Contemporary Republican Strategies for 'Civic Virtue' and the Notion Of

CEU eTD Collection Contemporary Republican Strategiesfor ‘Civic Virtue’and the Notionof Iseult Honohan,SeniorLecturer,UniversityCollege Dublin János Kis,Professor,CentralEuropeanUniversity In partialfulfillmentoftherequirementsfor Degree ofDoctorPhilosophy Department ofPoliticalScience Central EuropeanUniversity PHD DEFENSECOMMITTEE: Political Obligation Laura Andronache BUDAPEST, HUNGARY Petr Lom(Supervisor) Submitted to JUNE 2009 By CEU eTD Collection I herebydeclarethatthisworkcontainsnomaterialsacceptedforanyotherdegreesin other institutions.Thisthesiscontainsnomaterialspreviouslywrittenand/orpublishedby another personunlessotherwisenoted. 2 CEU eTD Collection y osrcig nto o pltcl biain rm rpbia prpcie w hp to hope we perspective, republican a contribute anoverallnormativejustificationtocontemporaryrepublicanarguments. from obligation political of notion a constructing By society. democratic a just reasonably a in citizen of endorse role the around constructed obligation role to and of form a as justified be could reason, way republican thick, this in understood obligation political of public from sonotion a argue that IFinally, promotes. it that specific obligations the for argument normative do to deliberate, present a needsto seriously, it to betaken republicanism is equality. If redistributive notionof to obligations that obligation the political republican for entails argument an construct to is lines these along theory of form salient most republican a promote to way the promising most the that argue as I further virtue’. ‘civic republican emerges community democratic just reasonably a ‘justificatory’ the of preserve character to way non- the as as concern, shared of freedom matters in on participation of deliberations of public notion notion the Instead, argument. the should republican we a to of that support identity normative not national for of look is form the in it expressed good that common the analysis or domination my from apparent becomes It the discern to but republicanism, of theory institutional normative argumentsbehindarepublicanpoliticalmorality. an reconstruct or develop is to aim My not society. civil of fora of deliberative diffuse form in participation some to interests for individuals’ arguing in track not do that strategies decisions political of contestation from different life, public in engagement of enhanced multitude a but argument republican single no is there for simplification, a is That distinctiveness. to claim and salience normative republicanism’s determine to hope I varieties, different of arguments and themes republican liberal to close individual that too contemporary idea Byassessing public life. in civic engagement citizens’ republican dependent on freedom is coming basic the or explore to oppressiveness us enables dissertation into This arguments. sliding high freedom, too exacting individual without on framework, costs political liberal-democratic a in life? democracy public radical in participation enhanced of elements incorporate for to thus and that, just do to arguments propose theories republican Contemporary normative successful make we Can Abstract 3 CEU eTD Collection Finally, mythanksgotoFilipforhisstubbornsupport. particular thePoliticalScienceDepartmentatCEUfortheirsupportandencouragements. thank in to like would I University. Oxford the at research my for funding the of covered part having and CommonwealthOfficefor the UnitedKingdom’sForeign tothank would alsolike I possible. been have stimulating not would work, the my improve helped of which at, manypresented I conferences in participation as well as abroad study my support, university’s the Without me. provided has CEU that support logistical and financial the for grateful am I committee onveryshortnotice. defense on the sit agree to generous to who was past and the in me encouraged and supported has who Honohan Iseult thank to like particularly would I student. visiting a as there stay my during Workshop Theory Political Nuffield stimulating the at welcome feel me making also while argument, my in path right the finding in deal great a me helped has 2004/2005 year academic who the during Miller Oxford of Professor University College, work. Nuffield the my at research steer my supervised helped have disciplined suggestions of critical importance his the and learn to thinking opportunity best the with me provided have CEU at courses Kis’ Professor encouragement. feedback and his Miller for David to Special thanks track. on stay me helping in crucial been have project this of legs final the in comments His completion. to this bring to able been have not would I guidance invaluable whose without Kis thank János to like would also guidance. I generosity and for his thank him journey. I this throughout invariably me supported has who Lom Petr supervisor, my thank to like would I Acknowledgments 4 CEU eTD Collection . ruet gis oiia biain...... 153 obligation...... againstpolitical 4.2 Arguments 149 4.1 Introduction...... 124 ...... deliberation reasonand public 3.5 Republicanism, 114 feasible theory?...... 3.4 A 111 ...... Habermas andrepublicanism 3.3 Jürgen 106 Habermas?...... 3.2 Why 105 3.1 Introduction...... SELF-GOVERNMENT105 THE NOTIONOF AND REPUBLICANISM CHAPTER 3:DELIBERATIVE 102 ...... 2.6 Conclusion 99 ...... patriotism case forcivic 2.5 A 92 nationalidentity...... citizenship and 2.4 Republican 81 identity...... 2.3 National 70 ...... citizenship 2.2 Republican 67 2.1 Introduction...... 67 OF POLITICALOBLIGATION...... ONTHENOTION ANDINITIALIDEAS IDENTITYREPUBLICANISM NATIONAL CHAPTER 2:A 64 ...... 1.7 Conclusion 62 ...... of civic virtue liberaltheory vs.a ofcivicvirtue republican theory 1.6 A 49 community...... 1.5 Republican 29 asnon-domination...... 1.4 Freedom 27 ...... order rich constitutional 1.3 A 23 ...... view abird’seye republicanism: 1.2 Instrumental 21 1.1 Introduction...... CHAPTER 4: REPUBLICAN POLITICAL OBLIGATION- A JUSTIFICATION...... 149 A OBLIGATION- POLITICAL CHAPTER 4:REPUBLICAN ...... 21 AS NON-DOMINATION ANDFREEDOM REPUBLICANISM CHAPTER 1:INSTRUMENTAL INTRODUCTION...... 7 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF 5 CEU eTD Collection . eulcnpltclolgto sarl biain utfcto...... 176 ajustification...... asaroleobligation: political obligation 4.5 Republican 169 obligations...... ofassociative 4.4 Anoutline 156 objections...... republicanism: considering for therightconcept obligation 4.3 Ispolitical BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 199 ...... 194 CONCLUSION 6 CEU eTD Collection oeec o dfeet taeis n rmtn rpbia agmns a wl a t ty to try to ascertain theirspecificity. as well as normative arguments, republican the promoting assess in strategies to different is of coherence task interesting and substantive more the Then, arguments. republican specific interpret and reconstruct to is undertaking am I that tasks first the of one clarity, conceptual of lack certain a as well as thought, republican contemporary of character protean this of Because all. than rather ideas degrees. these of some different on focus to will authors and Different forms different in autonomy political and freedom patriotism, non-domination, self-government, collective contemporary of A arguments contain concern. will common theory to republican of decisions matters public on of deliberations contestation public from in range participation can involvement civic that of nature The citizens. its of involvement civic the on depend systems democratic liberal of quality basic a of gist and main endurance the state, a of freedom the and The freedom individual that is argument republican thought. communitarian of version political more authors republican a morality, propose political wanting morally a of advocate an as it) mainstream of certain version a least at (or liberalism with fault find to is which do, authors liberal perfectionist even and democratic deliberative post-modern, feminist, communitarian, other what doing In fashion. misleading simply or generic cardboard-like, a in often too construes it which about liberalism, to part opposition in uninteresting positioning negative the ‘hysterically’ its is republicanism: That atomism. and scepticism individualism, or assumes promotes wrongly liberalism which to according platform anti-liberal familiar a largely of basis the on doctrine political as liberalism challenges republicanism Contemporary Introduction 7 CEU eTD Collection n ter nlec ars tms tee s lt f cpiim urudn contemporary surrounding scepticism theory of political normative a as republicanism lot a is there times, across influence their and an Rome, ancient from of ideals the in arguments interest renewed a republican as well as perspective, in juridical American interest subsequent a and project Fathers’ Founding the of ideas history of revisionist by a inspired republican thought of certain revival a Despite in part take can too they that so deliberations. others, of empowering economic the to contribute to and reason public from so do to deliberate, to obligation an as such obligations republican demanding for constructarole-basedjustification of politicalobligation,Igoonto the notion of appropriateness the for argument the developing After institutions. just obey merely than rather life civic in part active ground take should citizens could that idea republican that basic the normatively citizenship republican for justification normative general a for words, were other in argue they I obligation. political republican if of notion general defended a of part as better conceptualized be could participation civic enhanced of ideas republican that argue then I concern. common of matters to related deliberations public in participation civic enhanced to refer to understood self-government of notion the in is hope best hold to seems republicanism Where republicanism. in salient normatively is which that find to want we if look should we that non-domination as freedom of notion the to not is it that is time) same the at necessarily all (not republican are that arguments or authors themes, of waters unclear dangerously the through analysis the steer to trying after reach, I that conclusion The xet ht hy osk idvda atnm we camn ta “niiul gny s a is agency “individual that claiming when autonomy individual forsake they the that to extent identities communal in steeped are thought republican of more versions that communitarian either is it that theory republican of sceptical those from is, usually diagnostic per se per 8 and that has to be our starting point. The point. starting our be to has that and CEU eTD Collection usatvl dsacn isl fo lbrl rcps s vrl opesv t a troubling a to degree.” oppressive overtly is precepts liberal from itself distancing substantively if or, liberalism modern of body a for skin rhetorical archaic somewhat a than more little is it because non-threatening is republicanism “Either meaningful. be to liberalism to close too 4 3 2 1 arch-republican. as hailed are that themes the of some about republican particularly nothing is there goes, argument the grounds, nationalist on defended self-rule defending promotes as well as be historically can which themes rule, Just imperial it and monarchs foreign of rejection as that republican. understood grounds than the other on grounds distinctiveness on republicanism’s justified be can republican specifically be to claims it that values the that is republicanism at levelled criticism Another make successfulnormativeargumentsgroundingenhancedcivicparticipationinpubliclife? we can question: fundamental one by guided is dissertation this sense, a in Thus, framework. democracy representative liberal, mostly a within ideal democratic radical of sort some brand re- to attempts as viewed values those grounding for available or advocated strategies the and values republican purported of exploration an basic most its at is analysis my way, a In some oftheirliberalcounterparts. from ideas republican contemporary of delimitation clearer a for obligations as conceived identity” collective of function republican arguments with crucially entangled is deliberative democracy that indeed, and find republican. than other grounds on defended be can democracy, deliberative of that be to recognize critics some which thought, republican of proposition no.2 (2006): 222 no.2 (2006): Goodin, “Folie Republicaine”: 68 “FolieRepublicaine”: Goodin, 58-59 “FolieRépublicaine”: seeGoodin, Onthisfirstpoint &Economics Politics,Philosophy RevivingRepublicanism”, “Against LorenLomasky, GeoffreyBrennan, Political Science Reviewof Annual Goodin,“FolieRépublicaine”, RobertE. 2 My analysis points in the direction of a normative justification of republican values republican of justification normative a of direction the in points analysis My 1 or that more liberal-minded versions of republicanism come republicanism of versions liberal-minded more that or 9 4 6 (2003): 71 6(2003): 3 I will look at this argument this at look will I hs te ot attractive most the Thus, , 5 CEU eTD Collection 5 That ofequality. more distributiveforms away from shies ensuring freedomfromdomination, and domination fighting on focus poignant a despite who Pettit, Philip by advocated that like values republican of theargumentsadvancedbyrepublicanauthors.Tothatextent,andgivendefence mix a obligation political republican for justification a devising in I follow general, In power. of offices in those of corruptibility the as such concerns of lexicon republican the of part be to seen be reasonably can that ideas from obligation political republican a of justification the construct I argument. republican of lines three from ethos republican the of part be to argue I that political obligations the relevant I devise Also, a justificatory community. participation in of notion the around stability democratic of idea the constructs than it as comprehensive democracy, deliberative more is argument republican the end, the In politics. in deliberation view of formalistic, micro promising, ratherthana thatIfindmost republican strandoftheory the with line in more is life public of spheres different to applying as democracy deliberative of view macro certain a show, will I As republican. not are who democrats deliberative are there yet, And republicanism. about appealing most be to claim I which that of part core and example. for status political of equality an just is equality of form proposed the where society’, ‘status the of because of particularly vision unattractive an promoting or up ends women, and non-citizens expense slaves, of exploitation the republican at which achieved in were versions freedom historical and egalitarian citizenship than less its from to itself trying dissociate though republicanism, contemporary that is criticism of line pertinent Another grounds inourarguments. republican distinct fairly on are we that argued be reasonably can it think I bite, normative Goodin, “Folie Republicaine”: 62 “FolieRepublicaine”: Goodin, 5 That is also my finding especially with regards to certain brands of republicanism of brands certain to regards with especially finding my also is That s oiia obligations political as ol gv cneprr rpbiaim more republicanism contemporary give would 10 CEU eTD Collection 8 7 6 concerns. of levels ‘maximal on rest not do participation’ butsetmoremodestnormsofparticipation basedonindividuals’specificpublic notion political of notion republican a for advance I that arguments The ignored. be not should role, a such from derive that requirements moral The out. acts individual an that roles many among one is citizen of role The concerns. moral our from absent entirely be not also should they but part, most the for engagements private trump not certainly should engagements Public here. pursuing in interested not am I which argument, republican of version extreme an be only would That towards. inclined be might individual an that goods other all surpassing itself in good a be to argued plausibly be cannot engagements.” private trump should part most the for or always engagements “public why clear from far scientists. and plumbers doctors, as activities prime their to even or valuable find they that activities other to time or plumber or that devote rather doctor, could they when deliberations, political in part take a to expected be scientist should why exacts: activity political that costs opportunity the adequate’levels? of participation’over‘minimally a to related levels ‘maximal prefer that we should Why is participation. political enhanced here on focus republican purposes our for criticism relevant most the probably Finally, redistributive formofequalityifitwantstostaytrueitsargument. a embrace to has form normative promising most its in republicanism, that I however, argue, sensitivities. post-modern and modern of light in appealing very appear not may which shaming, of mechanisms social to role important an gives theory Pettit’s Also, dissertation. the throughout at look I arguments republican the of most with case the be to seems actually Brennan & Lomasky, “Against Reviving Republicanism”: 232 RevivingRepublicanism”: Lomasky, “Against Brennan& 232 RevivingRepublicanism”: Lomasky, “Against Brennan& RevivingRepublicanism” & Lomasky,“Against see Brennan line ofcriticism the general forthispointand 8 I agree with this assessment that participation in politics as here understood here as politics in participation that assessment this with agree I 7 Thus, political activity is not the only valuable engagement and it is it and engagement valuable only the not activity is political Thus, 11 6 We should not discount the importance of should notdiscountthe We CEU eTD Collection according to the principles of liberalism see Margaret Moore, Foundations ofLiberalism Foundations seeMargaretMoore, liberalism totheprinciplesof according 10 9 same”? the all virtue social essential an is sake own their for cooperation to of terms fair capacity from act to the moved be to underlies then and endorse, that to or propose, power moral “the invokes: Rawls John that virtue social theories. republican as such politics in morality on insufficiently and important explicitly very rely that theories at look to want us mind make to as so literature liberal the in addressed my to is justice of principles with in or accordance morally act should individuals why of question the Answering on. reflecting worth certainly is it that think I but seen, be to remains to not or successful is that Whether pluralism. applying action moral or autonomy political individual on compromise of to not able principle be to claim a yet and individuals), as morality on relying avoid to generally seen be can theorists liberal that claim the here accept we (if picture normative the into back tobringmorality andworthexploringbecause ittries remains veryinteresting.Itisinteresting general project this that I think republicanism, contemporary at levelled be can that criticisms serious many the despite Thus, paper’. and ‘ink the worth be should arguments at republican looking why place, first the in matter should theories republican assessing to why need clarify we republicanism, against raised criticisms other many as well as upon, briefly touched only have I which theory, republican regarding concerns serious above the Given as sucharediscussed. recognizes individual the that issues relevant certain when only engagement political requires it since poignancy its lose would criticism cost’ ‘opportunity the and matter, the on informed well- relatively individual directly is affect her or interest her that issues an on debates public in taking part that likely is it since met, be would condition’ ‘information the both Thus,

University Press, 1993): esp.145 1993): University Press, for the point on liberal theory facing a ‘motivation problem’ in not being able to explain why people wouldact explain whypeople ableto problem’innotbeing facinga‘motivation theory forthepointonliberal John Rawls, Political Liberalism JohnRawls,Political (Columbia University Press, 1993): 54 Press,1993): University (Columbia 12 9 h sol idvdas c fo the from act individuals should Why 10 Cneprr eulcn arguments republican Contemporary (Oxford: Oxford (Oxford: CEU eTD Collection 11 less are say, may some that, authors of help the with themes those on up follow to try I then and fully developed, not they are evenwhen those texts, appear in themes that most important critical, most the identify I authors, republican contemporary established of texts the of some interpret I constructive. part and reconstructive part interpretive, part are dissertation this in efforts My time). same the at all necessarily not (but are republican that themes, arguments or authors at dissertation the in look I that introduction this of beginning the at mentioned I help safeguardtheirdignityasindividualsintuitivelymeaningful. institutions very those that recognize and polity, that of institutions political the with general in identify society democratic liberal particular a of citizens that notion republican the find also I medium. her of shaper a as also but extent, certain a to medium her of product a only not as individual an of conceive should we that argue republicans medium, social her into much too individual the steep who communitarians unlike that, is exploring worth much very an that argument communitarian theorizing of line this what makes is for me which familiar her environment, of a product is individual too all the in twist republican attractive The offers anenrichedinterpretationofpoliticsandsociety? it that claim its given and life public in citizens of engagement civic to refer to loosely here taken virtue, civic on emphasis rhetorical its given obligation political justify to liberalism than placed better republicanism Is authors. republican by advocated as obligations political what of all justification sound normatively and after clear a about: be is should republicanism contemporary This autonomy. individual undermining without obligations, political justify we could and how politics morality in of the role reflect on to good opportunity offer a ‘republics’, ‘Cross Purposes: The Liberal-Communitarian Debate’, Liberalism and themorallife Liberalismand Debate’, The Liberal-Communitarian Purposes: ‘republics’, ‘Cross Rosenblum (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1991, c.1989): 165 Press,1991, Harvard University Mass.: Rosenblum (Cambridge, For one of the many formulations along these lines see Charles Taylor, referring to the thought around referringtothethought Taylor, seeCharles alongtheselines themanyformulations Foroneof 13 11 , ed. Nancy L. , ed.Nancy CEU eTD Collection as I mentioned prompted by ‘the critical issues’ identified in the previous two chapters. Philip two chapters. the previous in identified critical issues’ by ‘the prompted I mentioned as is Habermas, Jürgen in author of choice rather surprising its with chapter, third advocate. The they that themes the of basis the on mainly arguments republican of strands different three at look to chosen have I dissertation. the of structure the on enlarge will I following, the In the strengthsofrepublicanismalreadyidentified intheanalysis. popular thatbuildson ideas arecrucialinunderstandinganddevelopingastrandofrepublicanthought for argument an these on reflections Habermas’ that developing think I Thus, self-government. with collective or sovereignty concerned essentially is who and thought of family republican a and liberal a both from ideas together bring to these claims with who notions, closely works who author an of thought the investigate better Miller’s I David then writings, in citizenship republican for crucial somehow be to appears deliberation of notion the if and thought Pettit’s Philip in recognition, it discursive of element when an includes non-interference, as freedom counterpart, liberal its from different as conceived be only can non-domination as freedom If me. led chapters two first the from analysis my as obligation where however, is, political This self-government. and of deliberation on ideas forms his by part in republican prompted investigating up end would I that imagine I did nor Habermas, Jürgen of thought the to chapter a dedicate would I that think not did re to relation with incidental an be association to appears partial what only some even or have Miller, David who like republicanism, authors of ideas the on also but Maynor John or Pettit Philip like authors republican recognized generally of thought the on reflect I Thus, political obligationmightbeconstructed. for republican argument which an in direction indicate the to I try and finally than republican, publicanism, as for example Jűrgen Haberm for example publicanism, as 14 as. When I started to work on this dissertation, I this work on Istartedto as. When CEU eTD Collection 12 Pettit’s examining after However, non-interference. as freedom than speaking normatively attractive more far is it that and republican specifically is non-domination as freedom that claim assess his to as so of instrumentalrepublicanism notion Pettit’s at Philip look to I chose bears somecredibility. it that think I arguments, republican of spectrum wide reasonably a cover to try I because contents, of list my on it make who authors specific the of arguments specific the as well as I analyze, that strategies three republican actual the to limited obviously is dissertation this general more in raised generality to a claim the Though gain thought. republican contemporary us of understanding help can which emphases, republican different three are These civic deliberations. in participation of form the in self-government civic of idea the with and identity of common sense a of expression an as general in laws of importance the and law of rule the with concerned is Habermas Jürgen Finally, polity. specific a of good common the crystallizes that will common a of sense a and solidarity of form the in expressed is this which in ways and the identity civic as identity national of a notion with mainly concerned is hand, the other on Miller, David shaming. public as such attitudes, civic foster can which processes informal the with also but citizenship, of form republican a of structure institutional and legal the only not with concerned much very thus is He non-interference. as freedom of idea liberal the to contrasts he which non-domination, as freedom of notion the theory republican instrumental his of centre the at places author, republican a as recognized commonly most is who Pettit liberty and self-government”, in Republicanism in Theory andPractice inTheory and self-government”,inRepublicanism liberty modelsofrepublican “Four Per Mouritsen, ideas,see ofthisbundle tofocuson,out dissertation chooses relations, dispositions and expectations that a republican form of citizenship engenders; 3. ‘ engenders; formofcitizenship thatarepublican andexpectations relations, dispositions articulated: 1. ‘the articulated: 1. gets freedom isinstrumentaltocommon activity argumentthatcivic republican ways inwhichthebasic four main refersto 37;Mouritsen 19-20andfootnote 3, 2006), Routledge, NewYork: Jennings, (Londonand 4. On a similar typology of republican main ideas, and the reference to what each of the authors Idiscussinthe theauthors whateachof thereferenceto mainideas,and ofrepublican Onasimilartypology ’civic identity or patriotism’. ’civic identity institutional and legal artifice and legal institutional 12 of the republic’; 2.