site of social struggle. The object of this conference is to reflect upon the margins of citizenship, to investigate the nature of partial citizenship and whether it can be justified, and to consider what marginal citizenship implies for the concept of citizenship itself, as well as allied ideas such as social justice and rights.

Speakers:

David Owen (Southampton): Citizenship and the Marginalities of Migrants]
Respondent:  Jonathan Seglow (Royal Holloway)

Peter Ramsay (LSE): Can Prisoners have the Rights of Citizens in a Democracy?
Respondent: Alfonso Donoso (York)

Philip Cook (Leicester): Child-Citizenship, Fairness, and Marginalisation
Respondent: Sarah Hannan (Oxford)

Kimberley Brownlee (Manchester): A Human Right against Social Deprivation
Respondent: Virginia Mantouvalou (Leicester)

Supported by the Contemporary Political Theory Research Group, Royal Holloway, University of London and the Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Leicester.

10 am  – 5 pm

Friday 12 November 2010

Royal Holloway, University of London, Central London Campus, 2 Gower Street (entrance on Montague Place), London, WC1E 6DP

Attendance is free but spaces are limited so if you would like to come please register in advance with Lisa Dacunha, (Lisa.Dacunha@rhul.ac.uk).

For more details please email the conference organisers: Jonathan Seglow (j.seglow@rhul.ac.uk) or Philip Cook (pac20@le.ac.uk)

Tags: , ,

 Published on-line at: http://ept.sagepub.com/content/current

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL THEORY 9.4 (2010)

SPECIAL ISSUE: REALISM AND POLITICAL THEORY

Contributors:

Richard North

Political realism: Introduction

William A Galston

Realism in political theory

Richard Bellamy

Dirty hands and clean gloves: Liberal ideals and real politics

John Horton

Realism, liberal moralism and a political theory of modus vivendi

Glen Newey

Two dogmas of liberalism

Mark Philp

What is to be done? Political theory and political realism

Matt Sleat

Bernard Williams and the possibility of a realist political theory

Enzo Rossi

Reality and imagination in political theory and practice: On Raymond Geuss’s realism

Published on-line at: http://ept.sagepub.com/content/current

Readers may be familiar with my “Publishing Advice for Graduate Students” which addressed issues from publishing book reviews and conference proceedings to replies, full length articles, and submitting book contracts successfully. I have been genuinely thrilled by its reception as it struck me that there was a real dearth of helpful advice on the subject available. Students only had to hope for an insighful supervisor to teach them the ropes previously.

I am now beginning work on “How to Peer Review” which will address substantive, practical advice on how to best conduct reviews of journal articles and book proposals. This seems to be the new area where good information is lacking.

A question then for readers: what advice should be offered? All comments will be gratefully acknowledged in the final piece.

Please post all comments here so that they may all be in one place, as this announcent will be posted widely (as I think the issue is highly important and I am keen to canvass opinions from as many as possible).

Tags: , , , ,

I am delighted to announce a new book series in moral philosophy:

Studies in Moral Philosophy is a new book series affiliated with the Journal of Moral Philosophy. This new series will publish books in all areas of normative philosophy, including applied ethics and metaethics, as well as moral, legal, and political theory. Research book proposals exploring non-Western traditions are also welcome. The series seeks to promote lively discussions and debates among the wider philosophical community by publishing work that avoids unnecessary jargon without sacrificing academic rigour.

Prospective authors interested in contributing to this series should contact the Series Editor, Thom Brooks, in the first instance.

PLEASE SPREAD THE WORD!

Tags: , , , ,

Call for Papers:

International Conference

Challenging Citizenship

Organization: Centre for Social Studies (CES), University of Coimbra, Portugal

When? June 3–4, 2011

Where? Faculty of Economics, University of Coimbra

Language: English, with simultaneous translation into Portuguese

Conference website: http://www.ces.uc.pt/challengingcitizenship

Confirmed invited speakers:

·        James Tully, University of Victoria, Victoria, Canada – Keynote

·        Boaventura de Sousa Santos, Centre for Social Studies, Coimbra, Portugal

·        Duncan Ivison, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

·        João Cardoso Rosas, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal

·        Makau Mutua, SUNY, Buffalo, USA

·        Rainer Bauböck, European University Institute, Florence, Italy

·        Rajeev Bhargava, Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, Delhi, India

·        Roberto Gargarella, University Torcuato Di Tella, Buenos Aires, Argentina

·        Simone Chambers, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

Format

The conference includes, first, plenary sessions where invited speakers will address issues regarding the foundation, justification, scope, and practice of citizenship. Secondly, we invite abstract submissions for a number of panels on the more specific themes outlined below. The invited speakers will serve as discussants for the papers presented in the panels. Contributions from both social scientists and practitioners are welcome.

