El pensamiento político de José Ortega y Gasset

Las siguientes páginas versan sobre el pensamiento político de José Ortega y Gasset, mostrando –entre otras cosas– su evolución desde lo que sería el neokantismo de mocedad de Ortega hasta su madurez. Para cumplir con nuestro objetivo se ha recurrido a los escritos de Ortega, así como a autores especializados en su pensamiento. La historia del pensamiento político contemporáneo tiene una deuda contraída con Ortega que desde sus primeros escritos manifestó un claro interés por la política concebida ésta como pedagogía social y cuyo fin debía ser, en primer lugar, solventar los problemas de la vida pública nacional. El pensamiento político de Ortega se define asimismo por la defensa de los valores liberales (liberalismo) compatibles con los principios socialistas (socialismo), que en una primera época de juventud idealista neokantiana adquieren un significado eminentemente cultural aunque también moral, que no se perderá completamente en su madurez o época de plenitud vital, aunque bien es verdad que aquellos dos conceptos (liberalismo y socialismo), así como también su idea de democracia, irán respondiendo a la evolución de su pensamiento.

Recognition and Redistribution in Theories of Justice Beyond the State

We consider here how cultural and socioeconomic dimensions of justice beyond the state are related. First we examine cosmopolitan theories that have drawn on John Rawls's egalitarian liberal framework to argue that a just global order requires substantive, transnational redistribution of material resources. We then assess the view, ironically put forward by Rawls himself, that this perspective is ethnocentric and insufficiently tolerant of non-liberal cultures. We argue that Rawls is right to be concerned about the danger of ethnocentrism, but wrong to assume that this requires us to reject the case for substantive redistribution across state boundaries. A more compelling account of justice beyond the state will integrate effectively socioeconomic and cultural aspects of justice. We suggest that this approach is best grounded in a critical theory of recognition that responds to the damage caused to human relations by legacies of historical injustice.

Alasdair MacIntyre and the Hope for a Politics of Virtuous Interdependence

Rebellion, philosophic and political, impels the work of Alasdair MacIntyre. Neither of the left nor the right, he treads a borderline path between conservatism and radicalism in holding to a socialist Thomistic Aristotelianism underpinned by a deliberative ‘ethic of care’ that is implacably opposed to modernity and the advanced capitalist nation-state. The depth of this opposition arouses strong opinions in friend and foe alike. To some he is an eminently dispensable reactionary whose sole consistent feature is an inexplicable ‘hatred of liberal individualism’ (Lessnoff 1999: 4). To others he appears a revolutionary enunciating a departure capable of legitimating the activities of ordinary persons so ‘that previously isolated struggles might be transformed into a new class war of attrition’ (Knight 1996: 896). However, neither interpretation rings true. MacIntyre does develop a cogent critique of the present, but this critique points in directions towards which no politics could hope to move.

Cosmopolitan Exception

There has been a resurgence of interest in cosmopolitanism in contemporary political theory, based upon the hopeful premise that it heralds an ameliorative response to the malignity of sovereignty's lack and the treacherous violence of sovereignty's excess. The promise of cosmopolitanism inheres in the claim that state sovereignty is and should be supplemented by an international system backed by the legitimacy of international law, grounded in the sovereignty of human rights. Drawing upon Foucault and Agamben, my argument in this essay is that the laudable endeavour of liberal cosmopolitans is flawed in two ways: first, cosmopolitanism cannot escape sovereign violence, because it cannot escape sovereignty; and second, cosmopolitans misconstrue the composition of the very sovereignty they aim to escape. This means that cosmopolitan theorists are unable to identify cosmopolitan practices of sovereignty that also entail forms of violence: cosmopolitan exception. Cosmopolitan exception denotes violent sovereign practices that cannot be differentiated from the protection of rights.

Demanding Recognition: Equality, Respect, and Esteem

This article argues that we must distinguish between two distinct currents in the politics of recognition, one centred on demands for equal respect which is consistent with liberal egalitarianism, and one which centres on demands for esteem made on behalf of particular groups which is at odds with egalitarian aims. A variety of claims associated with the politics of recognition are assessed and it is argued that these are readily accommodated within contemporary liberal egalitarian theory. It is argued that, pace Taylor, much of what passes for `identity' or recognition politics is driven by demands for equal respect, not by demands for esteem/affirmation. Given the inherently hierarchical nature of esteem recognition, no liberal state can consistently grant such recognition. Furthermore, these demands pose the risk of intensifying intergroup competition and chauvinism. Esteem recognition is valuable for individuals, but plays a problematic role for egalitarian politics.

Crime, justice and the legitimacy of military power in the international sphere

This article examines how a discourse of crime and justice is beginning to play a significant role in justifying international military operations. It suggests that although the coupling of war with crime and justice is not a new phenomenon, its present manifestations invite careful consideration of the connection between crime and political theory. It starts by reviewing the notion of sovereignty to look then at the history of the criminalisation of war and the emergence of new norms to constrain sovereign states. In this context, it examines the three ways in which military force has recently been authorised: in Iraq, in Libya and through drones in Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia. It argues the contemporary coupling of military technology with notions of crime and justice allows the reiteration of the perpetration of crimes by the powerful and the representation of violence as pertaining to specific dangerous populations in the space of the international. It further suggests that this authorises new architectures of authority, fundamentally based on military power as a source of social power.