‘the oftherepublic’; 15 , eds. Iseult Honohan and Jeremy andJeremy , eds.IseultHonohan civic space ’, that is the interpersonal ’, thatistheinterpersonal political autonomy’ ; CEU eTD Collection myself, or at any rate to participate in the process by which my life is to be controlled” to a to controlled” be to is life my by which by governed process the in participate be to rate any to at or myself, “desire the or freedom of notion positive a contrasting when against warning was Berlin Isaiah that tyranny” brutal for disguise specious “the to even or settings tocontemporary inadequacyofrepublicanthought to thepotential way tokeepalert but alsoa dissertation, the in apparent as forms different quite take end the in can that ethos republican blurred that up sum obvious quickly to only not its me for way a Despite is expression this sound, thought. anachronistic republican with associated casually and usually is that life public in engagement civic the for shorthand the be to dissertation this in virtue civic take I civility. of inter-group levels motivates what explain gap and bridge the to able being civility, without forms of of partial level the normative at remains stuck because it virtue’ ‘civic account for to fails strategy this show, I As belonging. of groups associative part most the for be, to appear that argues Pettit virtue’. ‘civic for groups, which different allegiance to their by civic engagement into are motivated individuals account can that mechanism the opinion, his in is thoughtaffordsacloserlookatwhat theory. Pettitisalsodisappointinginanotherregard.His Habermasian a of direction the in us points already This others. with have they exchanges autonomy onthe in achievingpersonal aredependent That iswhy they exchanges withothers. in normative beliefs their form they that in are discourse-oriented that individuals argument is his stage of this at essential as uncover we that assumption The argument. the of structure the into only recognition interpersonal of element is positive the admit fully to notion willing is he if warranted republican the as identifies he what of distinctiveness the for case his but notion offreedom,whichheactuallyseemstoconflatemorewithaspecificlibertariannotion, liberal the straw-man of a make to tend Pettit does only unconvincing. Not it find I argument, 16 CEU eTD Collection ufcd ihr n etts ruet o i Dvd ilrs s h ms itiun or intriguing most 14 the as Miller’s David in 13 or arguments Pettit’s in actually either themes surfaced These deliberation. and self-government collective autonomy, political Miller: and in Pettit in both that surfaced explore themes turn to I then identity, From national be unnecessaryaswellpotentiallyexclusionary asaplatformforrepublicanarguments. to appears identity’ ‘national that is argument this to conclusion The deliberation. on strong is that citizenship of form republican a of practice self-sustaining normatively day-to-day, the with more concerned instead is but identity, national from argument the on rely not does in that lines republican submerged along obligation political is of notion a that of that is arguing which writings, Miller’s of line different a be to appears there Also, inconclusive. end the in is deliberation on focus Miller’s that seem would it then substantive, ethically be of principles the to these principles understand If we culture. political the specific promoting that define common concern and identifying by restraint civic of form certain a exercise need to common concern.Accordingtohim,citizens deliberations onmattersof part inpublic taking of that is participation of form preferred Miller’s participation. public for motivation necessarytrustand national groupcanfosterthe her belongingtoa national community. Also, a to belonging her by determined is identity of sense individual’s an that argues Miller David identity. national on based citizenship republican of that is at look I that theory second The long pastthatitmightsimplybeirrelevant. times from heritage its claims that theory a with is always danger the expression, republican common most the all, after was spirit militant a where old of societies’ ‘status the to return a effect in advocating in as anachronistic dangerously being these or ideas republican for conception. negative Pimplico, 1998): 203 Pimplico, 1998): For these two lines of criticism see Goodin, “Folie Republicaine” seeGoodin, linesofcriticism Forthesetwo StudyofMankind inTheProper ofLiberty”, “TwoConcepts quotesfromIsaiahBerlin, Forboth 13 Whether it is a matter of contemporary societies being ‘too populous’ ‘too being societies contemporary of matter a is it Whether 14 17 (London: (London: CEU eTD Collection el s loig opeesv pit o ve t cm t te oe f eieain while deliberation, of fore the to come to view of points comprehensive allowing as well as society, civil of whole the to pertaining as democracy, deliberative of understanding wide a endorses Habermas that is two the between difference basic the that reveals notion same the of of interpretation Rawls’ analysis against reason’ The ‘public of any. understanding republican Habermas’s if are, differences the what see to important is it then even deliberation, or autonomy moral reason, public like argumentation, of line liberal a to close very be well may that notions incorporates actually self-government of theme republican the If other argumentsforsimilarvaluesfromaliberalanddeliberativedemocraticperspective. to close dangerously come not would above highlighted kind the of arguments republican whether consider to on go I dissertation, the of chapter final the in further idea this exploring however, Before, obligation. political of notion a of justification clear a is argumentation of line republican a in missing is what that argue I obligations, political promotesas viewed be should he that values republican the that argument an make to unwillingness apparent Habermas’s on Based self-government. collective in part and taking thus personal and autonomy exercising political of form a as society civil the of deliberations public in part take to rational it find will citizens as differentindividuals that notion the a virtue’: ‘civic on take yet republican on reflect to trying merely am I thought, Habermas’ Jürgen analyzing By a coherentandnormativelypromisingrepublicanargument. for the highesthope hold appearsto however, republican,and is of collectiveself-government notion His author. republican a as to referred usually not is Habermas here. author of choice to begin to turning I by issues conclusion. these examine logical their to taken not were that elements critical normatively Jű rgen Habermas. What may be striking to some is my my is some to striking be may What Habermas. rgen 18 CEU eTD Collection notion of role obligation based on the character of political community and on the role of the of role the on and community political of character the on based obligation role of notion the explore I Finally, republicanism. contemporary of foundation normative the clarifying in some way could go republican perspective from a political obligation of defending anotion for missing be may what argue that I civic behavior. of a normativejustification be successful: to identify republican arguments I Then, coherence. their assess and of brands arguments different republican contemporary at look systematic more a take I First categories. several in falls theory political of advancement the to dissertation this in contribution My republican a with up come to justification forpoliticalobligation. trying by chapter political final republican this in of continue thus justification I the obligation. about argument an fundamentally, more think I and also, but activity, political in more involved get to individuals prompt should education or how institutions argument about only an certainly not is participation/virtue argument from the and republicanism, of theory institutional an than rather morality, political republican a for argument for justification the on dissertation this in focus to chosen have central I theory. political its of centre particularly the at responsibility a civic of is notion the places it republicanism since make that to republicanism think I autonomy, personal of the against notion go to appears it because theorists liberal for cumbersome particularly proven has obligation political justifying While thesis. the of course the in together pull to managed have we that threads normative the of some clarify to tries dissertation the of chapter last The when constitutionalessentialsareunderdiscussion. situations in and mostly politics fora of formal the to reason of public notion his limits Rawls 19 CEU eTD Collection 15 colleagues. or friends family, with analogies making of routes traveled more the on than rather citizen, friends or colleagues to explore the distinctiveness of thedistinctiveness toexplore friends orcolleagues with families, analogies willinvolve goingbeyond member. This what itistobea andalso the valueofpolity, John Horton, ‘In Defence of Associative Political Obligations: Part One’, PoliticalStudies Part Obligations: Associative Political ‘InDefenceof John Horton, obligations.”, associativepolitical debateabout ofthe current inthecontext widely explored not, Ithink,been 2006: 440 2006: “An adequate account of associative political obligations will certainly need to speak more specifically about more specificallyabout to speak willcertainlyneed obligations ofassociativepolitical “An adequateaccount 15 political community political 20 . This is not virgin territory butithas . Thisisnotvirginterritory , vol 54, 427-443, 427-443, , vol54, CEU eTD Collection political activity from within a group of belonging collapses into a partial form of citizenship of form partial a into collapses belonging of group a within from activity political and contestation individual promoting is which adopt, to seem republicans instrumental that strategy particular the that argue will I attractive. normatively and coherent conceptually is non-domination as freedom consequently and responsibility, promoting political and civility like in values republicans instrumental by adopted strategy apparent the whether discuss will chapter this importantly, Most to theory. political distinct contribution a it makes which intellectual theory political distinctive the is this whether republicanism, of value added represents the it ask whether and Maynor, over by John and taken Pettit promoted by Philip is which non-domination, as freedom of notion the to chapter this in attention special pay will I freedom asthecoreandmostdistinctivevalueofcontemporaryrepublicanism. of notion specific a establish to proposes theory republican particular this Also, look. first at least at it, at promising most the and Pettit, Philip of works the in especially republican ideas, of discussion developed most the is republicanism of form this that this is discussion for particular reason The themes. same the on variations as propositions their treat to dialogue close-enough a in are theories authors’ These republicanism. instrumental to contribution of refinement crucial Pettit’s on emphasis a special place I but non-domination), as freedom attempts theory of Pettit’s (who Maynor John and Pettit Philip theorists, different two of In doingthat,Iassessthepropositions tenets andtoevaluateitscoherencedistinctiveness. main of its strand identify to specific try I a and of republicanism, discussioninstrumental theory, a republican contemporary in engage I dissertation the of chapter first this In 1.1 Introduction Chapter 1:Instrumental Republicanism and FreedomasNon-Domination 21 CEU eTD Collection 16 life good the of conception certain a form that goods intrinsic as of politics in participation form and virtue civic as ideals This republican treats republicanism substantive republicanism. ‘strong’ or neo-Roman neo-Aristotelian as of or form known substantive also instrumental more republicanism, a of from us, proponents tell emphatically they eager so differs, most It republicanism. the are Maynor and Pettit individual of importance the citizenship practice. and virtue civic of notions appreciate to capable perfectly is liberalism that claims that virtues) liberal of rendering Macedo’s (Stephen theory liberal one consider briefly will I question that answer To theory. liberal contemporary of variety more one as catalogued be rather can it whether or overtones communitarian of with liberalism versions existing from different distinctively something proposes theory of strand this whether ask further to is question answering this in step first The market? theory political the on is already there what than different something offer actually republicanism instrumental republicans:does that troublesmost genealogical dilemma the chapter willconsider Also, this civility, membersofdifferentgroups. inter-group towards motivates what of thus and unites, what of account an give to fails that freedom public on of dependent compound a as understood is freedom individual that is republicanism instrumental of tenet main the Thus, non-domination. as freedom of sake the for but themselves, values these of sake the for not politics in engagement of form some in expressed citizenship and of fact ‘the accept to willing not civic virtue of a proponent presented as is instrumental republicanism contrast, pluralism’. By theory political of form constrictive a of champion On this point see for example John Maynor, Republicanism in theModernWorld Maynor, Republicanism for exampleJohn Onthispointsee institutional freedom institutional 22 , which is the opposite of corruption (state corruption of opposite the is which , 16 , (Polity, 2003): 10 , (Polity,2003): I i tu dee the deemed thus is It . CEU eTD Collection Social & Political Philosophy Social &Political 17 to difficult it makes That keynote. standing’ ‘social of specific, a forms in interpersonal interpreted of and domination relations sources interpersonal structural on the focuses emphasize and much, to so not domination chooses Pettit that out point ascertain. to to important difficult and cultural) economic, social, (psychological, varied are domination of sources since prove to also but achieve, to only not harder much is non- as freedom perfect equivalent republican its society), human while from isolation of state a that, (in possible is interference argued be can it Also, freedom. towards oriented an be would this as misleading bit democratic society a unavoidable in license is degree of a any case,since unattainable idealin a course, of is freedom individual perfect for up setting guarantees about is policy republican that say To it. against cannot guarantee they effectively but behaviour, interfering and arbitrary deter can Laws society. civil vibrant a needed: is more Much rights. our safeguard to enough not are laws that idea truistic rather and familiar the is claim this Underlying freedom. political to threat contemporary main the andinvigilance againstpoliticalcorruption,whichis over whatisthegoodofcommunity, deliberation in life, public in part take to willingness the in manifested be to is responsibility individual each public and on freedom, dependent is freedom individual that is theory political this of claim main The 1.2 Instrumentalrepublicanism:abird’seyeview to admit. care authors their than areas grey more reveal may they as unchecked go should propositions its establish to tries doctrinal neat-sounding above, the of none chapter, republicanism the in further, see will we As credentials. instrumental which on claims general the are least and interests) public reflect should but purposes, private for hijacked be not should institutions On this last point see Christian Nadeau seeChristian On thislastpoint interpersonal freedom interpersonal , 6:1, 2003, 120-134:126 6:1, 2003, that is dependent on a form of discursive status equality. These, at These, equality. status discursive of form a on dependent is that qua , iie sol fe rsosbe o is aneac. This maintenance. its for responsible feel should citizen “Non-domination asaMoralIdeal” “Non-domination 23 , Critical Review of International Critical ReviewofInternational 17 t s however, is, It CEU eTD Collection 19 18 pre-determined and isolated of if property as formed a are ends whose not individuals is it factors; of variety a by influenced is life, freedom real that in empirical observation: a communitarian, founded on is assumption basic Its laws. of power the to complement necessary a as presented thus is life individual’s force’ be should social freedom) of field ‘The of level. social the notion at implementation informal liberal of sort (the a by complemented principle’ harm ‘no the respect we as long as constraint without act to freedom individual our of basis the form that rights negative of implementation legal that thebelieve They likely. less strengthen behaviour licentious make or that measures non-domination as freedom maximise to try republicans Instrumental notion closertotheliberalonefromthispointofview. republican the bringing thus in, factored are inequalities socio-economic much how ascertain oil qaiy n i gnrl te qaiig f h sca sadn o idvdas by individuals of standing social the of equalizing the general, in and equality social advocating theory, of form oriented left-wing more a is version this in republicanism that sight first at look might It priorities. republicanism’s instrumental on light some sheds this analysisisthat I usethetwointerchangeablyforpurpose ofthis misleading, butthereason sounds freedom interpersonal and social Assimilating community. the in norm a be to needs civility satisfied, be to freedom’ ‘public of freedom) interpersonal or social and (institutional everyone, treat state your of correctmanner.Thus,in orderforthetwocomponents including youinthesameprocedurally institutions the whether to or corruption from clean keeps affairs society’s your run to entrusted have you government the whether you, treat people 1999): 246 149 see for example Philip Pettit, ‘Freedom in the Market’, Politics, Philosophy andEconomics Philosophy intheMarket’,Politics, ‘Freedom Pettit, see forexamplePhilip hlp ett Rpbiaim A hoy f reo ad Government and Freedom of Theory A Republicanism, Pettit, Philip 19 , mainly driven by the assumed importance of esteem and other people’s regard in an in regard people’s other and esteem of importance assumed the by driven mainly , n nuce in 24 . These factors may refer to the way other way the to refer may factors These . 18