 

Summary

All democracies – old and new – are undergoing continuous, unforeseen transformations that strain the institutions’ capacity to represent the demos. Forced and voluntary movements across borders, minority recognition claims, historical injustices, economic inequalities, and gendered inequities constitute solid grounds for contesting traditional conceptions of citizenship. Given the fact of pluralism in contemporary societies, a question naturally arises: how can we re–think practices of citizenship in a way that does justice to the increasingly complex circumstances of democratic politics? The conference seeks to reflect on this question by bringing together participants from both the North and the South. Through these dialogical, interdisciplinary encounters, we hope to shed light on the non–ideal conditions for effectively exercising citizenship today. More specifically, we invite papers that fall within one or more of the following three themes:

 

(1)     Struggles for recognition and justice

First, we invite reflections on struggles for recognition and justice by previously disenfranchised groups. While the resistance of indigenous peoples to dispossession and usurpation naturally invites academic inquiry, this conference extends the scope of attention to other groups excluded from full political membership. Ethnic, religious, and sexual minorities all over the world face systemic forms of discrimination that leave them politically disenfranchised. In this context, we have to ask ourselves: How should we understand citizenship if the ultimate goal is to critically engage patterns of institutional misrecognition? And how can we reform norms and processes of constitution–making so that they allow for a continuous rectification of recalcitrant injustices? The inclusion of a variety of counter-hegemonic positions is necessary for a meaningful debate around democratic citizenship. Research on actual instances of legal pluralism and on alternative modes of constitution-making can open the path for institutional innovation.

 

(2)     New dimensions of political freedom

A second set of questions has to do with new dimensions of political freedom. Nowadays, we are witnessing the return of imperialism in various manifestations. When the sovereignty of the state is contested, political freedom comes under threat. At the same time, opportunities for radical transformation and emancipation emerge. Under these circumstances, how can we conceive of political freedom such that it furthers the cause of those excluded from full membership? And in what novel ways can citizens make use of it so as to challenge ingrained legal, political and social norms? Attention to participatory and deliberative practices in the real world, and particularly in the global South, can enrich the mainstream liberal account of democratic citizenship. Participatory budgeting and citizens’ deliberations over health-care provision are just two examples that show how theory needs to remain attuned to the plurality of existing practices.

 

(3)     Non-ideal theory for non-ideal circumstances?

Last but not least, the position of the political theorist as citizen and expert needs to be scrutinized. Given the complexity of citizenship today, what should be the tasks of the political theorist in the public sphere? How can he/she legitimately fulfil a critical mission without undermining the egalitarianism of democratic citizenship? First, we propose that bridging the gap between abstract theorizing and empirical research is imperative for responsible interventions in deliberative processes. Yet, how this imperative can be achieved remains a matter of contention. Therefore, the conference welcomes contributions addressing the proper balance between description, explanation and prescription in political theory. Second, we argue that epistemic justice is a precondition for political justice. Involving alternative ecologies of knowledge is normatively required by the commitment to equality.

 

Guidelines for abstract submission

Abstract proposals should be between 300 and 500 words in length. Preferred format for all submissions is RTF or Microsoft Word (doc). Please send your proposals – including your contact information – as attachments to challengingcitizenship@ces.uc.pt and insert “Challenging Citizenship 2011 Submission” as the subject line of the message. The deadline for abstracts is December 31, 2010. All proposals will undergo peer review and notifications of acceptance will be sent out by January 31, 2011.

