Rhetoric and public speech in English republicanism, 1642-1681

The study analyses the ambivalent relationship republicanism, as a form of self-government free from domination, had with the ideal of participatory oratory and non-dominated speech on the one hand, and with the danger of unhindered demagogy and its possibly fatal consequences to that form of government on the other. Although previous scholarship has delved deeply into republicanism as well as into rhetoric and public speech, the interplay between those aspects has only gathered scattered interest, and there has been no systematic study considering the variety of republican approaches to rhetoric and public speech in 17th-century England. The rare attempts to do so have been studies in English literature, and they have not analysed the political philosophy of republicanism, as the focus has been on republicanism as a literary culture. This study connects the fields of political theory, political history as well as literature in order to make a multidisciplinary contribution to intellectual history. The study shows that, within the tradition of classical republicanism, individual authors could make different choices when addressing the problematic topics of public speech and rhetoric, and the variety of their conclusions often set the authors against each other, resulting in the development of their theories through internal debates within the republican tradition. The authors under study were chosen to reflect this variety and the connections between them: the similarities between James Harrington and John Streater, and between John Milton and John Hall of Durham are shown, as well the controversies between Harrington and Milton, and Streater and Hall, respectively. In addition, by analysing the writings of Marchamont Nedham the study will show that the choices were not limited to more, or less, democratic brands of republicanism. Most significantly, the study provides a thorough analysis of the political philosophies behind the various brands of republicanism, in addition to describing them. By means of this analysis, the study shows that previous attempts to assess the role of free speech and public debate, through the lenses of modern, rights-based liberal political theory have resulted in an inappropriate framework for understanding early modern English republicanism. By approaching the topics through concepts used by the republicans legitimate authority, leadership by oratory, and republican freedom and through the frames of reference available and familiar to them roles of education and institutions the study presents a thorough and systematic analysis of the role and function of rhetoric and public speech in English republicanism. The findings of this analysis have significant consequences to our current understanding of the history and development of republican political theory, and, more generally, of the connections between democratic theory and free speech.

Tasa-arvo ja muutoksen rajat : Sukupuolten tasa-arvo poliittisena ongelmana Ranskan parité- ja Suomen kiintiökeskusteluissa

The study looks at the debates on gender equality in political decision-making in Finland and France in the 1990s and 2000s by analysing the argumentation for parité and quotas and the ways in which gender equality was constructed as a political problem. The focus of the study is on the parliamentary debates on the amendment of the electoral law in France in 2000 and the introduction of quota regulations into the Act on Equality in Finland in 1994 - 1995. The debates ended in the adoption of quota regulations in the electoral lists (France) and in the executive and preparatory bodies at the national and the local level (Finland). Apart from the analysis of the parliamentary debates, the study explores the political processes preceding the adoption of legislation as well as the debates on quotas and parity in Finnish and French societies in the 1980s and 1990s. The debates on gender equality are analysed as the sites of struggle and change with regard to the normative boundaries of gender equality, as well as of politics and citizenship. The cross-cultural perspective gives room to explore the ways in which gender equality and change can be imagined in different national contexts, and which kinds of discursive resources are available for the politicization of gender equality. Specific attention is paid to the discursive frames and agenda settings in the debates and how these set the limits of the imaginable and the possible in the promotion of gender equality. In both Finland and France, the promotion of equality was constructed as a national project, in which the main beneficiary was the society or the nation as a whole. In France, gender equality was an inherent part of the promotion of French democracy; in Finland, gender equality was regarded as a means to bring the expertise of both women and men to the benefit of the whole society. Furthermore, in both countries the promotion of gender equality was based on the harmonious cooperation of women and men and the temporal dimension of "nearly achieved" gender equality. In this kind of a context, gender equality served as a means towards the wider national ends, and there was little room to discuss the aspects of power and agency with regard to gender equality. However, the internationalisation of equality politics, as well as the conflicting interpretations of gender equality in the national political arenas, calls into question the existence of clearly defined and immutable boundaries of "Finnish" and "French" gender equality. At the same time, the rules of the game in politics, including the meaning of French republicanism and Finnish "expert oriented" politics were contested. In this way, the new equality legislation and the preceding political processes played a part in the transformation of the limits of gender equality, politics and citizenship.

An Analysis of the Concept of Citizenship: Legal, Political and Social Dimensions

The thesis aims at analyzing concept of citizenship in political philosophy. The concept of citizenship is a complex one: it does not have a definitive explication, but it nevertheless is a very important category in contemporary world. Citizenship is a powerful ideal, and often the way a person is treated depends on whether he or she has the status of a citizen. Citizenship includes protection of a person’s rights both at home and abroad. It entails legal, political and social dimension: the legal status as a full member of society, the recognition of that status by fellow citizens and acting as a member of society. The thesis discusses these three dimensions. Its objective is to show how all of them, despite being insufficient in some aspects, reach something important about the concept. The main sources of the thesis are Civic Republicanism by Iseult Honohan (Routledge 2002), Republicanism by Philip Pettit (Clarendon Press 1997), and Taking Rights Seriously by Ronald Dworkin (1997). In addition, the historical part of the thesis relies mainly on the works of Aristotle, Immanuel Kant, Adam Smith, Quentin Skinner, James Pocock and James Tully. The writings of Will Kymlicka, John Rawls, Chantal Mouffe, and Shane Phelan are referred to in the presentation and critique of the liberal tradition of thought. Hannah Arendt and Seyla Benhabib’s analysis of Arendt’s philosophy both address the problematic relations between human rights and nation-states as the main guarantors of rights. The chapter on group rights relies on Peter Jones’ account of corporate and collective rights, after which I continue to Seumas Miller’s essay on the (liberal) account of group rights and their relation to the concept of citizenship. Republicanism and Political Theory (2002) edited by Cécile Laborde and John Maynor is also references. David Miller and Maurizio Viroli represent the more “rooted” version of republicanism. The thesis argues that the full concept of citizenship should be seen as containing legal, political and social dimensions. The concept can be viewed from all of these three angles. The first means that citizenship is connected with certain rights, like the right to vote or stand for election, the right to property and so on. In most societies, the law guarantees these rights to every citizen. Then there is also the social dimension, which can be said to be as important as the legal one: the recognition of equality and identities of others. Finally, there is the political dimension, meaning the importance of citizens’ participation in the society, which is discussed in connection with the contemporary account of republicanism. All these issues are discussed from the point of view of groups demanding for group-specific rights and equal recognition. The challenge with these three aspects of citizenship is, however, that they are difficult to discuss under one heading. Different theories or discourses of citizenship each approach the subject from different starting points, which make reconciling them sometimes hard. The fundamental questions theories try to answer may differ radically depending on the theory. Nevertheless, in order to get the whole image of what the citizenship discourses are about all the aspects deserve to be taken into account.