Ofr: xod nvriy Press, University Oxford (Oxford: , 2006, 5(2),131- 2006, CEU eTD Collection 20 and people, relevant the are who arises, question the course, Of freedom. individual of form resilient a as present republicans what securing for turn, in and freedom public of attainment the for instrumental is civility Thus, claim. may critics as stringent as not are requirements republican that indicating also is Pettit virtue’, ‘civic appealing-sounding less and antiquarian more the than rather term, this adopting In interests. people’s account into take to fails that activity government of form whatever contesting and tracking of way active the in and laws the following of way passive the in expressed be can virtue) civic for term lighter (a Civility the thinks Pettit interpersonal, and psychological interpersonal onesarethemostimportant. social, are which identifies, condition Pettit that that freedom characteristics to impediments of forms socio-cultural three the of and out why is That norms relations. interpersonal the on but style, republican the in freedom of exercise the to impediment important most the as individuals of classes or particular individuals of conditions socio-economic the on not lies emphasis the that is end the in means that What esteem’. of ‘economics the on say, would Pettit as but inequality, of on theeconomics instrumental republicanismisnot the focusin from thestartthat pointed out be should it sense, In that equality. economic of form minimum a requires them, according to that, and citizens, proper as act to able be to individuals for order in necessary is equality political that is advocate to ready are Maynor John follower, his or Pettit Philip most The not thecase. is however, That, redistribution. through disadvantaged the of status economic the improving freedom see Maynor, Republicanism in the Modern World intheModern seeMaynor,Republicanism freedom 74 Republican Freedom’, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy and Political Social ReviewofInternational Critical Republican Freedom’, for the emphasis on norms and respectively the emphasis on the interpersonal source of impediments to to sourceofimpediments theinterpersonal theemphasison respectively normsand for theemphasison 20 25 ,198, and Philip Pettit, ‘Discourse Theory and Theory andPhilip Pettit,‘Discourse ,198, , (2003) 6 (1): 72-95,esp. 6(1): , (2003) CEU eTD Collection 21 some not is it for manner straightforward any in self-government of promoter a as labelled be can republicanism of version this that case the not is it Thus, contestatory. and electoral both as democracy deepened of vision a with us presents republicanism instrumental all, in All moral psychologydoesnotholdground. idealized an on theories their base republicans contemporary that criticism the individuals, vulnerable of part the on behaviour of kind demand certain a determine facts these and because that and concern voice will vulnerability, social like she facts, social reflects theory this that belonging, is claim the Thus, rectification. of group particular her of the track interests to fails government the when identity, of sense individual’s an for important is affiliation this because that, is expectation The people. gay group of a or suppose) I minority, (in group ethnic an women, of group a specific: less or more be group that whether identify they which with group one least at of part be to tend individuals that is assumption the him, to According salience. motivational theory’s the establishing in crucial proves this see, shall we as and this, to importance more attach to seems since he point this on ideas Pettit’s follow nurture to helps patriotism traditions.” as moral varying widely from groups and individuals unite and communities such identities “An group-level nation-state: to the of commitment group generic overriding more a of speak to appears Maynor way, some in partial and delimited clearly are which groups of speaking is Pettit While to. referring are they groups of kind what about said is much Not belonging. of groups community, reference the as take to is adopt republicans instrumental that civility for accounting of strategy The community? Doesitrefertovariousformsofgroups,andinparticular, tovoluntarygroups? local form of or some nation-state the Isit theory targets? community this the relevant what is Maynor, Republicanism in the modern world modern inthe Maynor, Republicanism : 198 26 21 I will I CEU eTD Collection 22 ( domination private fight to meant is which state a strong envisaged as is the state While minority. some disfavored of the interests interests, or the in citizens representative few a of participation the is contestation on focus his with favor to seems Pettit Philip What 1.3 Arichconstitutionalorder political moralityunderlyingarepublicanandliberaltheorywillbedifferent. the Also, section. next the in explore briefly to try will I which expectations, normative our from follow should that emphasizes institutional those of tuning fine consequent the and live, we which in societies political the justify and direct explain, to claim that theories political between differences normative the of understanding thorough more a be will benefit The another? or context liberal-democratic one in know already we institutions to lead only can it if interest any of be theory republican should why contended, quickly be could it then, But institutional realm,butinthejustificatory,philosophicalfoundationoftheories. the in necessarily not lies republicanism of distinctiveness the pinpointing for hope the and Maynor admits John as because, chapter this in briefly than more details institutional these discuss not will I also devisesacomplexconstitutionalorderforthepromotionoffreedomasnon-domination. but contestation, of appeal the and civility relies enhance to expected mechanisms social on heavily only not and republicanism instrumental vigilance that is political emphasize to of left is form What contestation. the in control’ ‘editorial un-populist and circumspect a more direct democracythatitembraces,but amountingto widespread visionofparticipation the By interests’. avowable ‘common follow and track to fails it once attitude domineering a into slip well as may it for unguarded, left be not should it generally, Maynor, Republicanism in the modern world modern inthe Maynor,Republicanism 22 , I think that they are already intimated in current, liberal democratic polities, current, liberal in already intimated are that they , Ithink ex post ex challenging of decisions that are disregarding common disregarding are that decisions of challenging : 160 27 dominium) n pooe h vle more value the promote and ex post ex measures of measures CEU eTD Collection 24 23 stayingawayfrom theRousseauian figure asthebasisofindividual freedom).Heis,however, to internalized been have that laws good for following making (in is extent certain he a that to only emphasize Rousseau to careful is Pettit sound, may these as authoritative As a by non-participation of advertising. political case limiting or banning choice, one’s of party the the for tax-funding minority), (in voting compulsory like propositions of variety wide a find can one democracy, (contestatory) republican of vision his of landmarks the as and inclusiveness deliberation cravings for normative depict Pettit’s that Among themeasures effectively rulesoutcontrolbysectionalinterestsorideas.” that basis a on basis: non-arbitrary a on made decisions having of of available prospect best lack committees’ the out hold often may the they elected, being not with consistently “And anti- of distrust: majoritarian ultimate his voices allegation Pettit elected) been the not have members to (since representativeness response In constituencies. their by set pressure electoral the of because decisions reasoned make to able not are politicians when times, at arises that impartiality of problem the solve could that experts of committees chamber.” debating interactive and inclusive “an in at arrived interests common of basis the on decisions its reach to sure make would that body legislative deliberative a of importance the external to heed particular pays He associations. of form the and law, citizen civicly-minded or media, the civicly-conscientious a by exercised be can that contestation of breach any investigate to assigned cross-party committees and assembly legislative deliberative efficiently an through expressed be can Pettit’s notionofcontestation:theformintra-contestationatlevelgovernment,which of forms two are there that said be can it order conceptual of sake the For government. the of actions the checking of means judicial or parliamentary, public, means Pettit contestation Pettit, Republicanism, A Theory of Freedom andGovernment ofFreedom ATheory Pettit,Republicanism, Pettit, Republicanism, A Theory of Freedom andGovernment ofFreedom ATheory Pettit, Republicanism, 28 23 e vrl epaie te motne of importance the emphasizes overtly He : 239 : 232 24 CEU eTD Collection 27 26 25 the Kantian breadth.Of inner principle in one’s own autonomy orobedience to tradition, oras from liberty as brand, Aristotelian the in proper action liberty of negative as view, liberal classical, the is a which interference, as ways: many in understood be to come has Liberty 1.4 Freedomasnon-domination will. majority to resistant relatively law make to and powers, legal separate to men’, of not and law ‘empire of an constitute to has system political the easily misused, be to not power for order In misused. being power against exercised be can resistance of right This people lies-[itis]notintheelectoralauthorizationbutrightofresistance.” the of sovereignty the “where non-arbitrary: power keeping towards attitudes militant and anti-populist anti-contractarian, his theory: overall his of understanding the in role important an plays that Pettit for conception core one is there correct’, ‘normatively and familiar too all times at sound that democracy, contestatory of model his of details normative the all Among the from or people, requirement thatordinarycitizensareresponsibleforjudgment-basedvoting: the of will the of revelation the as voting electoral of understanding can beupheldasdistinctive. non-domination as freedom of notion the extent what to consider to time is it make, to prone are republicans instrumental that provisions institutional the of details the outlined briefly I have that Now, conventions. international binding to committed state the having by realized power of dispersion power, the of decentralization the arrangement, bicameral the measure of the find can one power in arbitrariness against ensure to concern his out spell that measures see Pettit, Republicanism, A Theory of Freedom andGovernment: A TheoryofFreedom seePettit,Republicanism, andGovernment: ofFreedom ATheory Pettit,Republicanism, andGovernment ofFreedom ATheory Pettit,Republicanism, the democratic process is designed to let the requirements of reason materialize and materialize impose themselves;itisnotaprocessthatgivesanyparticularplacetowill." reason of requirements the let to designed is process democratic the some via or image, contestatory the incarnation, Under supreme. voluntaristically are collective representation, collective some in people the that suggestion no is "There 29 : 201 202 172-173 27 26 Among the Among 25 CEU eTD Collection 29 28 liberties inthe would infringeonindividual comprehensive common goodthat promotion ofa state’s the imply ultimately would model, republican the to pertains allegedly that reason) like principle higher a to according forged usually self-mastery, of form some to amounts (which view positive The republicans. by supported liberty of view Aristotelian positive, a against defended be to is which liberty, of notion negative strictly a of promotion central and strong their by together held are propositions different their in thinkers liberal that argument, the of exposition first Hobbes’s with line in contend, to is temptation and the freedom, negative positive of dichotomy classic Berlin’s Isaiah mind one’s of back the at having Still, former asapreconditionofthelatter.” the see should we freedom, perhaps liberal and republican freedom between choose having to than “Rather persons. of freedom the for and whole a as community political the the of for liberty concern dual his and Machiavelli Niccolò cites he freedom, of notions liberal the and republican the between intermarriage such of instance an As thinking. dichotomist defies blended be can notions these ofthenotion,which successfully, andthusoneshouldbearinmindtheconceptualcomplexity that is makes Miller that contention important most The freedom thathelabelsas‘idealist’.Accordingtothis,befreemeansautonomous. the in consists and others”. by interference or constraint individuals of absence of property a is “freedom liberal, the thought, second of the family In self-government. as defined is which of freedom the free community, a of political part be to means free be to that maintains republican, the first, The freedom. of notion the envisioning in thought of traditions main three pinpointed has Miller David ways. diverse in proceed also can mean to taken is notion each what of specification the course, Miller, ‘Introduction’, Liberty Miller,‘Introduction’, Liberty ‘Introduction’, seeDavidMiller, , ed. David Miller (Oxford University Press, 1991): 6 Press,1991): University Miller(Oxford , ed.David , ed. David Miller (Oxford University Press, 1991): 3 Press, 1991): University Miller(Oxford , ed.David 29 30 28 Finally, there is a third family of views on views of family third a is there Finally, CEU eTD Collection ( unify can 30 thinks he that value The specifications. institutional with theory political based value- a sets he holism individual of metaphysics social a of top On inheritances. communal and relations social of network a in understood, properly are thus and are, they who become individuals that proposition the on theory political his bases Pettit Philip vein, communitarian classical a In individuals. isolated as thing such no is there that assumption communitarian looming a is there all, of First notion? liberal the than freedom one’s protecting in better fare could freedom republican that suggestion unclear far so and soothing the behind is what But liberty necessitatesmorethanamerelegalstatus. individual effective that acknowledgement the and kind) certain a of equality and (liberty principles shared of terms in argue, republicans as but, good, common substantive a of terms envisaged in doesnotnecessarilyhavetobe a politicalcommunity individualist, becausesuch anti- and oppressive be will it that fear an for or commonality and interdependence interests of awareness common by driven community political a of idea the abandon altogether doctrine.” comprehensive and general a affirming in united society political a mean we community a such by if community political a of hope the abandon must “We that Rawls John with agree only can One government. free overtake not does of self-interest inflation that out watch and deliberation, public to comes it when interest the with liberty individual strict from individualself-restraint exercise to has on one it, secure remains to order in that, focus contention the Instead, good. common the of view constrictive a such promote to not first, at appears, here discussed form the of Republicanism communities. multiethnic large, of reality the and good the of conceptions of pluralism of context given 10, quoted in Dimensions of Radical Democracy: pluralism, citizenship,community Democracy: DimensionsofRadical in 10, quoted London :Verso,1992) John Rawls, „The Idea of an Overlapping Consensus“, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 7, 1 (Spring, 1987), 1(Spring, of LegalStudies7, Journal Consensus“,Oxford anOverlapping Ideaof John Rawls,„The 31 30 It is not true, however, that one should one that however, true, not is It d ChantalMouffe , ed. CEU eTD Collection ersns t satn pae dfeet nepeain f h lbrl oin Oc we 33 Once notion. liberal 32 the of interpretation 31 different a place starting a at represents notion his that then noted be should It non-domination. as freedom of notion the gives us and of action) condition of choice of context the limited a is there because that just fulfilled is interference possibility of absence the against (providing relevant be it that and secure be this non-interference, addstherequirementthat notion offreedomas takes theclassicalliberal Pettit Thus, interference. arbitrary of possibility the even remove to has one free be to order is nobody when acquired is freedom interpretation) own his of republicanism classical the of vein the (in Pettit, For civic virtue,without,however,endorsingacomprehensive,singularnotionofthegood. of practice associated the and non-domination as freedom of value the promotes it as insofar perfectionist extent certain a to is republicanism that out points and theory republican his of part the on neutrality to claim ideological the discards Maynor Thus, community. political of right vision andthe the person the rightconceptof about specific assumptions which thereare underlying society, of vision certain a of promotion the towards biased is theory republican that admits it Thus, neutrality. of pretense is, that communitarians, by attacked were theories a grounds thatproceduralliberal undercuts apossibleattackofrepublicantheoriesononethe rejects he that, for stage the position. set communitarian can non-domination as freedom of value primary that the he thinks because state’, and neutral a relatively ‘at least desirability of feasibility and the in believes Pettit Because non-domination. as freedom of that is individuals, to concern primary of same time at the follow, and to ideal neutral a relatively be proving to people, thus o y wt yu flo ctzn, n sae aaees ht oe f o hs pwr of power a has another.” over you interference arbitrary of none that awareness shared a in citizens, fellow your with eye to Pettit, Republicanism, A Theory of Freedom andGovernment ofFreedom ATheory Pettit,Republicanism, world modern inthe Maynor,Republicanism See Pettit, The CommonMind See Pettit,The 31 subject to arbitrary sway arbitrary to subject on anrs oiin s oe eal, oee, n ht it that in however, tenable, more is position Maynor’s John : 286 33 In other words, it is not enough not to be interfered. In interfered. be to not enough not is it words, other In : 63 32 and “it requires the capacity to stand eye stand to capacity the requires “it and : 5 32 CEU eTD Collection 35 34 the gives what feels freedom of kind thus, latter the enjoying person a and that is distinctiveness its notion case, republican first the in lacks What government. democratic a under citizenship protected and equal of security the enjoys who person a as free as count not could ruler oppressive an of interference arbitrary the luck by escapes who person A clear. more becomes notions two the between difference the then theory), political liberal contemporary law” the before especially and community, the within has one that standing the by but master) fortune by not determined is benevolent “freedom That suggests. a having to (due slave unimpeded the of example the as interference of situations condone not do they surely relations, of type master-slave institutionalize not do stripes all of theories liberalpolitical non-interference. Forsurely, of freedomas liberal notion straw-man outofthe a making not is he indeed whether wonder to left are we then non-domination, as freedom essenceof expositionofthe example) inhis example (thebenevolentmaster-slave Pettit’s star of think to are we If secure? effect in is it that respected, is non-interference that oversee to meant structures institutional be there that entail even not would notion liberal the that imply it resilient. Does be that it secured, non-interference be means that what it to define mind is to thatcomes freedom altogether.Then,thenextquery a significantly notionof to elicit different order different enoughin interpretation is whether his ask is to the question acknowledge this, ett does Pettit which one, a non-democratic even regime, of any form judging in use universalistic at wholly put to be criterion as a meant as non-interferenceis of freedom a notion that are tothink If we which istheintendedemphasis. assertion, the of part second the to comes it when especially with, disagree would liberals Pettit, The Common Mind Pettit,TheCommon Pettit, The Common Mind Pettit, TheCommon 35 ee tog i de nt per o e srihfrad hrceitc of characteristic straightforward a be to appear not does it though (even de facto de : 316 : 311 non-interference, while non-interference, 33 34 s o smtig ht ot contemporary most that something not is de jure de allowing for the possibility of possibility the for allowing CEU eTD Collection 39 38 37 36 of socialempowerment,butratherthedevelopment ofcivilsociety. means preferred the really not is wealth of redistribution which in way’, ‘third Giddens’ with similarities the note could we then continuum, ideological an on republicanism instrumental freedom. of understanding liberal ‘left-of-centre’ a to close be to seen be can non-domination as freedom of notion the that admits Pettit Also, interference. freedom asnon- securityof to provideforthe seen not whichcanbe rather thelibertarianone, but freedom, of notion generic liberal a really not is non-domination as freedom of theory the against sets he notion contrasting the that point some at say does he consistently, point this make to enough cautious not is Pettit if even that, out pointed be to has it fairness, In society ‘well-behaving’ moment, the for concerned onlywithnon-interference. yet non-democratic, a in tolerated be turn in may which for example, discriminatory laws allow for would not that it in as non-interference becomes it then notion offreedom would differfromthe of freedomasnon-domination clearer howthenotion vulnerability, or subjection mean to it stretch and setting a contemporary into freedom, of antonym republican classical the be to taken was which slavery, adapt we once And status. certain a has she that feels and confident feels enjoyment, its in secure specifications. possible its and equality of notion the on laid is emphasis less that mean unavoidably will which domination, non- as freedom of ideal sole the on theory normative his builds Pettit that point the obscure community development, civil society, and strong democracy’, Community Development Journal Development Community democracy’, society,andstrong civil community development, Philosophy andEconomics Politics, injustice”, anddemocratic “Republicanism Henry S.Richardson, 2006): 128-142, esp. 135 esp. 2006): 128-142, ‘Non-domination as a Moral Ideal’ asaMoral ‘Non-domination Nadeau, asnon-domination see forfreedom strategy oftheconsequentialist amoredetaileddiscussion 181; on SePti,TheCommonMind SeePettit, see a discussion of Giddens’ ideas in Fred Powell and Martin Geoghegan “Beyond political zoology: zoology: “Beyond political Geoghegan andMartin inFredPowell ideas see adiscussionofGiddens’ see importance, equality have equal freedomand theory,inwhich toRawls’ on thispointandthecontrast CommonMind See Pettit,The : 322 : 315 38 n at i w ae o r t lct Pti’ vrin of version Pettit’s locate to try to are we if fact, In 36 34 37 htsol nt however, not, should That 39

, 41, no.2 (April 41, no.2 , 5, (2006), 5, (2006), CEU eTD Collection 42 41 40 allow not would non-domination, as freedom of notion The costly. more rendered were some if even her, to open still was choices of set the since kind, this of duress under affected not was freedom individual’s the that claim to inclined more are authors liberal some that argued be could It decisions. person’s a conditions threat a where case the example, for as agent, an of will the upon influences arbitrary indirect, with concerned example, for not is interference non- as freedom that think we if is that and opaque, less bit a ideas these find could we way in. herself find can agent an that relation dominating a is Pettit to according freedom, to threat biggest the contrary, the To freedom. curtail can that thing only the not is interference of act concrete a Also, freedom. one’s condition they if even welcomed, rather but condemned, be not need which laws, of form the in especially interference, of species un-arbitrary an being there on thus is emphasis The it. conditioning our as curtailing rather but as freedom viewed be not should laws that insistence his also, but freedom, liberal freedom from differentiate republican to eagerness is Pettit’s this context, in realize, however, control.” paternalistic extensive with compatible is theory “Republican that claim who Lomasky and Brennan of that as such criticisms to open wide equally door the leaves ordering normative both this that and them sense, perfect make consider would it to think one, for commonsensical I disrupting? more be not it Would interference? flagrant into erupt to yet has that domination passive the than important less as of thought be freedom own your of hindrance the to step active an can How domination? to evil secondary a as seen be life) one’s with impedes that interference of sort negative a it by understand we as long (as such as interference can How unconvincing. rather statement, this of light the in however, seems, non-interference keynote of the freedom in of liberal understanding from the view ofrepublicanfreedom.” of point the from evil secondary a is such as “interference that again and time stresses Pettit Pettit, Republicanism, A Theory of Freedom andGovernment ofFreedom ATheory Pettit,Republicanism, on these two specific republican emphases, see Pettit, ‘Discourse Theory and Republican Freedom’: esp. 78 Freedom’:esp.78 andRepublican Theory Pettit, ‘Discourse emphases, see republican on thesetwospecific 241 revivingrepublicanism’: ‘Against Brennan andLomasky, 40 His insistence on differentiating freedom as arepublicanvalue Hisinsistenceondifferentiatingfreedom 35 : 301 41 ht e ed to need we What 42 There is one is There CEU eTD Collection 44 43 receive.” they that respect and recognition the command will they respect; and recognition receive only “not will dominated non- securely are who persons Thus, recognition). given be (to requirement positive a coin, same the of side other the as a also, but only dominated) be presuppose to (not not requirement of does form negative non-domination as freedom that think we if so be would it that appears It that? think Pettit does Why freedom. positive or negative of case the in unlike upholding isolation, in non-domination as freedom in achieve cannot individual an words, In other civility. individuals of of outside cooperation satisfied the of be outside cannot individuals, it between that interactions sense the in property individual an not social property a is non-domination as freedom that is emphasize to means ultimately Pettit What promotion ofthevaluefreedomasnon-domination. the for act should state the that claim consequentialist the also, and contrast) qualified his of the nature acknowledge not does he (again, understandings liberal to contrast unclear somewhat a in laws good of nature non-interfering the stress to means he which in context the in read a be to finally remains It upon unjustified. however, remains, choice of laws freedom person’s of effect the with solely interference identify to tendency unwitting Pettit’s compromised under athreat-conditioned,decisionalsituation. seriously been have to freedom individual’s the recognize would and that, relations. social their in partners equal as themselves assert should individuals that is, that requires, it that element negative the of top on presupposes non-domination as freedom that element Philip Pettit, A Theory of Freedom, From the Psychology to the Politics ofAgency thePolitics to FromthePsychology A TheoryofFreedom, PhilipPettit, see on this point