The 19th Century Philosophically is full of exciting developments that changed our world and that changed philosophy.  The problem that I’ve been having as I work to put together a syllabus for a seminar on it in the spring is that I am tired of a 19th Century course that either just shows the development of German Idealism or that is a hodgepodge of stuff from the aforesaid idealists, utilitarians, darwinians, pragmatists, and positivists (though I think the latter approach better represents the century).  I want to make my course both coherent and interesting, while being faithful to the diversity of approaches found in the anglo-american and european traditions during this time.  My solution follows.  I would love comments that would help me to flesh out this idea (maybe suggesting primary texts that I might use) or to firm the idea up a bit and to focus it. Basically, what I want to do is look at the relationship between scientific knowledge and political power in the 19th Century.  I am thinking of using Rabinow’s French Modern to give some context and to look particularly at theory of and for colonization.  In addition to this anchor text, I plan on looking at Fichte’s Foundations of Natural Right, Bentham on laws, the panopticon and some of his plans for housing of the poor, Saint-Simon, Comte (of course), Marx and Engels, Mill on philosophy of science, and Herbert Spencer.  I would love some other figures to check out, especially women philosophers as this list is unfortunately bereft of them.  Will the idea fly?  Am I not really doing 19th Century Philosophy if I follow through with this plan?  Will I have harmed my students’ philosophical education if I don’t teach Hegel and Nietzsche?

Hello everyone.  I’ve been working on this paper for a few years now and I could really use some feedback.  Here’s a brief abstract:

This paper systematically extends John Rawls’ original position to nonideal theory, showing how it is both reasonable and rational for the parties to a nonideal-theoretic stage of the original position to prioritize a class of “nonideal-theoretic primary goods” over the satisfaction of Rawls’ principles and priority relations (contrary to Rawlsian orthodoxy). I show that there are at least three nonideal-theoretic primary goods, and that the parties to the original position have sufficient reason to agree to certain priority relations among them. Next, I show that the parties rationally ought to agree to a general principle for distributing these goods, and by extension, to three lexically ordered corollary principles for distributing each of the three specific goods discussed.  Finally, I argue that these principles fare well in reflective equilibrium.

Many thanks in advance to anyone who takes the time to read it.  This has been a difficult project, for obvious reasons.  Any helpful feedback is graciously appreciated.  (Note: to anyone who might have read my earlier paper, “Outline of a Nonideal Theory of Justice” on SSRN, this is a much longer, more involved defense of ideas developed there). 

Here’s a link to the paper: foundations.pdf

The Annual Conference of the Canadian Political Science Association takes place in Waterloo, Ontario from May 16-18, 2011.

Loren King and I are the section heads for the political theory section of the conference. I encourage you to consider submitting a paper proposal (deadline is Nov. 3rd) via the online submission site.  And please help spread the word about the conference.

Submissions on any topic in political theory are welcome.

We also invite submissions for our Workshop on the themes Global Justice and Global Governance. Some details about the workshop:

The workshop organizers invite political theorists to submit proposals that explore the themes of global justice and global governance. What obligations and duties do we have to non-nationals? Which principles and (existing or possible) global institutions are best suited to address the diverse concerns that arise in the world today? And which historical figures in the canon of political theory (e.g. Aristotle, Hobbes, Kant, etc.) promote ideas and concepts that can help us address the challenges of today’s interdependent and complex world?

We seek papers that cover these themes, and related issues, from all areas of political theory (e.g. normative theory, history of political thought, applied theory, etc.) that bring precision and reflection to the topics of global justice and global governance. From cosmopolitanism and nationalism, to concerns of global health, immigration and international institutions, we invite papers that link theory to the practical concerns that arise in an era of globalization.

The workshop will consist of a number of panels with three papers and a commentator in each panel.

I hope some of you will be able to join us in Waterloo for the CPSA conference in May!

Cheers,
Colin

Stanford University 2011-12 | Deadline: 12 Jan 2011

The Stanford Center for Ethics in Society and the Program on Global Justice are seeking up to four post-doctoral fellows for 2011-12:

“We welcome candidates with substantial normative research interests from diverse backgrounds including philosophy, the social sciences, and professional schools. We are especially interested in candidates with research interests in international topics, including human rights, immigration, and environmental justice, but we welcome all applicants with strong normative interests that have some practical implications. Fellows will teach one class, participate in the Political Theory and Global Justice Workshops, interact with undergraduates in the Ethics in Society program and help in developing an inter-disciplinary ethics community across the campus. Appointment is for one year, but may be renewed for an additional year. Applicants must have their doctoral degree in hand no later than 30 days prior to the appointment start date and be no more than 3 years from the awarding of the degree.”

Applications are to be submitted via an online application system that will be ready later this year. Information about that will be posted on their website. Contact Joan Berry for more details.