Monthly Archives: January 2013

2013 Montreal Political Theory Manuscript Workshop Award Winner

The Groupe de recherche en philosophie politique de Montréal (GRIPP) is pleased to announce the 2013 winner of the Annual Montreal Political Theory Manuscript Workshop Award: “Servitude, Independence, and Labor Republicanism in America,” by Alex Gourevitch of the Department of Political Science, McMaster University. A workshop on the manuscript will be held at McGill University on May 14, 2013.

Le Groupe de recherche en philosophie politique de Montréal (GRIPP) a le plaisir d’annoncer le gagnant du Prix annuel de l’atelier de manuscrit de philosophie politique de Montréal (2013): «Servitude, Independence, and Labor Republicanism in America » par Alex Gourevitch du Département de science politique, McMaster University. Un atelier sur le manuscrit aura lieu à l’Université McGill le 14 mai 2013.


Posted in Awards, Notices | Leave a comment

New Work in Experimental Political Philosophy?

Dear all,

I am interested in finding new work on experimental political philosophy that might be worth mentioning in a review article on the topic. Any references would be great.

All best, -Nicole

Posted in Notices | 2 Comments

Dating Websites for Love-Seeking Philosophy Buffs

Ayn Rand devotees are now finding love connections at, but what is out there for philosophers whose tastes run less libertarian?  We need websites to fill the void.  For starters: (“Maximizing the romantic potential of the least desirable Americans since 1971”)

More ideas here.

Posted in Notices | Leave a comment

January 2013 APT newsletter

The Britain and Ireland Association for Political Thought (APT) is now recognised by HEFC as a learned society with the standing to be consulted on a variety of research issues. So members were able to defend the interests of political theory in the UK Research Excellence Framework – we nominated four people for the Politics panel and succeeded in securing the appointment of one of them – Richard Bellamy – thereby increasing the number of theorists by one.

We have been working on engagement with research councils – Jeremy Jennings has represented us at various meetings of the AHRC, and we submitted comments on the AHRC strategic plan. We also successfully nominated Richard Bellamy, Thom Brooks and David Owen to the Peer Review College of the AHRC. We have submitted suitably critical views on the Open Access proposals and will be nominating candidates for the ESRC research committee.


Posted in Notices | Leave a comment

Legitimacy 2.0: Transparency Online – Its Meaning, Impact And Value

Call for Papers

Special Workshop at the World Congress of Philosophy of Law (IVR)

Belo Horizonte (Brazil), 21-28t July 2013

Transparency is everywhere, or at least talk of it is everywhere. The mainstream view is that transparency furthers accountability and offers an antidote against corruption, both in the private and the public sector. It is not any specific right or principle, rather a feature of institutions embedded in the ideal of open society and often considered a requirement for efficiency and good governance. As essential to guarantee authority and effectiveness of rules, but also democratic participation, it is fundamental to assure obedience to the law and trust in institutions. Conversely, the lack of transparency might contribute to arbitrary power. Does the introduction of ICTs higher the quality of epistemic processes and outputs into the legal and political system? Does greater transparency of the network, e.g., through e-government tools, lead to increased participation, more active and responsible citizen involvement in decision-making, on local, national and supranational levels? What impact does web 2.0 technologies have? What could be the effects of information overload in the long run?


Posted in Notices | Leave a comment

Response to Sarah Conly on Chapter 2 of When the State Speaks, What Should It Say? How Democracies Can Protect Expression and Promote Equality

I’d like to thank Sarah Conly and our commentators for raising an important set of questions about the book. In this post, I focus on Conly’s worry that reflective revision cannot include citizens who reject the core democratic values of freedom and equality. She suggests that reflective revision is largely relevant to people who already endorse the ideal of free and equal citizenship. But what about those people who simply reject these values? Moreover, what might democratic persuasion say to them?

An initial reply to this worry is that the number of people who reject the values altogether might be fewer than it first appears, and they may not be completely opposed to the values. Even groups that endorse hateful viewpoints might have at least some surface devotion to democratic values. Consider David Duke’s National Association for the Advancement of White People. The organization purports to endorse an ideal of equality in claiming that they are not for the unequal treatment of African Americans but rather only support the equality of Caucasians.


Posted in Notices | Leave a comment