also Nadeau, ‘Non-domination as a Moral Ideal’:122-3 asaMoral ‘Non-domination alsoNadeau, see onthispoint 44 This positive requirement spells out the underlying positive underlying the out spells requirement positive This 36 43 , (Polity, 2001): 79 2001): , (Polity, CEU eTD Collection be a common good. Moreover, republican freedom is something for the achievement of which something for theachievement is good. Moreover,republican freedom be acommon the in to deemed status is non-domination as freedom why legal is That other. each towards the people of attitudes beyond secured be to needs freedom activate, individuals which in environment social the and interdependence human to due that, is this behind idea The one. communitarian a be to needs framework the own, their on non-domination as freedom The achieve of. cannot individuals part since is value: instrumental individual an the bears thus that element group communitarian whole the for secured is it if secured be only can individual the for non-domination as of freedom that thought is it enjoyment that sense the in individual freedom the on is however, emphasis, The concerns. individualistic and communitarian both of sign double the bears liberty of notion the account, Pettit’s in Thus, which instrumental republicansconcedetobethecase. virtuous, particularly not are individuals if even virtue civic and of provide resources to maintain expected be can hand’) ‘intangible the social as this seeking to of refers mechanism (Pettit acceptance This thing. right the positive do compromise and to themselves not towards seek attitudes will they goes, reasoning the so them, around people other of respect the having in interested are individuals Since status. dignified and equal an having for her, treat people other way the for concern individual’s the into translates This it. with comes that dignity of sense the and recognition interpersonal achieving with associated that also, but needs, and interests own one’s fulfill to protection the only not necessitate and want to manner, substantive a in seen is individual An societies. democratic within universal character a is, that character, universal qualified a have to expected is non-domination as freedom of value the that suggest, would intuition as seems, it that however, say, should We value. primary a as non-domination as freedom value universally will individuals person: the conception of what concernshis in main assumption requirement revealsPettit’s This positive 37 CEU eTD Collection 46 45 is domination perceived of portion good a that be could it sense, that In handling. subjective purely requires and related resolution universal any psychologically defies that account of into taken be brand to domination important an is there that intuitively think would One knowledge ofit. dominator’s perceived the of outside dominated be to feeling person a easily imagine can one For however. sell, to easy hardly is awareness common of point the reflection, deeper Upon some unknowndomineer. under the‘dominationspell’of times, anypersonis that atall conclusion unavoidable the to him leads that then view, a such have does nevertheless Pettit andif that itishardlyreasonabletohavesuchabroadviewofpossiblesourcesdomination, example for argues, critic One domination. of sources of and ubiquitousness the with particularly domination of notion the of ubiquitousness the with lies non-domination as freedom of ideal Pettit’s of transparent weakness the statement, previous the apparent by made is it As one. no by dominated being in themselves pride can people more and more that so enlarged be needs to power andit are in thatfacesthosewho the corruptibilitydanger be protectedagainst to Itneeds time. same at the and forwarded be protected needs to Freedom preservation. of its the mechanism contestation is concept, and a dynamic is thus constantly. It work one needsto Pettit does indeed make this point and connects non-domination with common awareness. common with non-domination connects and point this make indeed does Pettit elimination. for targeted be should that domination of relation acknowledged reciprocally a only is it that this reply to well very could Pettit since disruptive really not is criticism a Such so. do to planning he is nor yet, so done not has he if even way, arbitrary an in choices my assumption hereisthatthispersonIhavenoknowledgeofsomehowholdsthepowertoaffect of Republicanism By Philip Pettit”, Australian Journal of Philosophy ofPhilosophy PhilipPettit”,Australian Journal of RepublicanismBy for a critical comment that could be stretched further to my comment here see C.A.J. Coady, “Critical Notice C.A.J. Coady, comment heresee tomy be stretchedfurther comment thatcould foracritical see Pettit, Republicanism, A Theory of Freedom andGovernment A TheoryofFreedom see Pettit,Republicanism, 38 :70 7,n.,20:121 2001: 79,no.1, 45 The 46 CEU eTD Collection 48 47 area.” her in youths of gang unrestrained institutionally and culturally the to vulnerable is who person older the “of even sweet”or and dislikes”or“theemployeewhosesecurityrequires keepingthebossormanager likes arbitrary forms who teacher the of pupil “the husband”, violent occasionally the of wife “the parent”, volatile emotionally the of child “the of talks Pettit domination, of examples As due totheconstitutivenatureofmodernrepublicaninstitutions.” achieve agents that status a is “non-domination Maynor: John by explicitly made is argument citizenship This non-domination. as freedom active individual of vision laws, the the of parts all and are to civility expressing institutions down good boils Thus, attitudes. ultimately social domination of against transformation protection extent what to can we wonder gives, Pettit that domination current of examples the at look we If place. first the in power unequal of one as relation that define to order in occur to has interference arbitrary maintained be can relations these that mean not does power of relations unequal to refers domination while acts, concrete to refer to taken generally is interference that fact the mind, my To interference? arbitrary accused, of form the in not if recorded be domination can else how for interference, of notion the onto back fall somehow must it then reality, objective an has it if And reality. objective an has domination that think must he then, domination, of brand psychological the discounting is he If will. of weakness as things such to referring not is he that out points and domination for causes intrapersonal subjective, such about something do could state the that idea the however, dismisses, Pettit contents. objective quantifiable, to amount interference) on not is emphasis theoretical the since (particularly not does and psychologically contingent, long quite need would state the extreme, the to it taking against, fought be to domination Pettit, A Theory of Freedom, From the Psychology to the Politics ofAgency tothePolitics FromthePsychology ofFreedom, Pettit,ATheory world modern inthe Maynor,Republicanism n abstracto in 48 t ol se ta i odr o sm o tee ntne of instances these of some for order in that seem would It i te bec o cnrt at. onr r ae, n c of act an later, or Sooner acts. concrete of absence the in , : 50 39 47 : 137 CEU eTD Collection 49 identity. one’s of part are relations social such that and relations, social of context the in expressed are lives individual that assumption holistic the on rests non-domination as freedom society, of picture atomistic an presuppose to enough is it as non-interference for freedom While based on. are they assumptions of the type is them distinguishes really what freedom, of notions republican the and liberal the between difference qualitative this from Apart mechanisms. social and of help social the with attitudes our political of transformation a importantly, most and measures of institutional set specific a proposes it purpose that For interference. produces which domination, of causes the out rooting of ideal higher the sets it because better qualitatively is notion republican The means). he what is this that think I knowledge, my to societies democratic to refer not does he (though societies developed of context the in meaningful be to meant is theory republican his that out points himself Pettit because off-hand not is assumption This polity. democratic a of context the in set both are they that assume already we if non-interference as freedom of notion better qualitatively a just really is non-domination as freedom of notion the that out turns It non-interference. of notion the from non-domination of notion the disentangling of problem the faced have we non-domination, as freedom understand to trying in far, So maybe toaccusationsofthesortthatareheardinBritainagainsta‘nannystate’. leading thus private, considered them of some practices, long-standing in interfering arms, as freedom from differentiated be can non-domination as freedom of notion his that admits Pettit text, recent more a In strongholds. and requirements of types social presupposes which becomes non-domination notion as social a is it non-interference, as freedom freedom unlike that, understand we Thus, once distinctive recognition. of importance the asserting positiveelementof individuals inthewaytheyleadtheirlives,thisassumption amountstothe See Pettit’s discussion of holism versus atomism in The Common Mind inTheCommon versusatomism ofholism See Pettit’sdiscussion 40 49 eod fimn te nedpnec of interdependence the affirming Beyond : 165-213 CEU eTD Collection and freedomasnon-domination: non-interference as freedom between line dividing the represent to become takes finally Pettit which individuals that is here idea main others. discoursewith normatively awarevia the Habermas, Following case. the be to have not does model decision-theoretic a in which, desires, and beliefs holding for have they reasons the of aware become or articulate actually individuals that ensures Pettit to according 53 52 51 50 control discursive as freedom of form the in comes agent accountable and responsible a as agent seen free the of persuasive theory most that the finds Pettit others. from blame praise or of form the in responses emotional elicit will individuals of property objective an as manner a such in understood freedom Also, restraint. without and openly, choose to psychology own its to relation free in is person the and that action, right choose the to others to relation free in personis entailsthatthe understanding whichnecessarily be heldresponsible’,an ‘being fitto into take to that of is agent represents a free need understanding ofwhat core, individualist Pettit’s account that we non-domination, as freedom better understand to order in Further, space thatmediatesdiscourse-friendlyinfluenceandonlyinfluence.” a other with common in occupying of power “relational the by defined is status Discursive people. other with co-reasons who being, discursive a decision- as ‘a but as subject’, solely theoretic not subject human the of conceiving when only non-interference Pettit, ‘Discourse Theory and Republican Freedom’: 90 andRepublicanFreedom’: Theory Pettit, ‘Discourse 91 andRepublicanFreedom’: Theory Pettit, ‘Discourse esp.84-5 andRepublicanFreedom’: Theory Pettit, ‘Discourse andRepublicanFreedom’ Theory Pettit, ‘Discourse usin s hte ta iel a hl u t rl o te ifrne ewe the between difference the on to comefinallythepunchline,thatitcan.” rule to think, I us non-domination. and non-interference help respectively as freedom of can conceptions ideal that whether is question the “Given thatthediscourse-theoreticimagedirectsustoanidealofdiscursivestatus, 51 41 That extends into the ideal of discursive status, the idealof into Thatextends 52 50 53 That, CEU eTD Collection 54 the of story a by) living always not if (even provide to able being as follower, reason a generally as person the of conception distinct a has Pettit that is this of all of upshot The whatever deter to enough strong be inequalities maycomefromthepsychological,social andeconomicbaggage ofindividuals. will mind) republican the active (to that status entails equal ofcitizenship promise the that be to seems ultimately hope republican The appear tobeunlikelybeneficiariesoffreedomasnon-domination. would insecurities, psychological own, their by dominated be to feel who self, discursive of sense weak a with individuals sense, that In well. as non-domination of brand psychological a on dependent indeed is notion republican the that appears it non-domination, as freedom of ideal political the as about thinking freedom when account for into preconditionstaken be psychological should control the discursive that denies Pettit though even that, is by this mean I What admit. to wishes he than more freedom even individual of understanding an such on non-domination as freedom of notion his in rely a does he as ideal, political control feasible, discursive as freedom of notion the adopt could state the that think not does Pettit Though others). by individual an of authorization discursive (the relations discursive responsibility’) ‘inter-temporal of terms in identity personal of idea (the justifications discursive in for account to forced is individual an that identity personal (over-time) continuing a of idea the involves dimension psychological The dimension. a social and a psychological both has discursive control as of freedom notion This reasoned wayviadiscursiveexchangeswithothers. a in actions their of courses the for account to able being individuals to refers mainly that Pettit, ‘Discourse Theory and Republican Freedom’, p.85 andRepublicanFreedom’, Theory Pettit, ‘Discourse 42 54 wie h sca dmnin entails dimension social the while , CEU eTD Collection hog ceco o osrcin I i nt oe iey cnieig h euie aue of nature elusive which have the domination thatpeoplecan failtoliveupthestandardbecauseofvarious issues considering likely, more not it Is obstruction? or coercion through denied intentionally be only can non-domination as freedom that case the be it should Why status. social higher of person another to relation in control discursive lacks she that feels who means educational and material low of person a of think non- readily can one and domination as freedom uphold to ability one’s condition many can are that of elements there environment-related all, importance After the non-domination. downgrade as freedom to to thus obstacles environment-related and intentionality prioritize to move author’s the with rests notions freedom-related of web this with have I that disagreement the of Part such discursivecontrolinsofarastheyhabituallyprovidereasoningstoriesfortheiractions. exercise generally individuals that but freest, the her makes what is expositions discursive and the qualityofone’sreasons not that point is And yet,Pettit’s best. discursive controlatits exercise can they because academics contemporary be would essence its in be to supposed is being human a what of most the make would who prevail, would ideal a un such where society in best the fare would who people the that say could we conclusions, final its to people shy example for as individuals, discursive less disfavors (which person the of conception implied this follow to are we If human). distinctively the as count probably should (which control discursive as freedom our define and identities our shape we which through medium very the capacity reason-giving its in is, it that beings; human of disposal the at tool a than more is speech that fashion, Aristotelian an in implies, It radical. quite is non-domination as of freedom notion political Pettit’s as underlying dug up we have that human interdependence of notion This identity. one’s redefine and define to exchanges discursive these on dependent being as and equal, discursive a as treated be to expecting as others; with relations discursive in engage to able being as action; of course certain a of adoption the to led that reasoning 43 CEU eTD Collection 55 for apersonandwhatcountsanother asdomination about whatcounts to think we are incommensurableif different aspectsthatare with idea, unclear an is domination that is shows example this What name. different a by call we may similarthat a case,butsomething experience insuch the agentwould domination that domination, even not itis of Or maybe, actuallyexperience. agent may an feelingthat instance despite thedominating an is this that say could we that think to difficult is it Thus, law. international of part surely are citizenship, their of virtue in abroad, traveling when people some to apply that rules stringent more The domination. perceived of one as qualify may situation this than equality, acknowledged reciprocally of relationship a in eye, the in others look to able being of importance the on insistence his in Pettit follow to are we If it? define republicans instrumental as domination of case a really it is but domination, of that be well by humiliation casual to submitted go throughthiscanvery ofanagentwhohasto suspicious bordercontrolofficers.Thefeeling being without and freely, travel can I, Europeans, than fellow luckier other while country, European every much pretty for visa a for apply difficult humiliatingly abroad traveling my usually makes passport that hold a happen to I border,because I crossthe status whenever otherwise human my discursivestatusor diminished in Ifeel dominatedand can For example, social conditions,otherexamplescanbeconstructedtoverifythispoint. and economic mind in mainly here I have Though obstruction? intentional with do to nothing non- as freedom of reinterpretation a of basis the on cosmopolitanism republican establish to try who and not, should it say who those are There of? member is one nation-state the of at theborders non-domination stop the concernfor in fact ofthought,does Onadifferentline on this point, see also Richardson, ‘Republicanism and Democratic Injustice’: 188 Injustice’: andDemocratic ‘Republicanism Richardson, on thispoint,seealso , especially at border crossings. Thus, I am required to required am I Thus, crossings. border at especially 55 . 44 CEU eTD Collection 56 interests andideas.AsPettitargues, relevant shared, by guided be to has state the but non-arbitrarily, act consent, to not order In is contestability. power of exercise the in non-arbitrariness for required is What laws. non-arbitrary under only effectively exercised be can citizenship Furthermore, government. arbitrary potentially a of domination the from safe one keep can citizenship of form active an only because citizenship with tradition, republican the in equated, be to turns freedom individual people’s byothers.This itiftheyenjoyfreedom fromdomination power ofchoice.Peoplecanexercise Pettit, to according is axiom republican The position. self-interested their and status dignified a attaining in interested individuals as position their both strengthen will by politically and socially provided them concern control that affairs discursive the in a deliberation and such participation that position the however, adopt, Republicans supposedly equalizing,roundtableofdeliberation. the to come they once individuals as of performance function discursive the can for conditions individuals antecedent different to pertaining endowments social that out pointing by challenged readily be can this course, Of status. discursive equal, an attain they positions, and actions their for reasons good giving of effort the making by interactions, their in that and conversable are individuals that is here, work at assumption republican underlying The more inthenextsection. say will I which of motivation, and identification of forms group-level on dependent is turn this in civility and entangled with that freedomis that being reason for as non-domination,the domination 352 James Bohman, “ Republican Cosmopolitanism”, The Journal of Political Philosophy ofPolitical TheJournal Cosmopolitanism”, “Republican James Bohman, Ti de nt en ht h pol ms hv atvl cnetd o the to consented must it actively that is have mean does must it what people But acts. the state the that which mean under arrangements not does “This 56 , but Pettit’s theory does not seem open to a cosmopolitan re-working of freedom to acosmopolitanre-workingof not seemopen , butPettit’stheory does 45 , 12, no. 3 (2004): 336- no. 3(2004): , 12, CEU eTD Collection 58 57 powerful.” correspondingly am I where and me over interference arbitrary of power that has one no where position a in the be to is of non-domination enjoy “To goal: short specified fall to deemed are you non-domination, achieve to trying about go you way however Thus, well. as provision constitutional the for true holds this that admit not does he punishment), with threaten interference (to less something but interference) unwanted against defenseofeach enable the its desideratum(to fulfill likely manageto not will most fact thatit the with lies power reciprocal of strategy the of weakness the that admits Pettit while And effect. can contestation that situations the mediate to agent) elective corporate, (a constitutional authority a of establishment the entails strategy preferred The resources. agents’ the equalizing by dominated, previously those of empowering the to referring latter the power, reciprocal of strategy the over provision constitutional the chooses Pettit non-domination, as freedom promoting thus and domination fighting for strategies the about talking When connection in being uncertain not individual: the for benefits other generates it good, because instrumental an as construed is non-domination as freedom Moreover, vigilance. citizen and institutional by protected civic, essentially is non-domination as liberty of ideal the thought, of line own Pettit’s in here presented concept the sum-up To of naturallyvirtuouspeople,willalwaysraisequestions ofpartisanship. stock a of short which good, common the observes authority designated the that presupposes constraint constitutional the of applicability the Moreover, costs. higher assigned be only can it eradicated, be never can power arbitrary since unattainable inherently is formulations) of rigorous most the (in Pettit by defined as goal republican the that appears it comments, these Pettit, Republicanism, A Theory of Freedom andGovernment ofFreedom ATheory Pettit,Republicanism, Pettit, Republicanism, A Theory of Freedom andGovernment ofFreedom ATheory Pettit, Republicanism, the challenge proves sustainable, to alter the pattern of stateactivity.” the challengeprovessustainable,toalterpattern reallyaresharedand,if to contest theassumptionthatguidinginterestsandideas occupy, they always bepossibleforpeopleinthesociety,nomatterwhatcorner 46 : 69 : 63 screening of the use of power of use the of 57 58 n ih of light In CEU eTD Collection 61 60 non- 59 as freedom promote to likely more society particularly but institutions, make to freedom’. for ‘warrants implement constant, to the attempt entails socio-cultural consequences) and best institutional is action a of in end notion (the this advocating fashion that consequentialist say more to ideas) seems Pettit’s it with line goods, in primary (and important, straightforward other assures it because good instrumental an is it that or good, ultimate an is non-domination as freedom that say to than Rather ways. of clearest and simplest the in plays freedom of notion this role the articulating of need the to however, us, alert should agent?) dominating a of good-will the win to order in strategies employ humiliating having to not and power relation, a uncertain in being not actually means domination non as freedom that case the not it (is statements previous the of circularity The claim. Pettit’s is least at That, subordinate. to having not non-interference; problematic a of assurance the in strategies employ some to having not power-relation; a in position your with something that Pettit or Maynor worry about. worry Maynor or Pettit that something not issimply and political system social in the byinequalities conditioned political equalityis as that fact well simple the of as realization The them, disempowerment. defines of source as usually inequalities economic that relationship corrupting the in power and money domination, of source salient most the as many to seem would what dismisses actually it that is non-domination as freedom of notion republican the of element disappointing most The the connectionbetweendeliberativedemocracyandrepublicanisminalaterchapter. else. anything than more weight rhetorical hold to appears value ultimate the is it that claim the that so deliberation, of that like values other with combine to appears Richardson, ‘Republicanism and DemocraticInjustice’ and Richardson, ‘Republicanism equality,see political shallow, naturethanPettit’s more substantive equalityofa anidealof necessarily includes no.2, (2006): 167 no.2, (2006): On an argument that contrasts Pettit’s notions to Rawls’ insistence on the ‘fair value of freedom’ andhowthat offreedom’ ‘fair value insistence onthe Pettit’s notionstoRawls’ thatcontrasts On anargument &Economics Politics,Philosophy Economy’, andtheCivic Dagger,‘Neo-Republicanism see alsoRichard 132-3 Ideal’: asaMoral Nadeau,‘Non-domination similarlinesin discussionalong see amoredetailed 47 61 Instead, they seem to worry most about how about most worry to seem they Instead, 60 We will discuss will We 59 lo it Also, , 5, CEU eTD Collection o u fr contestation. for up not is arbitrary interference conscious and intentional of the effect not is and example, for system property an inegalitarian environment, like natural the that of role as a similar play appears to whatever since with, concerned not is non-domination as freedom which there out injustices are there fact, In justice. about talk to way exhaustive an not is non-domination as Freedom 65 64 63 62 campaign private against policies of introduction the or regulation, market or redistribution Pettit’s of to interventionintheform thatPettitdoesthink standards. Itisfair,however,topointout according status domination attention-worthy, achieve never and overlooked, be can injustices that be well may it then position), dominated a in other the and dominating a in is one aware that agents relations (two dominating to attribute seems to Pettit quality that personal of sort the emphasize to are we If domination. represent to taken be can inequalities economic from spring ultimately that practices unfair conditions what under and extent what domination” exercising without influence buy can “money domination: of the notion of groups) outside strong lobbying of the form in example, position. dominating a in is somebody that mean not does society in there, out inequalities are there that fact the since understanding, republican the on freedom endanger not does it, puts Pettit as inegalitarian, how matter no distribution, and system property existing The market-oriented. be would denomination discussed the theory of a republican ‘equality.’ Thus, to approaches while avoidingsubstantive domination, tog netoa ad neproa ln. lo i sol b ntd ht “economic non-domination.” of productive is that inequality or poverty material noted as far be so theory, political republican should a under supported it be will restriction or Also, redistribution line. interpersonal and intentional strong Nadeau, ‘Non-domination as a Moral Ideal’: 186 Ideal’: asaMoral Nadeau,‘Non-domination Pettit, ‘Freedom intheMarket’: 141 Pettit, ‘Freedom intheMarket’: 139 Pettit, ‘Freedom Market’: 139 ‘Freedominthe Philip Pettit, 63 hs ude nlec b te elh n oiis s osbe (for possible is politics in wealthy the by influence undue Thus, 48 64 , as long as the latter is defined along a along defined is latter the as long as , 62 This point raises an interesting issue. interesting an raises point This 65 It is unclear, however, to however, unclear, is It CEU eTD Collection 68 67 non- as 66 freedom of increase the to himself limits Pettit far-fetched, too seem would sense when individual republican this one in free everybody for having of goal attained the since And be it. from benefits only everybody can which good, common a as domination as non- of freedom the light in light, but comprehensive a presented in not was common good the of concept related The community). the political or via group republican the for a freedom of of achievement understanding the in secured be only can it but emphasis, the is freedom (individual way republican specific a in presented was notion the that however, true, was is freedom It individual. the point of starting a as had and notion being, well individual to His sensitive particularly norm. theoretical liberal a from departing as or republican, specifically being as one struck have not may points institutional practical, Pettit’s Philip 1.5 Republicancommunity the basisofarepublicantheory. on envisage can one community political of kind the discuss I following the In allegiances. ideal differentoutlooksand thatunitepeople ofvery would towards arepublicanpublicphilosophy and value binding the as seen probably is freedom of notion republican the further, good.” the of conceptions particular more their of regardless societies, multicultural developed, of citizens the of allegiance the commanding of capable is ideal that the “assumption the motivated by is republican proposal Pettit’s apparent that It becomes instituting aninheritancetax,oraprogressiveconsumptiontax. to businesses, owned locally favoring by diversity economic protecting to workplace, the at andtheconditions ‘civic economy’,mayconsistinaspecialattentiontothecharacterofwork calls Dagger Richard what or economics, to approach republican a of specifications possible domination. minimizes that as long as necessary is monopolies against financing, Pettit, Republicanism, A Theory of Freedom andGovernment ofFreedom ATheory Pettit, Republicanism, andtheCivicEconomy’ Richard Dagger,‘Neo-Republicanism intheMarket’: 145 Pettit, ‘Freedom 49 : 96 67 68 aig n step one Taking 66 Other CEU eTD Collection 69 to civility for order In group. particular a of ideas or interests the track to fails government when situations the towards disapproval expressed entails civility active while laws, good to obedience the to refers author the civility passive By content. active an or passive a have can Civility society. of norm the as civility on insistence the is republic constitutional a of vision legalistic core hard Pettit’s for coin the of side other The promote. to wants ultimately theory for whathis precondition of politicalcommunityisa his vision becomes apparentthat Thus, it reading. a within however, sense, communitarian a given when sense make only make can it moreover, and concepts, of constellation only can non-domination as freedom of ideal political The citizens. by enjoyed non-domination as freedom overall the of maximization the indeed imperium of forms any or majority’ the of tyranny ‘the fighting to specifically, more and liberty, of ideal political the to allegiance the is solidarity informs what and notion important an as presented is solidarity communal republicanism, of version of concept the of treatment his Pettit’s In theory. in his of whole the into plays concept is this way the and community republican republican a as sound to start does Pettit Where good common perfect (meaning thatitwouldbepracticallyattainableforevery individual). a become can this day some that hope the about explicit however is He it). from benefit also can group vulnerability his of members other the of most or all if only it from benefit will individual (one good common partial a of level the to domination Pettit, Republicanism, a Theory of Freedom andGovernment ofFreedom aTheory Pettit, Republicanism, omnl oiaiy T wn rpbia lbry yu ae o at republican want to of have you condition liberty, republican the equality; torealizerepublicanliberty,youhavecommunity.” want To and solidarity. communal equality not of do substantial readily embraceboththeprospectof hope who individuals no advancing thecauseoffreedomasnon-dominationamong be “For itisclearfromtheobservationsdeployedherethattherecan abtay ulc oe) Te liae i o Pti’ cneunils ter is theory consequentialist Pettit’s of aim ultimate The power). public (arbitrary 50 : 126 dominium piae oiain or domination) (private 69 CEU eTD Collection 70 government contestability: “civilityis asmuchamatterofidentificationitisinternalization, forwhen for basis the become and individuals in civic-mindedness foster to supposed is allegiance group Thus, behavior. his/her in one guide that norms civil internalize to comes one self, one’s of threshold the beyond allegiance this Through people. gay of group a or women, of group a group, ethnic an that be allegiance, of group a with identification the self, personal strictly one’s beyond identification of form a as civility defines ultimately he Thus, He citizenry. civility’. of ‘group-centered terms community in republican his civic-minded of the picture pointedly draws of vision wishful diluted, a to keep not does however, Pettit, that onlydeveloped,stabledemocraticsocietiescanenjoythebenefits. becomes apparent it up, republican system the setting preconditions of among Pettit’s listed is behavior public ethos of an such since And cards. of house a to are reduced republic resilient a safeguard to envisaged sanctioning and screening the all and law’, of ‘empire the mind), in citizen a complying rather with mind, but in with theknave design (designingnot institutional of strategies ‘complier-centered’ society, in running and up civility of ethos an without Thus, and attachmenttothatgroup.” fidelity of norms embody they action, and approval to disposition their in grievances; shared They behalf. at articulating group and the own at organizing the work to leads them which of civility form their display a on civility- complain just by not do means “They be: usually need if Pettit contest to what willingness exhibit thus will grievances group’s their express to ready and and contestation. Thosewhoarewillingtopointoutthemismatchbetweengovernmentpolicy watchdog the play to willing there out citizens conscientious be to have there implemented, and drafted are laws way the check on constant a keep and reinforce Pettit, Republicanism, a Theory of Freedom andGovernment ofFreedom Republicanism,aTheory Pettit, 70

51 : 247 CEU eTD Collection platform of vigilance and anti- and vigilance of platform 74 73 72 71 whole.” a as society the to relates that civility a display to perspectives, different quite of people even people, of part the on a disposition also requires it be effective, to order civility in forms of “requires partial politics republican his While whole. a as society of norms civil the to fidelity of form the in civility the frontof group-centered civility and of whathecalls thefront conceptualization twofronts: those with associated are interests whose values.” groups the with “identifying them to refers mainly he norms civil adopt to coming individuals of talks Pettit when above, illustrated As the set grounds forit. to unable is he fact’, of matter author ‘a as the and desirable though as even translation a that, such be announces might it since level, societal general, a to translated be to are describes mostly he that civility of forms partial the how us show to has he civility, of to beemphasizedherethatinorderforPettitmakeapersuasiveargumentaboutthebenefits has it Thus, interests. sectional of advance the represent simply not would civility why partial are.” they norms whose group the with identifying as time, same the and one at described, be can I norms civil internalize I mean to is it if understood, be to has which civility, of value identification the emphasize subgroups.” particular of those just or whole a as “The society the of does: those be internalized norms the whether self, Pettit the overcoming in exercise an as as lightly taken be not norms civil fidelity to theme, represents our main return to civility, to image of internalization should civility societal to civility partial Pettit, Republicanism, a Theory of Freedom and Government: ofFreedom aTheory Pettit,Republicanism, and Government: ofFreedom aTheory Pettit,Republicanism, and ofFreedom aTheory Pettit,Republicanism, and Government ofFreedom aTheory Pettit,Republicanism, 72 hs s o, oee, h ed f h soy Tee per o e n Pettit’s in be to appear There story. the of end the however, not, is This dominium 71 u, hl gop leine a b tutd o ersn a represent to trusted be can allegiance group while But, 73 cned hwvr ht hs ocpul ldn from sliding conceptual this that however contend, I Government: 257 Government: or anti- or 52 imperium : 258-9 258-9 249 74 ic te uhr os t egh to lengths at goes author the Since mobilization, it is not at all clear all at not is it mobilization, CEU eTD Collection o-rirrns, a b furthered” be can non-arbitrariness, This aspirations. ultimately contestability, and that deliberative cast this having democracy of event the only in and concerns is (“It republicanism common with intertwined closely finds Pettit that with deliberation of understanding groups or committees’ and ‘appointment are promotions deliberation of pattern a such fitting as mind in has author the that the groups onthe Thus deliberation). of form premise-driven deciding considered (the be to relevant premises by level collective the at agreement reach can people that way a such in of role unifying the towards point exigencies, intra-group fit meant to is envisages he that the deliberation yet, deliberation. And would this to answer Pettit’s Maybe achieved? be civility to societal is contradict, how to happen can groups, which different to view pertaining of points different into fragmented is an society of that context world-views, the of in plurality expect, acknowledged to reasonable is it if again: raised a be So, to group. is religious question conservative, resilient a of norms the contradict to bound are group gay particular a the with but whole, a as polity philosophy ofaparticulargroup.Thenorms(bytheobservancewhichcivilitycomesby) or society the with identification the yield 76 75 are they and view.” of points group-level adopting to compromise,tied intimately of norms not others, with non- solidarity as of group norms freedom are fostering different domination for by required are nurtured that civility view of of norms the points “For different philosophies: the between clashes to lead to bound is this solidarity, group-fostered mainly is solidarity of idea his Since civility. of form general societal, the contradict actually not does type) partial (the civility ‘working’ main his whether question the raise to has one identification, group of terms in concrete, anything

and Legal Philosophy (2001): 282 (2001): and LegalPhilosophy Philip Pettit, ‘Deliberative Democracy and the Discursive Dilemma’ Discursive andthe Democracy ‘Deliberative PhilipPettit, and ofFreedom aTheory Pettit,Republicanism, 76 de nt hwvr apa t b aporae for appropriate be to appear however, not, does ) Government: 259 Government: 53 75 Thus, his envisaged civility will not will civility envisaged his Thus, , Philosophical Issues Philosophical , 11 Social, Political, Social,Political, , 11 CEU eTD Collection 77 of form practical more a to belonging ones the with theory of type ideal an of features the together getting of virtue the has theory republican his that suggested has Pettit that however, account, into take should We normative! is stance his course, of be- could answer hasty a sound irrelevant: might The question descriptive? or beingnormative point at this Pettit is So, overall terms,securingthecauseofgroupasawholeiswinningstrategy. in and run long the in that, instead say to reasonable more be would It group. whole the of cause the within from positions their secure and interests their further only can they that and seem not does it ascription identity, of groups own their in ascriptive captive somehow are individuals that assume with to reasonable along come that limitations the by welfare their in affected are individuals that say to correct ultimately is it Pettit though Even it. have would than likely more be to seems names individual personal their their in non-domination for as striving freedom individuals of conceiving individual, particular the of the not choice is groups these in membership since And class. vulnerability same the in sharing members their of terms general the in groups these of speaks Pettit that accidental not thus is It association. of types voluntary not ascriptive, be to seem they that is mind in has Pettit interconnected.” intimately are stakes non-domination the in fortunes your together; swim or sink class each in you of Those you. as class vulnerability same the in those for ensured is non-domination as far so therefore, non-domination, enjoy only will “You worse. for or good for of, part is group he of the faith share the theory, to Pettit’s to ultimately according is left, The individual premises thatmightcontradict. different having groups different among level, inter-group the at reason collective producing Pettit, Republicanism, a Theory of Freedom and Government ofFreedom aTheory Pettit,Republicanism, 77 In a sense, the difficulty that arises when we consider the types of groups of types the consider we when arises that difficulty the sense, a In 54 : 122 CEU eTD Collection 79 78 (…).” virtue civic the of modicum a given law, the of sanctions the by motivated adequately be can general in “citizens that assumes author The the indeed individual requiredtoexhibitsuchvisionaryqualitiesinPettit’stheory? Is this? about say to have Pettit does What vision. long-term lucid, individual envisaged the to attribute we unless hold not does resiliently rights own his secure to means the as born?!) be to misfortune the had he which (to belonging of group ascriptive his/her of rights the of achievement the for fight to individual the of interest the in is it that argument certain a Thus, the so. do good to finds it s/he group because the of general cause the of the boundaries within born though even outside interests his/her further to decide well very could individualism: individual an group, disadvantaged practical of standard liberal the contradict not does obliterates it however, point, This individuals. of that majority a by actions widespread predictable, least at or actions, individual a of actually is depiction it commonsensical that idea the entails makes he that point this normativeness, apparent the the with notion individualist an beyond yet, And cause. collective a within secured be as can liberty individual that the qualification freedom to of relates view point republican this the that of mentioned distinctiveness be a should primarily it is passing, rights In group for assertion. fighting normative of umbrella the under only rights their secure will individuals that claim the view, Pettit’s in that be may It claim. a such of value true the with faced really are we one, this as points conceptual juncture, in that be may It theorizing. group-centered of view his sustain author the can how then citizens, ordinary of part the on parties.” and different policies assessors of public-spirited be to have electors ordinary that presuppose we do model the of description the in “Nowhere that stresses Pettit Philip voting, judgment-based stipulate not does theory see Pettit, Republicanism, a Theory of Freedom andGovernment ofFreedom aTheory seePettit,Republicanism, Pettit, Republicanism, a Theory of Freedom andGovernment ofFreedom aTheory Pettit, Republicanism, 79 But if he only requires a modicum of civic virtue of civic modicum requiresa only if he But 55 78 : 206 Also, when he refers to the fact that his that fact the to refers he when Also, : footnote 1, 191 : footnote CEU eTD Collection 81 80 group-level to commitment overriding “An says: He this. to rejoinder interesting an makes Maynor John civility. of form widespread a such of discussion the enter to wish really not does he though even patriotism, as civility societal ideal an to refers Pettit that interesting is It group. particular that of rights exclusive the of consideration also, inflated group, but of the the name agency in awareness and positive only the not and consequently, a whole, society as of those to interests group’s the of preference individual’s the yield to likely more a is group, with identification corruption, of discussion Madisonian the to reference Pettit’s Using us’.” provides it which with freedom the for country ‘my realizes’: it values the for country ‘my of rather, attitude, the represent to bound is it civility of form republican proper a with goes [patriotism] it if “but answer: Virolian a has Pettit patterns, uncivil exclusionary, into degenerate would patriotism, calls he which civility, widespread that possibility the Against of social acceptance,whichtheauthorexpects‘topolice’people intocivicbehavior. mechanism conformity-inducing the is This here. work at mechanism extra an is there about.” care to likely most are office-holders think we esteem whose those on particularly most falls vigilance of duty the then so, is this If punish. discipline a prove may vigilance citizen esteem, eternal world of “in the following statement: his also bring implies I that Pettit psychology moral two-tier the of evidence In off). pays civility group-centered that decide ‘visionary’ the and individuals whoconstitutetheavant-garde(thosetakelong-termviewand self-centered, rather are who ones, ordinary the for: provides theory Pettit’s that individuals of types are two there that means it then case, the is latter the if Thus, mind. in psychology moral two-tier a with designed is theory his that or assumptions, own his of basis the on it justify to fails Pettit that either is question this to answer The civility? Geoffrey Brennan and Philip Pettit, ‘Power corrupts, but can office ennoble?’ Kyklos butcanofficeennoble?’ corrupts, Pettit, ‘Power andPhilip GeoffreyBrennan Pettit, Republicanism, A Theory of Freedom andGovernment ofFreedom ATheory Pettit, Republicanism, n itself in n wtot n frhr eore o aaiy to capacity to recourse further any without and 56 : 260 80 As this statement makes it apparent it makes statement this As , 55, fasc 2, (2002): 168 fasc 2,(2002): , 55, 81 CEU eTD Collection 84 83 because that say 82 I place. take to interests of voicing the for order in presupposed already them.” dominate the statenot can othersor interests are,how what their othersknow the stateor prepared tolet not are individuals “If themselves: people the to interests common tracking of burden the idealized assigns that Maynor more worth pointingout it is cares toadmit, Pettit individual than notion ofthe a implies republicanism instrumental that claim earlier an to back Going have ofthem,andthusbemotivatedintheiractionsbytheconstantattemptatgainingesteem. of group others that a opinion the value to expected of ahead, shown be will particulars it as also, are the they belonging; within from but way, general some in not nature political their manifest to expected are they attitudes; political their of expression the in forthcoming be to expected are citizens So, have. to taken are disapproval or approval manifest as well as expression” honest and free of “ethos an by connected are fragmented is community the which in groups various The represent. they that groups particular the of concerns particular the voice to fighting citizens (‘visionary’) engaged civicly community: republican his for draws Pettit that picture the be would This bridging betweenthetwoonofferininstrumentalrepublicanarguments. convincing any be to appear not does there and identity, national not identities, group-level diverse, many, of that is adopt republicans instrumental that strategy the that emphasized the of chapter be to next has It republicanism. the of forms identity-based national in discuss will I strategy when dissertation, particular this analyze will I citizenship. of active an notion for accounting of strategy a as use republicans instrumental that patriotism not traditions.” moral varying widely from groups and individuals unite and community nurture to helps patriotism as such identities Maynor, Republicanism in the modern world modern inthe Maynor,Republicanism andGovernment: ofFreedom ATheory Pettit,Republicanism, world modern inthe Maynor,Republicanism 84 hs i wud per ht itiiey a eln o nndmnto is non-domination of feeling a intuitively, that, appear would it Thus, 82 : 120 : 198 And yet, this rings as mere wishful thinking for it is it for thinking wishful mere as rings this yet, And 83 , which implies the political relevance that silence that relevance political the implies which , 57 235 CEU eTD Collection entering the discussion. Pettit chooses to confide in the first answer, thus going at lengths to lengths at going thus answer, first the in confide to chooses Pettit discussion. the entering yet without this mentions Pettit And but education, is obvious civility. most the probably and of answer, another habits facilitates that guidance of form a represent themselves laws the that be would answer Another individuals. of preoccupation core a is ‘esteem’ or ‘regard’ that assumption the strong founded on is argument this Only that others. esteem of gain the to want they behavior since desired such exhibit actually would that people expect to reasonable is it that sort the of something be would answer first A account. Pettit’s in muddled remains culture the in embedded already not is it where places in resides) actually a system republican of success the which (on civility of habit the promote to how of question the However, that leadsPettitawayfromaliberalstandardpointofview. assumption communitarian a is This law. the defy to prone be rather would who individuals those or engaged least the civility into motivate will people’s respect earn attempt to then, the them, of think people other what about care do individuals that true be to it take we if Thus, obtains. esteem people’s other for care people that assumption the as long as desideratum of therepublican boundaries act withinthe civicly inclinedpersonwill the least way thateven a such in citizens of is part the on disposition that civic of levels different mechanism the regulate to supposed societal communitarian, a ‘the is calls hand’ he ‘intangible what The builds hand’. Pettit intangible respect others’ for care people that assumption the On of engagingwiththeinterestsvariouspeople. liberal understandingstopsatrespectandtoleration,therepublicanaimsadeliberativeform the while that, is citizenship and virtue civic of notions republican and liberal the between difference the sees of Maynor way lack the Moreover, and voicing. precluding implicitly powerlessness thus courage, of feeling a with associated intuitively be could domination 58 CEU eTD Collection 88 87 86 85 whole.” a as society the for concern a with goes that civility the out drive not do civility of forms partial such that presuppose also must it available, civility centered group- of level high a is there that presupposes law of republican of type ideal the societal “While civility: general, the undermine not will community republican his of center the at places he that civility of forms partial the that is explanation any without us onto passes he that one The presuppositions. bold quite makes Pettit Philip above, illustrated somewhat As be waysofensuringtheproperoperationsystem.” to ought there principle in But hold. take process republican of corruptions other various and interests, sectional by influenced are media the as ranks, close parties political as perverted be to get can arrangements these that know all “We reference. of terms the blur can media how anon-liberal insettingapoliticalagenda,and role ofthemedia consider forexample,the distortions: to lead to as way a such in fail can work at see to like would he that contestation bad.” earn the manifest will to failure the and/or others of opinion good the earn will manifestation its that prospect the out holding by behavior of pattern a nurture to “helps it follows: as summarized be can hand’ ‘intangible the of mechanism main The hand’. ‘intangible the of power the of us convince civility. of workings the on insistence Pettit’s to side another yet is there compliance, legal of form passive the of counterpart necessary the is vigilance, as understood simply most form, active dishonored.” being with go to likely dishonorable being honored, being go with to likely is honorable “Being the way: in factors’ any ‘noise without signs negative and positive assigned straightforward be are to it Pettit, Republicanism, A Theory of Freedom andGovernment: ofFreedom ATheory Pettit,Republicanism, andGovernment: ofFreedom ATheory Pettit,Republicanism, andGovernment ofFreedom ATheory Pettit,Republicanism, andGovernment: ofFreedom ATheory Pettit,Republicanism, 86 On the other hand, Pettit does recognize that the arrangements of arrangements the that recognize does Pettit hand, other the On 85 And yet, how idealistic this belief is that civility and the lack of lack the civility and that belief is this how idealistic yet, And 59 : 254 249 237 254 87 88 If civility in its in civility If CEU eTD Collection 90 89 Moreover, attitude. martial of sort some entail that contestation logical and vigilance of virtues a the as trust of of lengths at spoken concept has Pettit since the eyebrows reader’s the of raise can civility of introduction complement sudden this that surprising not is It than anend-result). rather concept process a as seen be to thus is it and defended constantly be to needs (freedom of experience the with associated standing.” and is tranquility free being which in world a with also but civility, widespread of dispensation a with just not associated, is “republicanism that says he comes when envisages actually Pettit community political of kind what to as surprise Another the ‘politicsofdifference’thathehashadsofaratbackhismind. of complement a as presented was which concern’, common of politics ‘the calls Pettit what to leads trust of notion the of introduction unexpected this that however, remember, should We mood. appeasement sudden this question to reasonable is it contestation of spirit martial of sort a of spoke he now until Since argument? own Pettit’s of logic the within expectation reasonable Is thata trust oneanother. peopleshould to askwhy is comes immediatelytomind rewarded.” and exercised are trust of forms suitable where society civil a for in effect arguing was I civility, such promote to do can state the what indicating in and civility, widespread for need the itemizing “in cooperation: of way the in uncertainty no is there that words other in dilemmas, of type game-theoretic any of spared is community republican his that assumes Pettit pen, the of stroke a With together. concepts various throws author the that mind reader’s the through pass may it now By ‘trust’. is Pettit for coin the of side other The Pettit, Republicanism, A Theory of Freedom andGovernment ofFreedom ATheory Pettit,Republicanism, andGovernment ofFreedom ATheory Pettit,Republicanism, 90 u ti cnrdcs h ie o a yai cnet f freedom of concept dynamic a of idea the contradicts this But 60 : 262 : 261 89 What CEU eTD Collection 92 91 the without hold cannot the to as skeptical remain I assertion far, So implies. psychology moral two-tier quoted the that qualification above Pettit’s Thus, citizens. than ‘visionary’ trustworthy less are citizens ordinary that imply would This contestation. of burden the bear actually will citizens ‘visionary’ the called have I whom ones the citizens, of class hand’), whileadifferent hehadtointroducethemechanismof‘intangible (and thatiswhy virtue civic of modicum a only exhibit will citizens ordinary that recognizes he that means which psychology, moral two-tier a for scene the setting actually is Pettit explicitly), this of reliance.” confident of sense this in trust of degree high a be should civility widespread of side other the that surprising somewhat are statements Pettit’s theory. hardly is trustworthy, it they are isthat his for trustingsomeone best reason confusing: “Sincethe in point revelatory this reaches he before makes Pettit that assumptions of pile the of top on supported be can trust whether is seen be to remains also What compatible? are civility and trust that case the also however, it, Is be dismissed ascontradictory. not need hand’ invisible ‘the of ways the and trust being, human social a of life the in motivator banalpsychological rather apretty form ofbehavior,but authoritarian, traditionalist appear could as not, is which shaming, of form a rather is policing by means he what Since easily. so dismissed be not one should Pettit trusting yet, and And contradictory. another are another one ‘policing’ attitudes, two the that say to is impulse first the behavior.” of patterns certain into regard, positive and negative of sanctions via another, one police should people that possibility “the of speaks (he acknowledges author the that the informally regulate hand’ of ‘policing’ mechanism supposesacertainform islacking.Sincethis occasions whencivility ‘invisible the of mechanisms the that proposed has Pettit Pettit, Republicanism, A Theory of Freedom andGovernment ofFreedom ATheory Pettit,Republicanism, andGovernment: ofFreedom ATheory Pettit,Republicanism, 92 If my interpretation is correct (since the author does not speak not does author the (since correct is interpretation my If 61 : 262 228 prima facie, prima 91 an ), CEU eTD Collection utfcto ad f epn gvrmn nnabtay a wl a te methodological the as 94 well as non-arbitrary, 93 government keeping of and justification public of importance utmost the acknowledge theory of lines both Moreover, relativism. to succumb thatwouldultimately mode oftheory aconventionalist give into to thinking andnot in moral critical As of importance the uphold non-domination. to said be as can theorists republican freedom theory, Macedo’s of notion the on based morality at public aim to a said promoting be can republicans instrumental as just morality, public a as liberalism of notion the defends He disagreements. those express to order in together come disagreements stage. public the on views moral address and allow to need the recognizes he theorists, republican with together and Rawls, John Unlike morality. liberal a of virtues the of some as upholds ideals different discuss He morality. public to and disagrees liberal one whom with those a with dialogues in engage over to willingness impartiality, debate the in participation of and values liberal importance of account the into that takes of liberalism a version such Macedo provides Stephen liberalism. of versions communitarian more from differs republicanism instrumental whether/how of discussion brief a provide to chapter this to introduction the in promised I 1.6 Arepublicantheoryofcivicvirtuevs.aliberal personal trust].” [of overtures such of taking the inhibit would liberty that to attachment an if assuming been have may we than grand less rather seem to going is liberty “Republican he sentimental: rather why reason the is unfolded previously that theory republican the speculate to natural as only notion this defended can nevertheless I theory, Pettit’s of parameters the under unjustifiable appears notion this of insertion the As contestation. and vigilance of convincing idea the a as trust with of associated mostly is forget, not notion should we which, civility, of the notion the of complement accommodate can theory Pettit’s which in ways Clarendon Press , 1990): 63 ,1990): Clarendon Press Stephen Macedo, Liberal Virtues, Citizenship, Virtue and Community inLiberal Constitutionalism Community Virtueand Citizenship, LiberalVirtues, StephenMacedo, andGovernment ofFreedom ATheory Pettit,Republicanism, 93 94 hs h se pltc a te rn wee epe ih lasting with people where arena the as politics sees he Thus, 62 267 : , (Oxford: CEU eTD Collection societal civility in the republican rendering which may not be fully covered by the unifying the by covered fully be not may which rendering republican the in civility societal of level the and group civility of level the gap between a indeed there is that out pointed have I non-domination. as freedom of valuation individual strong, a is them underlies ultimately group what constitutive because reflection, critical beyond not are yet that and citizenship, active foster attachments contend theorists republican Instrumental contestation. of form the in citizenship active foster that identities group underlying are there that republican argue theorists instrumental generally, of more evaluators morality public critical of as and duty particular their in government fulfill to motivates and what virtues to liberal as embody explanation to little individuals very entail to appears theory Macedo’s While share. they that vocabulary familiar very the despite approaches, two these distinguishes that anything really is whether there can wonder one of similarities endless series this hand’. After invisible ‘the of mechanisms ongoing the on extensively rely and position cautious more a take republicans that said be can it exercised, when liberals into individuals shape will which a reaching implies it as insofar values, of liberal view idealistic, transformative takes an While Macedo compromise position. toleration beyond goes moderation of principle This of form views. principled moral conflicting be generally will what a between mitigate to means the as promotes moderation Macedo politics, define to value core the as domination non- as freedom propose republicans While review. judicial of institution the to value great assign appear to both detail, of relevant matter as a capacity. Also, that in be respected should who reason-giver a as person the of conception underlying an have to seem theories both more, is What status. non-dominated a secure can people contestation in engaging when that entails it and scope narrower a has it theory republican of case the in while liberal, become can people justification public through that implies idea this case, Macedo’s In socialization. civic of idea an share theorizing of lines both essence, In faith. religious like interests narrow beyond reasons of kinds public general, entail should justification public that requirement 63 CEU eTD Collection 95 of notion equipped better qualitatively a simply as appeared initially has non-domination as freedom of notion the though even First, things. several chapter this in shown have to hope I 1.7 Conclusion justice. social to duty of sense a of out act not do arguments, citizens public the republican while on motivator, main their principles as reasons and liberal of virtue in act and belonging of communities and commitments particular their from abstract can individuals that idea the is virtue civic of theory republican the and virtue civic of theory liberal the approaches, theoretical two the divides substantially What justice’? ‘conforming withliberal participate (beforesuchvaluesareembeddedinthem)forthesakeof to burden themselves the on take individuals will that think to reasonable it is become liberal, helps them that which practice is public Sinceliberal active morality. liberal over a the debate in part take need to feel the should why individuals to as story any motivation provide fails to however, virtue, civic of theory liberal morality. Macedo’s motivation political developed the underlying the at looking with concerned much that very remains are point authors the republican but instrumental non-domination, as freedom of concern shared the of power iea ter de nt e ay lc fr ru lvl ciim n de nt ae uh a such take not does and dramatic stanceastowhyitisimportantthatpeople participatepolitically. activism level group for place any see not does theory liberal the while freedom, public of stronghold the needs freedom individual that idea the on based essentially is that theory of kind militant a is republicanism instrumental Moreover, foremost. and justice first of abstract principles to committed be will people assumes that virtue of civic theory liberal the while value, primary universal, an as non-domination as freedom to appeal the by moderate to try they which attachments, constitutive have individuals that position see on this explicit point Maynor, Republicanism in the Modern World intheModern Republicanism Maynor, see onthisexplicitpoint 64 95 Republican theorists maintain the empirical the maintain theorists Republican : 81 CEU eTD Collection novne b te oeta o te ocr fr reo a nndmnto t unite to non-domination as freedom for concern the of potential the by unconvinced remain we if so is This society. of of picture groups conflict-ridden a to different amount could from and allegiance, individuals unites what of account an give to fails republicans instrumental by adopted strategy citizenship’ ‘partial the that show to tried have I Finally, here withthemilitantspiritofcontestation. mixed unwittingly is docility of form certain a Thus, virtuous. individuals keeping in esteem of mechanisms society’s on emphasis Pettit’s from emerges parochialism overall certain, a that is that to upshot The latter. the with concerned particularly be to appear Maynor and instrumental Pettit Both Also, norms. and institutions of importance status. the on emphasis strong domination a place republicans concrete or interpersonal an achieve not do they aslong of thescopefreedomasnon-domination be leftoutside unfair practicesappearto domination, of instances aware reciprocally bilateral, on is emphasis actual the Since life. to and social politics on influence attention have undue can these how and of inequality structural sources little strikingly accords non-domination as freedom that shown have I Next, they mightfallintolinewithrepublicanideas. how and politics deliberative and theory discourse on thought of track Habermasian the us for opens This others. with are discourse in beliefs they their amend and that form casually to and understood conversable be to taken are people that means That oriented. theoretic asdiscourse- non-interference onlyinsofarasitworkswithadifferentnotionoftheindividual freedom as than different or better is non-domination as admittance, freedom Pettit’s on Even notion. liberal the from it differentiate to enough distinctive becomes it based, is it which on assumptions holistic the and recognition interpersonal requiring dimension positive its acknowledge distinctiveness, oncewe to not muchrecourse freedom asnon-interference,with 65 CEU eTD Collection to theholisticassumptionsonwhichitrestsanditsmilitantoutlook. due virtue civic of theory liberal a with compared when distinctiveness its retains virtue civic of republican theory a that suggested Ihave Finally, group identities. beyond their individuals 66 CEU eTD Collection ol a hoy ht re t tl a ifrn soy bsd n ainl dniy s common a as identity national on based story, different a tell to tries that theory a Could in. chapter steps where this is citizenry. That the of rest the with solidarityexpress to inclined feel actually can group, particular the of cause particular the of name the in citizens good becoming thus and people of group a with vulnerability some sharing their by citizenship good motivated into individuals whomayget explain how cannot thatPettit claim Imadewas The belonging. group action: civic for motivation explaining in proposes Pettit that strategy pointhererelatestothe The secondmainfindingofthepreviouschapter, whichisourstarting participation. civic enhanced and self-government republican of notion a of heart the at is chapters, next the in explore shall we as which deliberation, on focus republican the grounds assumption This others. with discourse in beliefs normative their form they words, other in or oriented, of individuals arediscourse- according towhich feature importantassumption there isavery root ofthis positive the incorporates the At dominated. be to it not someone for required is what of part as recognition as interpersonal insofar only non-interference, as freedom of notion liberal/libertarian mainstream the from different is non-domination as freedom of notion the that found we First, reflection. further invite that thought Pettit’s Philip of analysis previous our in findings main two the were There dissertation. the of of chapter first the in out analysis comes dissertation the in point this at republicanism of form national-identity a investigate should we That platform. nationalist a on built arguments republican consider to is a theories republican contemporary on of project larger the promotion in task next the the agenda, republican in strategy republican instrumental an of merits the analyzing After 2.1 Introduction Chapter 2:ANational IdentityRepublicanism andInitialIdeas onthe Notion ofPoliticalObligation 67 CEU eTD Collection 96 oppressive orexclusiveimplications ofsuchastrategy. the of because undesirable normatively and nation-states, contemporary that most characterizes multiculturalism the of because problematic practically both is identity, this that national out in pointing citizenship republican grounding of necessity explicit the an makes against example, argument for Honohan Iseult argue. to willing are authors republican other what against goes identity national of importance the for arguments substantive making that example for appear may It politics? republican for context desirable a represent identity this national all, does First of in republican perspective. into discussion the and set particular chapter analysis the from arise questions Several strategy’. identity ‘national a of context the in citizenship of notion republican a define to attempted explicitly has he that is thought his analyse to choosing for reason the of Part individuals. of lives the in identity national of importance of the expression a natural exercised as fact be can in but reveries romantic are no republican nationalist responsibility citizen virtue, Miller’s civic like values David republican demanding that assess argues He strategy. to is chapter this in aim general most My that ingredient coagulating the be could identity instrumental republicanslacked. national that idea the on reflect to go on I chapter this in belonging, groups of particular with identification the from individuals by derived is motivation civic that proposes which citizenship’, ‘partial of notion defeating self- a entails Maynor) John and Pettit Philip like authors by promoted (as republicanism instrumental that chapter previous the in concluded Having trick? the do identity national could citizenship, republican grounding in fail to appear identification of forms partial if far: so analysis the of after-thought natural a from starts chapter this way, a in Thus, palatable? more ideas republican make solidarity, of forms partial on based than rather denominator see Iseult Honohan, CivicRepublicanism seeIseultHonohan, , (London & New York: Routledge, 2002): esp. 276-282 2002): York: Routledge, &New , (London 68 96 CEU eTD Collection 97 of role their of individuals strips it that in theory Miller’s animate to seems that deliberation of spirit being up ends the against goes This participation community. the to commitment one’s expressing of way political a as presented Thus, compromised. is deliberation the of substantive, ethically openness be to appear principles these As community. political specific the of culture public of principles the with line in decisions their make should citizens which to according responsibility, public of that like values republican of interpretation the into plugged is latter The other. the on identity national of preservation the on insistence author’s arguments between anotionofrepublicancitizenshipthatcelebratesdeliberationontheonehandand Miller’s David in tension serious a is there that shows chapter this in analysis matter that for theories republican theoryand liberal political forms of most foundationsof the unreferenced,national out spell merely theory maybe political based a national-identity Does nationalism. do with to anything have not not/should does republicanism whether an establish can for that analysis need applied a as well as addressing, need still that questions serious however, are, There thought anditsoutcomes. Miller’s in ambivalence the clarifies obligation political of notions different two between contrast the where section the in illustrated be then will points general These view. of point ethical unified, a express to conceived ultimately be to appearing latter the identity, national and citizenship republican of practice deliberative the between arguments Miller’s in split time same the at while highlight the meant to is discussion take, This setting. a liberal-democratic presuppose appearing to may it form whatever identity, national of pre-eminence the for argue to tendency a exhibits Miller Also, community. specific the of culture public Nationhood, Patriotism and Limited Loyalties”, in National Rights, International Obligations Rights, International Loyalties”, inNational andLimited Nationhood, Patriotism David George and Peter Jones (WestviewPress, 1996): 69 (WestviewPress,1996): Jones David GeorgeandPeter For this general line of argument see Margaret Canovan’s writings, especially “The Skeleton in the Cupboard: in theCupboard: “TheSkeleton writings, especially Canovan’s seeMargaret ofargument Forthisgeneralline agents n trs hm no rcpals o sm gnrl il s xrse i the in expressed as will general some of ‘receptacles’ into them turns and 97 ad os t culy pn h do fr noeat rcie? The practices? intolerant for door the open actually it does and , 69 , eds. Simon Caney, , eds.Simon CEU eTD Collection 98 taking (individuals is citizenship republican of core The care. with considering worth itself in is citizenship republican by means Miller what that out point to need I however, assessment, this Before citizenship. republican of notion the and self-determination) to claims legitimate to rise gives it that and community, ethical an underlies it that