גבול (Border)

This paper is a reexamination of the concept of the geopolitical border through a critical analysis of prevalent conceptualizations of borders, as they are articulated in the fields of geopolitics, political theory and international relations. Suggesting that thinking of borders as the derivative of territorial definitions disregards the dependency of territoriality and sovereign space on the praxes of border making, this paper offers an analytic distinction between normative articulations of borders and the border as a political practice. This distinction enables the identification of partial and incoherent border making processes. Consequently, the creation of borders can be analyzed as an effect of a multiplicity of performative praxes, material, juridical and otherwise discursive, that operate in relation to the management of space and attribute it with geopolitical distinctions. Furthermore, the paper suggests that these praxes, which appear in dispersed sites and in a wide variety of loci, are intrinsically linked to different spatial practices of population management, of governmentality. Thus, I offer a reading of borders as a praxis which manages binary differentiations of matrixes of governmentality, which create schisms in the population as a totality, through the deployment of the evocation of sovereignty as the legitimizing source of this differentiation or for the means necessary for its sustainment.

Deliberative Perfectionism: Why We Can and Should Talk about the Good

In contemporary political theory, perfectionists believe that the state should promote substantive conceptions of the good through its legislation. Supporters of neutrality, instead, claim that the state should refrain from doing so. In this article I analyse perfectionism in relation to Jürgen Habermas’ theory of discourse and deliberative politics (1996) and critique Habermas’ distinction between ‘ethical’ and ‘moral’ discourses (1984, 1990). By relating Habermas’ theory to George Sher’s account of perfectionism (1997), I argue that we can establish the meta-ethical grounds for a model of deliberation encompassing ethical matters (that is, questions concerning the good life) not confined to the limits of specific communities. I conclude by arguing that ethical deliberation is not only feasible but also desirable. Given the fact of ethical pluralism, and in order to show respect towards their fellow citizens, political perfectionists ought to be ready to show how their ethical claims (which they want to see translated into state policy) relate to deeper meta-ethical human goals on which we can ideally find a consensus through deliberation.

Social Equality: On what it means to be equals

The first collected volume on social and relational equality.
Addresses a gap in the literature - while many philosophers have pointed to the importance of social equality, it requires much more theoretical development, which this volume aims to provide.
Offers a unique answer to the debate about whether or not equality is valuable.
Features a foreword by eminent political theorist David Miller
Includes new contributions by some of the most well-known contemporary moral and political philosophers, such as Samuel Scheffler and Jonathan Wolff.
Is equality valuable? This question dominates many discussions of social justice, which tend to center on whether certain forms of distributive equality are valuable, such as the equal distribution of primary social goods. But these discussions often neglect what is known as social or relational equality. Social equality suggests that equality is foremost about relationships and interactions between people, rather than being primarily about distribution.

A number of philosophers have written about the significance of social equality, and it has also played an important role in real-life egalitarian movements, such as feminism and civil rights movements. However, as it has been relatively neglected in comparison to the debates about distributive equality, it requires much more theoretical attention. This volume brings together a collection of ten original essays which present new analyses of social and relational equality in philosophy and political theory. The essays analyze the nature of social equality, as well as its relationship to justice and politics.

Readership: The book is primarily aimed at professionals in the field - philosophers (especially in moral, social and political philosophy) and political theorists. It is also aimed at the academic library market. Moreover, the book should be of interest to advanced undergraduate and postgraduate students attending courses on theories of equality and/or social justice.

Foreign Direct Investment and Country Risk::Is There Evidence of 'Malign Investment in the Former Soviet States'

This paper examines the relationship between concepts of MNE bargaining power and broader concepts of political power. It notes that the analysis of MNE bargaining power presents a number of puzzles from the perspective of political theory. These puzzles arise, in part, from the fact that the overlap between traditional concepts of MNE bargaining power and broader concepts of political power is only a partial one. Despite these problems, it is suggested that political- theory-based approaches can add realism to our understanding of bargaining power.

Revisiting Iris Marion Young on Normalisation, Inclusion and Democracy

Vieten's edited collection brings together papers that were given at the I M Young Memorial Symposium 'Inclusion and Democracy Revisited', held in Amsterdam in 2012. The different chapters presented explore in-depth, Young's models of a 'politics of cultural difference', and a 'politics of positional difference' read in combination with her critique of normalisation. Young regards the latter as decisive to any change for the better when reaching out politically to a fairer and more just democratic society.
With the current political, economic and socio-cultural crisis in mind, the contemporary world of global speed and transformed societies in and beyond Europe needs a refinement of what we understand 'normalisation' and 'difference' to be. How can we connect to each other, and in what ways can Young's 'structural inequality model' be applied to develop alternative outlooks on how to enhance inclusion and democracy in different nation states?

Calvinist Absolutism: Archbishop James Ussher and Royal Power

Archbishop James Ussher's manuscript notebooks allow us to observe the making of a Calvinist absolutist and to orientate the archbishop's beliefs about royal power within European Reformed thought as a whole. By 1643, Ussher was preaching a polished and complete theory of absolute royal power, and it is possible to track the development of this political theory forward from his undergraduate days in the 1590s. Throughout his life Ussher engaged anxiously with Reformed theologians abroad, who generally favored limited rather than absolute monarchy. Nevertheless, Ussher shared with these Reformed colleagues both an antipathy to aspects of Aristotelian politics and a commitment to the divine institution of royal power. Finally, despite Ussher's hostility to Laudian innovations in the Irish Church, his heartfelt political beliefs made him a firm supporter of Stuart absolutism throughout the Three Kingdoms.