identity, personal of significant source a is identity national that entails (which relation nationality’ the of consider principle to ‘the is between chapter this in up take I that tasks important most the of One Republicancitizenship 2.2 citizenship requires. Commonnationalityhasservedthispurposeinadvancedsocieties.” that loyalty and trust the generate must else something impossible, this make conditions social modern If laws. make to oak an of shade the under face to face gather to supposed were citizens “Rousseau’s politics: of ideal regulative plausible, a be to citizenship republican for loyalty and trust necessary the generates it that second, and people ordinary of lives the in important is nationality common that first contention Miller’s David is it Thus, architecture oftheargument. whole the on effects with element, important crucially a however, is, It framework. theory a in element liberal an a within nationalist are just that arguments accommodate to is tries that complex theoretical citizenship republican of notion Miller’s that would I highlight that, indeed to response In misconceived. somewhat is contended, be could it our analysis, republican, clear-cut no is he instrumental because the reason, that of For that discussed. already to republicans breadth in comparable way of no in theory is contribution full-fledged Miller’s republican David that a chapter, this of constructing criticism in contended, to thus be may attention It republicanism. his devotes who Pettit’s, Philip of that as close as way no in is republicanism to relation Miller’s David that say to fair is It David Miller, Citizenship and National Identit and DavidMiller,Citizenship y (Polity Press, 2000): 87 Press, 2000): (Polity 70 98 CEU eTD Collection 100 99 political of interpretation of line fulfilling’ ‘intrinsically an both accommodate can view party.” been has she or he a which to of agreement outcome reasonable the as but impositions alien as simply her or him to appear not do state the each of part be engaged be to good person’s should it “that requires citizenship of conception republican to according the Thus, Miller, good. intrinsic an be to seen is life civic active an rendering Miller’s David in non-domination, of freedom as conceptualized freedom individual resilient secure like notions republican Maynor John and Pettit Philip like republicans instrumental of theories the in While theorizing. of modes two the in at put is politics republican that use the to refers difference significant most The case. republican instrumental an from differs theory Miller’s which in way only the not is This and linked. republicanism between connection necessary inextricably are that they does seem no Miller’s theory it literature, in the relevant deliberation in is there decisions reach though to And want who together. citizens ordinary by exercised as politics, formal outside particularly citizenship, republican of means prominent the as it on emphasis the lays and centralrole aparticularly Miller givesdeliberation function,David a core not necessarilyhold does deliberation where theory Pettit’s Philip unlike Thus, citizenship. republican of notion Miller’s of part constitutive a is deliberation that is statement this from apparent becomes decision-making.” and debate political through society her or his of direction future the shaping in role active an plays who someone as citizen the conceives citizenship of conception republican “The concern: public of terms in construed be can that issues or concern, public of issues over deliberation as understood activity political in) part Miller, Citizenship and National Identit andNational Miller,Citizenship Miller, Citizenship and National Identity andNational Miller,Citizenship at some level some at y : 53 : 58 in political debate, so that the laws and policies of policies and laws the that so debate, political in civility 71 r vlal isfr s hy r se to seen are they as insofar valuable are 100 Miller goes on to say that his that say to on goes Miller 99 n o te hns that things the of One CEU eTD Collection 101 talks he when here describing been have I one the as person the of conception similar a at gestures Miller decision-making. political informs that debate culture public the of part be to personaldisposition, degrees,accordingto try, tovariable theywill self-determination, thatis, political about care will they of, part personal are they that value polity the individuals to attached are because and autonomy that, is third The nation-state. the of representative are that values and institutions the about and countrymen fellow their about care they that I mean that by and in), comes identity national where is (that of part are they that community political the with identify they that is second The lives. own their of charge in be to means propositions. Thefirstisthatindividualscareabouttheirautonomy,andtrytothebestof interrelated three of formed be to seen be could argue, I as person, the of conception This out acertainconceptionofthepersonunderlyinghistheory. spells turn in which community, political their concerning decision-making process the of out left be to want not would individuals that expects author the that think, I suggests, It us? tell that does What impositions’. ‘alien as policies and laws state perceive to not order in debate public the in involved get to need individuals that argues he illuminating: are quotes, above the in illustrated as itself, in good a is activity political that thinks Miller which on grounds decision-making.” and debate political in level some at engaged citizen actively the be whichshould to according citizenship, of view republican a adopt to and life, public to value intrinsic attach to likely are liberals], [to contrast by “Nationalists, life: good the of as part public debates) participation in occasional at least essentially entails activity (which political envisages that republicanism of notion necessary substantive a to committed be to said a be can as activity Miller that political think I notwithstanding, assertion of This activities. valuable other for understanding precondition instrumental more a and activity DavidMiller,OnNationality, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995): 194 Press,1995): (Oxford:Clarendon 72 101 The CEU eTD Collection interest in shaping the world in association with others with whom they identify.” whom they others with association with in world shaping the interest in an have people that supposes “It that and person’ the of view ‘contestable a entails this that 105 104 103 102 an be to taken is identity national if and quote, above the in suggested be to seem does it as community, national a to belonging one’s of expression organic an is participation political If your expressing of way a as but commitment tothecommunity.” to- belong you that group producer the for lobbying interests- sectional promote to order in or administration- of corrupt a excesses out voting the government- check to order in simply undertaken not is participation “Political large: at culture national the with identification of that identity, personal their in element strong of line Miller’s to shared, by a aremotivated because they public participation According in an interest have argument they arise). importance high of circumstances or issues when actually, citizens the of most others, frequently, quite (some debates public in part taking in interest an have that citizens conscientious entail to supposed is citizenship far, republican So autonomy’. collective of expression an as self-determination ‘national about understanding ofsocialjustice.” local the to correspond that policies and laws to according living in value “the about also and compatriots” as identify they others with along collective future own to their determining attach to people autonomy- that value “considerable the of talks he Thus, full-heartedly. adopting consider to need would he that something be well may this nationality’, of principle ‘the on superimposed it) of specific understanding his (in citizenship republican of promotion his considering that argue I but person, the of view demanding a such adopt to willing very DavidMiller, National Identity and DavidMiller,Citizenship Miller,OnNationality Miller,OnNationality Citizen ship and NationalIdentity ship and : 88 : 88-90 104 105 : 83-4 : 176 73 102 He concedes He 103 He is notis He CEU eTD Collection follows I will try to specify the contents and aims of public debating as envisaged by Miller. by envisaged as debating public for of aims and contents the specify to try motivation what will I follows In individual community. national of the with source identification the the is debates that public in is participating second the and deliberation of form the in citizens by ordinary participation political essentially to refers it that first is Miller. The David by envisaged as citizenship republican about things two established have we far So without them of one of talk cannot you automatically invokingtheother. that point the to together mesh citizenship and identity national how far so discussion the from noticing worth is it Also, lives. everyday people’s in factor important an as construed identity national is feeds citizenship republican which on source the conception, Miller’s In commitment. enough show not those national do shun who people to the fit it whereby see could ethics citizens loyal conservative its of a voice the through extreme, speaking community, the in imply to taken be could turn in This loyal. less is group second the while community, exhibit national their to first loyalty strong the that is rarely only involved get who citizens ordinary and debates public in part frequent take who citizens conscientious uncommonly those between difference the that think to drift easily can one quote, above the in formulation Miller’s account into Taking low levelsofnationalidentificationwillresultinparticipation. that expect would one argument, of form this to according Thus, identification. national of expression causal a be will participation political that argument, of line Miller’s to according be, must point the think I but clear, crystal be not may It world-views. and systems value different with individuals different to pertaining identification national of degrees varying doesallowfor political participation.Thisisnot,however,necessarilythecasebecauseMiller widespread expect reasonably could one then individual, any of life the in thing important 74 CEU eTD Collection 106 of ideas rebel those promote and responsibility public show to expected are ideas dissident such hold do who people since individualistic, rather is culture public the if agenda national the example, penetrate to For chance no culture. have policies public security-driven social the more of with favor in line arguments in not are that views own their of anybody convince to difficult it find can mainstream the since from here, views different work have at who individuals bias’ quo ‘status inherent an is there that imply to seem would That involves Miller, to according responsibility, public identifying andmakingreferencetosharedprinciplespertainingthenationalcommunity. of sense a Exhibiting people. of group certain a for rights special as such partisan more are they whether or healthcare public or defence national protection, environmental as such goods public to pertaining those like concern public clear of are issues these whether responsibility, public of sense a with debates community. national the of good common the promote to expected are citizens politics in engaged Once what extentthisstrategyisconvincing. establish to my aimto It is of nationalidentification. do sobytheirsense they arepromptedto responsibility because civic with act do and they can but only should, not chapter, individuals this in reviewed arguments the to According uphold. should individuals that responsibility civic of practice a is it that status’, ‘legal a than more is citizenship that next say to script republican generic, a of part almost is It state. a in making decision of process political the drives that debate public the liberal in involved ofget citizens that vision requirement further classical the citizenship this of top on adds but rights, social and political of civil, set rights, liberal the include does citizenship republican out, points author the as all, of First Miller, Citizenship and National Identity andNational Miller,Citizenship 106 That means that individuals are expected to discuss issues that arise in public in arise that issues discuss to expected are individuals that means That : 53 75 CEU eTD Collection value. Butisthatreallyso, orarewejumpingtothewrongconclusion? of is it think already nation, the ‘we’, what of more getting or perfecting implies it as long as bias conservative a it with carries good common the of notion Miller’s that seem would it suggested, already as Also, nation. particular the to pertaining good the of notion the be to deemed is whatever to according country to country from vary will entails good’ common ‘the what that follows it nation, specific the of culture public the in standard a as deemed is whatever rather, but justice, of notion objective any presuppose to seem not does it that is, that one, particularistic a is justice of norms national of notion Miller’s that Considering chance ofsuccess. outwithanequal onlyifthesevariouspropositions start violate therulesofpoliticaldialogue) is it course, that of those (except debate public the from are restricted propositions And no say that to meaningful forum. public the in successfully promoted be can that approaches and topics the of screening substantive a exercise thus, and substantial are but them, present theauthor seemsto in theway at leastnot in nature, are notprocedural constraints herefersto thin, some to refers merely author those that turn reply in the could we this, To community.political the to specific rules procedural culture public of principles by that of line is a such defense of implication The bias. quo status a perpetuate not would therefore, this, that and culture, public the of principles accepted the of terms the in issues those present to try should they that except forum, public the in about talk can people what on restrictions no therearereally atpointsinhiswritings,that could replytothis,ashemightbeseensuggest Miller community. political particular the in justice of norms as accepted is what from spring and they debates of public the course in argue for people can on what restrictions set there are that follow to seem would it Thus, culture. public of principles existing the with line in theirs 76 CEU eTD Collection 108 107 of worthy is identity national their of part as state respective the of people the majority of the by seen if community, ‘our’ in done are things how is this because marriage for kidnapped be to girls for right is it that or should, boys while school, to go not should girls that belief itwouldimplythatacollective If wearetofollowthisassertionitslogicalconclusion then, national identityisworthpreserving. the of part be to deemed is that anything that adding be to seems Miller enough, innocuous sounds which identity, British of ‘denominators’ the of one as currency own their keeping on insistence British the about talking When around. organize to society for principles as do to have will identity national one’s of part be to collectively deemed is whatever that suggest to seems repeatedly he fact, In point. the on explicit from far is author the yet, And content. in illiberal potentially being them of regardless theory, Miller’s to according prominence given be could identity national a to pertaining principles defining any that concerns their voice to entitled be would critics then so, not were this If states. democratic liberal within only work to meant is deliberation) element constitutive a as (having citizenship of republican theory Miller’s that out pointed unambiguously be should it that think I public Thus, the culture. of part be automatically would treatment equal of principle a that assume one can state a such to comes it when only think, would one since, state liberal-democratic a is theorizing normative his for reference of unit the that presupposes Miller that fact the betrays treatment.” equal of principles as such body, citizen the among accepted be will group specific a generally are that principles to linked be can demand by whether the on depend “will recognized voiced demands specific some whether terms, Miller’s In DavidMiller,OnNationality Identity andNational Miller,Citizenship follows thatnothinginprincipleliesbeyondthe scope ofsovereignty.” identity national to essential is something that belief collective a area, this “In efdtriain ih h pooiin ht ht ons o te upss of purposes the for counts national what of principle that the identityit proposition combine national identityiswhatthenationinquestiontakes tobeessentialthat you the Once so. with it self-determination making to close very comes : 100-101 : 56-7 77 107 108 hs assertion This CEU eTD Collection 110 PoliticalPhilosophy David Miller’s 109 shared of terms in proposals competing assess to “try and citizens” as identity inclusive “an adopt should citizens debate public entering when that claim his with contradiction clear forth.” so and coercion, and violence from abstention others, by given reasons to listen to and argue to willingness a itself- dialogue political in implicit those than other principles fixed any to subscribe to participants require not “does politics republican to: pointed had himself he that citizenship republican of layer liberal the question into call to seen be may that things says he fact, In above. do I that terms the in republican citizenship of layers different the between relation the discuss not does Miller however, knowledge, my To values shouldbetreatednotasbasicbutsupplementaryfordemocracy.” “national that said who critic the with agree only can We identity. are national of theyrepresentative that grounds the on like persist to practices allowed that be cannot mean schooling from will girls restricting it layer participatory substantive- second, the on control a as acts one, liberal the citizenship, of notion republican a of layer first the that accept we nationalidentity.Thus,underthislogic,if constraint onwhatcanandcannotbeanelementof a as acts unavoidably which rights, of set liberal a of top on that is it but debates, public in participation jolly just not is citizenship republican forget, not should we since, sovereignty”, of scope the beyond lies principle in “nothing that terms conceptual own Miller’s in true, be cannot It example. for treatment equal of principle the violating be to illiberal, be to happen could claim a such since principle, regulative valid, a as specificity national for claim any qualify not just should national self-determination that reactby saying tend to one would this, To identity. national of expression an is it that fact the of nature very the by protection state xod omn&iteil ulses 03:222 Publishers,2003): &Littlefield Oxford: Rowman Miller, Citizenship and National Identity andNational Miller, Citizenship Erica Benner, ‘The Liberal Limits of Republican Nationality’ ‘The LiberalLimitsofRepublican , eds. Daniel A. Bell and Avner de-Shalit (Lanham, Boulder, New York, New Boulder, Avner de-Shalit (Lanham, A. Belland eds.Daniel , : 60-61 78 , Forms of Justice, Critical Perspectives on Perspectives Critical Forms ofJustice, 110 But this is surely in surely is this But 109

CEU eTD Collection 113 112 111 in made be to decision what to as will) general the of (that judgment correct the find to likely more is individual an that being proposition his deliberation, inner as deliberation requisite of requirement specific Rousseau’s of think me makes also it assertion, Miller’s of part core a not is this Though justice. for relevance its and culture public of conception particularistic Miller’s about now to up saying been have I what of much overturn to seems assertion This into takes those beliefsthatare‘adaptive’whenitcomestomattersofjustice. he when against critics, argues he defective, his be might opinion to public why to response as reasons some In consideration point. this on consistent not is Miller yet, And incorporated. value criteria of minimal no really are there like looks it important, be to sees community the what to up entirely left are thus and particularistic purely be to appear shared standardsofjusticeandcommoninterest.” of terms in proposals competing assess tryto and affiliations and commitments personal their aside shouldset decisions,citizens political arena,butinreachingpolicy be representedinthe perspectives should that all for democraticpolitics important is community: “It one’s national of ethos political the with accord these as long as forum public the in made propositions to David of part agree assess and for should that s/he behave is should republican citizen how a of is, Miller’s notion actually it than inclusive more sound it making really is control of minimal of sort a from apart forum public the in forwarded be can interest.” common and justice of standards 2003): 352-3 &LittlefieldPublishers, Rowman New York,Oxford: Boulder, Avner de-Shali(Lanham, A. Belland eds. Daniel David Miller, “A Response”, Forms of Justice, Critical Perspectives on David Miller’s PoliticalPhilosophy onDavidMiller’s Perspectives Forms ofJustice,Critical Response”, DavidMiller,“A Identity andNational Miller,Citizenship Identity andNational Miller,Citizenship ue andinstitutionsgeneralizefromthem.” rules is what what justice considering of about instead practice- by prevailing overinfluenced ideas may be just people’s that mean I which by adaptive, be also might “Beliefs requires and then applying this to existing rules and institutions, they start with the with start they institutions, and rules existing to this applying then and requires : 65 : 65 111 79 So, saying that there is no constraint on what on constraint no is there that saying So, 112 Becausethesesharedstandardsofjustice 113 audi alteram partem alteram audi type , CEU eTD Collection 114 to celebrate. happens public culture the what of justice outside of standard some is that there means it then over- be to requires, justice what not to as judgements own their make to theory, but practices current by influenced Miller’s to of according picture expected, this are to individuals dimension If new deliberation. whole a however, adds, Miller by statement quoted last This restricted. quite is deliberation of freedom that suggest would that are, they suspect I as substantive, quite are principles identity national as Insofar standpoint. ethical specific a thus, and principles, ethical of shared set a view, of point unified a reflect to taken are things’ ‘doing of ways whose nation a is, that will, common a as nation the of view a mind in has be thatMiller would appearto reason forthat Andthe identity. representative oftheirnational principles guiding the values, the internalize to come individuals that idea the to refer to have would answer the think I so. be should that why ask might One culture. public prevailing the define that principles the of basis the on scrutiny public under matters the on decide they as civic virtueinsofar of republican the spirit act in him individuals that for community. Itseems particular a of culture public existing the articulate that principles normative of set existing already accord withan to by Miller designed decision-makingis deliberation, final purpose of the hand, other the On filter. substantive a as act to envisaged is deliberation that means This consensus. encourage might that viewpoint justificatory different a from them present to try and claims divisive more their moderate to have probably will forum public the in acting individuals that say does He deliberation. of notion his of scope the is exactly what on reflect to worth,however, would be far, it so our discussion In lightof deliberation. understanding of full-fledged a boasts however, theory, Miller’s process. deliberative own her of isolation the Miller,OnNationality : 97 80 114 CEU eTD Collection 115 principles thatwouldactasconstraintsonforce. liberal clear with nationality of force positive potentially the supplementing for part author’s the case on consistent clearer and a much need for feels the one still however, that be said, to It has identities. national of out come might behaviour illiberal whatever for controlling with concerned be not and nationality of principle the cards on his all betting be might Miller that chapter the in previously at alluded worries, critics’ answer to seem would this Incidentally, and itisconceivedsoastoaccommodateplentyofgroupdiversity: Miller, to according homogeneity, cultural presuppose not does however, identity, National their redistribute resources andtakecareofthosewhocannotprovideforthemselvesviamarketmechanisms. to willing are they language, national a commonly most plus, territory, certain a to attachment and history common a as well as culture, public of sediments time in become have that behaviour of characteristics certain share they that believe they because and community, national a of members as another one with identify people Because justice. social for basis main the as functions that identity personal of source important an is identity national national and that head-on proposes identity nationalism of theory national liberal Miller’s of David is. community understanding Miller’s what closely more consider resolved oncewe hopefully get will ambiguitiesthat a numberof far accumulated We haveso Nationalidentity 2.3 Miller, Citizenship and National Identity andNational Miller,Citizenship human rights,ofequalityandsoforth.” national common a share possible as far as should fellow-citizens that say “To tnct ad o ot. o lnsd te rnil o ntoaiy e a- and may- we nationality of principle the alongside of principles minorities- of rights the religion, protect So that principles other hold of should- surely forth. lines along so diversity social and of pattern ethnicity rich a for space leaves identity :119 115 81 CEU eTD Collection 116 fairly between a delicate equilibrium a attempts identity national of notion his making. Thus, constant its in participating thus society, own their of life public-political the of way some in part be to generally want will individuals view, this to According individual. an of life the in self-determination political or autonomy collective of importance the entails conception This citizenship. republican of that with and nationality of principle the with entangles he that person the of conception specific Miller’s of because so partly is that that suggest I that? is Why community. national my of to culture public the in expressed importantly, worldview the with identify more and institutions, those behind culture and to history also the but with institutions, identify state’s my with identify national to only certain not a expected of am member I a community, As identification. of type nationalist civic thin, a with equated be to not is identity national that clear it makes author The backgrounds. cultural different have who those for wall separating a than rather bridge a represent can way, this in understood identity, national how understand to difficult is it of, made is identity national of understanding particular this which of stuff the be culture. to full-fledged seem ethics a and of culture maybe, Because not, if things, doing of way cultural a and worldview collective a of indicative be to time same the at supposed is identity national because clear very not is itself in point the But outlooks. cultural different quite with people unite can that identity of kind overarching an is identity national that is here proposition underlying The politics democratic of aiming atsocialjusticecanonlybenurturedbyanationalidentitykindofethos: context the in diversity cultural that point some at suggests he since above, intimated than stronger even is diversity cultural on position Miller’s Miller, Citizenship and National Identity: andNational Miller,Citizenship Tu a omn ainlt poie te ny esbe akrud gis which against background feasible only the provides nationality common a “Thus ie aorn a eortc oiis ht is t oil utc, hn ahr than rather then justice, social same at the aims at whilethat trying todissipatenationalidentitiesweshouldbeaimingconsolidatethem.” shared diversity politics partially group democratic encourage a even to favouring to want time appeal we If by justice. differences of their standards resolve can groups diverse 78 82 116 CEU eTD Collection 117 character.” national of elements essential the on take immigrants “the as long as unproblematic is Miller, immigration for that out point important to is it Thus, community. that of affairs public the into engaging via time, in community national the of part become to able be will newcomer the concept, dynamic a practice, of form a is it because hand, other the On away. straight identity national grasp to newcomer a for difficult somewhat be will it that awareofwhatthenation-statecame tostandfor,thismeans through whichoneisproudly of notion memory of historical some form exhibit Miller’s that individuals consequentlyentails national identity Because community. political ‘self-sufficient’ a of notion Aristotle’s as back far as strong going maybe has or it theorizing, of that line Rousseauian and a on theory credentials republican Miller’s of core the at is self-determination collective of idea a that this I think it. of out have forged that it identify with people who the what ‘we’, nation is idea the autonomy, collective concerning bit the is emphasis ultimate author’s the be may what that I think achieve this, In to trying cultural identities? other people’s pertain to that values cultural those culture, public alongside recognizing of way the in be not these can how inspirationfromthepredominantcultureofspecificsociety, or evenmore,todrawits values, cultural contain to appears also identity national since arises, question the course, Of citizenship. AsIwillshow,heultimatelyfailsinachieving that. republican of nature active the by represented is that bond national of type supra-cultural inclusive, an and values, specific by defined is which culture, public of form substantive immigrant that case the only not is it Thus, middle. the in meet to have will community political the joining groups immigrant the of culture the and culture public existing the that Miller, Citizenship and National Identity andNational Miller,Citizenship : 30 83 117 lehr,Mle says Miller Elsewhere, CEU eTD Collection ainl dniyfr hc te nls lnug hs oe f n ntuetlntr rather nature instrumental an of more has language English the which for identity national Canadian the example for space, geographical of specific a sense with a associated culture, history, common public certain a are ingredients whose identity national one imagine can one Thus, substantive. less or more be can countries across identities national that is, That identity. national of scope the of terms in also but understandings and meanings shared the of terms in only not community political particular the on depend will represents identity national a what that theory, Miller’s to according possible seem would it far, so discussion the of light in that, is mind in have I What represent. can identity national what to as place in set constraints some be to need really there true remain to that) than more not (if diversity cultural to friendly being nation-state the about assertion the for order in that appears it Also, the nationalgroup,giventheirspecificculturaltraits. accepting when account into of public culture the to be accommodated can they what extent to take the country immigrants into that laws laws, immigration of kind right the having ensured by be can this culture. And public the by represented those to contradiction in are not cultures different in embodied values the when only is, That say. to so ‘diverse’, too not is it the nation-stateonly when Miller’s versionof besafein besaidto Thus, culturaldiversity can religion. of form practising a by represented the is identity group’s immigrant when an of part true central particularly is this nation-states, liberal-democratic secular, of discussion a of context the In possible. not is accommodation that dissonance stark such public in are dominant culture the and identities particular whose groups to comes it when is work not does this Where groups. adopted the of elements cultural time in incorporates culture public the that also, but nation-state, the of culture public existing the of values the with conflict whichareinstark elementsoftheirparticularculturalidentity groups needtotonedownthose 84 CEU eTD Collection federalism andnationalism 118 in being there out, turns it As norm. the be not will justice redistributive community, political of a members the identity among national of sense a fairly strong of the absence in being, that course of implication, the justice, social for precondition a is identity national Miller, For like, ratherthanbytakingupliberaldemocraticpractice asanundeclaredgiven. look can identities national what of restrictive as principles liberal viewing by done be can Again, this areleftout. of nationalidentity likereligion more substantive,possibleingredients as conceived is some requirement that avoid the can how it see not identityI do diversity, necessarily accommodating national if but standard, outside some of burden unexpected an That like. look should understanding contextualist Miller’s on impose would it that identity problem the raises automatically national of kind ‘right’ the what of definition restricted more a and precise more a give to have also would he society, the in diversity meaningful allows identity national of notion his that stipulates Miller because that, case the be may it that is illustration and questioning of line this following suggest to trying am I What two? the between amiddlegroundin any othercovering taken heretorepresent,or the Canadianoneis that identity national the as identity national a legitimate as just identity national Greek the is So, ID cards. Greek religion on one’s of statement a introduce to idea the were contemplating authorities Greek Also, Greece. in job a get to difficult be would it religion, Orthodox of are you unless that recently until considered commonly was it Thus, religion. orthodox Christian of sense a not also specific religion,if also a language but only aspecific elements not along theabove incorporates which identity national of form substantive more much another, of think can one province, Quebec).And independenceofits because oftheclaimsfor identity hascomeunder one constitutive a than See Charles Taylor’s discussion of this in Charles Taylor, Reconciling the solitudes Reconcilingthe Charles Taylor, ofthisin discussion SeeCharlesTaylor’s ethnie , for example the Greek national identity that incorporates a strong sense of its of sense strong a incorporates that identity national Greek the example for , , 118 ed. Guy Laforest (Montréal : McGill-Queen's University Press, 1993): 164 1993): Press, University :McGill-Queen's GuyLaforest(Montréal ed. , (bracketing here the stress that this particular instance of national of instance particular this that stress the here (bracketing , 85 : essays on Canadian essays onCanadian CEU eTD Collection individualistic an or solidaristic a when determine to order in envisaged be could conditions normative what point this at see to difficult is it and satisfied, be to need conditions Further ethos. solidaristic a setsinmotion identification automatically that national not thecase Itis needs qualification. justice social and culture public a in expressed as identity national between relation the thus, 119 of community a as community national the of that is model Miller’s of core the that think to us leading thus element, citizenship republican the over wins the element identity that national however, argued, be can it interpretation, pessimistic more a On miscegenation. important a very effect of to the republican citizenship of the notion with entangled identity is national of notion Miller’s that think we if backgrounds) cultural different from come they that to (considering constraining immigrants unacceptably be on not may culture placed public pressure the to accommodate the that suggested have I Then, identity. national of scope the to as place in set requirements further be should there supported, be to framework national-state a in safest is diversity cultural that be well may it that claim the for order in extent what to discussed that, have suggested have I diversity. accommodate cultural can national identity of Miller’s notion I First, things. several done have I section, this in far So causal relationshipwiththeexistenceofnationalidentity. direct in be to said be cannot and accident an just really is justice social that mean must this commitment contextualist strong Miller’s Given themselves. people of set specific the to up entirely belief, shared of object an as identity national of understanding the of nature very the by is, there from ensuing obligations the and identity, national a of sharers as another one of the that happen can it because justice social for condition sufficient a not is identity national of sense a place Miller,OnNationality character character : 94 of national identity is set in place. After all, the way people conceive waypeople After all,the in place. isset of nationalidentity of national identity is individualistic rather than solidaristic than rather individualistic is identity national of 86 119 , and , CEU eTD Collection ainl dniy ugss ht y ale cnen bu the about concern earlier my that suggests identity national of notion the on element republican a grafting of this Also, life. political in part active take to willing are they as long as newcomers to open relatively is it nature dynamic this has culture public of the form in identity national autonomy. Because individual of extended notion of an more part a becomes autonomy collective that in so understanding, liberal the autonomy in than manner stringent personal in interested be to conceived section, are previous individuals the that in implies discussed as conception, This person. the of conception certain a feature underlying an as has practice political or public as identity national of notion The take willreflectherpredispositionandpresuppositions. and defining one will paththat to.Theinterpretative communitythatonebelongs redefining ofthepolitical the towards practice a of that is identity national the of of understanding part central author’s the that argued be can it element, republican the to prominence gives that interpretation optimistic more a On interpretation. of line Rousseauian a on will common ultimate normative aim: “If the arguments that I have given for seeing nations as the optimal the as nations seeing for given have I that arguments the “If aim: normative ultimate Miller’s be may polity of vision communitarian social left a of for promotion the though basis even justice) the provides it (because instrumentally suggests, occasionally author the as justified be cannot nationality of principle the of promotion the that is suggests this What solidaristic. be will others while identity, national of more sense be strong a will despite communities individualistic Some community. particular the of ethos political the is that and theorist of the control the direct of out something on place depends in put be policies will justice social Whether suggest. to appears author the as justice social to amount directly not does place in identity national strong a being there that section this in out pointed also have I Finally, identity. national interpretation of particular this light of in rethinking making needs decision- collective in principles culture public of pre-eminence the on emphasis Miller’s 87 tts quo status is nrni to intrinsic bias CEU eTD Collection 123 122 121 120 or culture inherited the about sacred nothing is “there applies: longer no section, previous the media.” mass upon dissemination its for depends and debate, political productof extent a some isto “public culture public culture: the reasons embodiedin the by view Miller’s in represented be to taken is that and guide reference ethical an all after identity. national for justification of line value’ ‘intrinsic the consider to need we Instead, political of forms as nation-states favour organization.” to reason good have we then implemented, will emergeandbe democracy helpstobringitaboutthatasharedconceptionofsocialjustice deliberative that true also is it if and valid, are democracy deliberative large-scale for sites eas ntoa iette ae ersne b pbi clue ta hv be formed been have that of charge cultures the debate, rational via time public throughout by represented are identities national because ‘t’. time at ethics implies community’s a particular what as to wrong answers and right are there upholds, author the that ethics of view contextualist overall the despite words, other in principles, ethical different develop will community national each though Even public reasonthattheyembody. have valuebecauseofthe Second, nationalidentitiesdo regulative value. its would loose it Miller’s view, to practices according follow current should ethics since normative then, and fashion, of out fall may national identity that happen could it be that to would seem position this of logical implication A further practices. people’s current and experience every-day of reflection a as ethics of understanding an of adept the is author national the that that is here implication argues The people. to important are Miller they because valuable are First, identities argument’. ‘intrinsic Miller’s to elements two detect Press, 2001), Chapter 2, “The Intrinsic Argument (Or, Are Nations Moral Communities?)”: 25-51 Communities?)”: Are Nations Moral Argument (Or, 2, “TheIntrinsic Chapter Press, 2001), David Miller, On nationality DavidMiller,On Identity and National SeeMiller,Citizenship National Identity and DavidMiller,Citizenship for a detailed discussion of this see Margaret Moore, The EthicsofNationalism The Moore, discussionofthis see Margaret for adetailed 120 : 68 : 171-2 : 172 88 status quo status bias that I was reflecting on in on reflecting was I that bias 123 hs Mle hps that, hopes Miller Thus, (Oxford: Oxford University OxfordUniversity (Oxford: 122 Thus, there is Thus, 121 I CEU eTD Collection 124 that idea Miller’s that loaded really is decision-making individual their seems in interests public reflect should individuals it and community-specific are they because substantive more are culture public of principles guiding Miller’s that however, argue, I way. substantive less or more a in interpreted be could This practices. public informing and constitution a in enshrined principles those by community, the of ethos political the by defined be to taken are interests common commonplace, republican this of rendering Miller’s in However, surprise. a as come not should that statement republican classical a is This decisions. their make they when interests private their to than rather community their of interests common the to heed argues Miller that forget not should we shouldpay consistently, aspointedoutintheprevioussection,thatdeliberation,individuals But reforms. to open quite be would socio-political system the deliberation, substantive by characterized is it because that, seem may It be? to likely society envisaged Miller’s is reformist how arises, however question, The public in participation of form deliberations. the in expressed autonomy collective is, that meaning, political a also but meaning, private a only not have to understood autonomy, individual for preference strong a have individuals that notion the is conception that of Part person. the of an such again, Once large. Miller’s conception at of David the context in sense make expectation can obviously demanding community the of interests common the and consensus democratic prioritize and self-interest strict aside put genuinely could they that and restraint’, self- ‘democratic of sense a by motivated are large at individuals that trusts ultimately Miller and reform.” deliberation collective for matter proper a is this community; particular any of ethos David Miller, Citizenship and National Identity and DavidMiller,Citizenship 124 : 107 89 CEU eTD Collection 125 of out is community national one’s leaving that mean this Does right. own ‘an its be in to animal’ appears such, as and making, historical of product a is it instrumental that ‘depth’, temporal an by characterized view, is community national his a that in out point not, to means is he Second, community. community national a that emphasize to means basic, he First, his statement? above from the in say follow to mean to Miller does seem what So, commitment. would empiricist it though even it, sees author the way the really not is suggeststhis above quote,however, As the normative relevance. looses its theory thatit author’s the for would imply that first place), the in it about do care they that for now granted for (taking it about care longer no people and fashion of out falls identity national if that, is position empiricist Miller’s of implications the of one that previously out pointing was I national a that saying in view of community isahistoricofobligationthattakesonalmostontologicalpriority. point Burkean a adopt to appears Miller obligation. community of a historic is it identity that national sense of by a community informed political bounded a of nature the about contention additional Miller’s is It that? say I do Why bias. conservative a entail to likely more contrary, the to but suggest, to wants Miller as reform to open as not is it that think I community, particular a of ethos political nothing the be about may sacred there though Thus, here. around things do to fit see nation the ‘we’ way ‘collective thinking’,the whichcrystallizesaformof general will,something reflect aformof should they that is community political that their of says ethos he the reflect when should mind decisions citizens’ in has Miller what that suspect I meaning. Rousseauian a with Miller, Citizenship and National Identity andNational Miller,Citizenship we w sek f h nto a a ehcl omnt, e ae n id not mind in have we community, ethical an as nation the of speak we “when h pats mta ad mn tesle ad hc wud isle t the at stretches renounce.” it dissolve because would which, community which a contemporaries but back andforwardacrossthegenerationsisnotonethatpresentgenerationcan and of ceased; practice group themselves that which a among at between point aid exists mutual that practise community who of kind the merely 125 : 29 90 CEU eTD Collection 127 126 an is it that suggest to seems Miller quote, above the In obligation? the of origin the is precisely What citizen? immigrant the facing duty the than stringent more native the of duty the Is citizens? become have who immigrants the also or forwarded, are nation the of interests common the that it to see to obliged are nation-state a into born are who those only that case the it is So, of obligationwhenitcomestonativecompatriotsandimmigrant origin. two-tierform there isanimplied for example,that bereadtosuggest, following assertionmay The compatriots. one’s towards obligation equal an have citizen immigrant and citizen native both that thinks Miller whether however, clear, not is It state. adopted the of life public the in shetakespart by anoutsideronce birth butcanbeadopted tiedto identity isnotnecessarily national a that and belonging of nation-state the leave to like would who anyone for assured nation. a of member the be to means it what of part is that obligation moral a be to taken be should advantage financial of sake the for just emigrant an be to choice the making not that somewhere say does Miller bounds? amounts ineffecttoanorganiccocoonwhich the individualisirretrievablyentangled. obligated feel should community national the that citizen suggest may statements such Also, contemporaries. immigrant her towards an why unclear is it fair-play, of principle the on based one or obligation of understanding instrumental an of use make that explanations avoid to want to seems Miller since And elsewhere? lie ancestors his/her since sense, this in obliged be immigrant an would why then case, the be would that if But work. their continue Miller, Citizenship and National Identity andNational Miller,Citizenship Identity andNational Miller,Citizenship Te itrc ainl omnt i acmuiy f biain Bcue our Because obligation. of community a is community national historic “The oeer hv tie ad pl ter lo t bid n dfn te ain we nation, the defend and build partly towardsourcontemporariesanddescendants.” to blood their spilt discharge who arebornintoitinheritanobligationtocontinuetheirwork,whichwe and toiled have forebears ancestral form of obligation of form ancestral : 29 : 166 126 He also says, however, that the right of exit should beshould exit of right the however, that says, also He eoei ooracsosta euhl and uphold we that ancestors our to it owe we : 91 127 CEU eTD Collection 128 of strategy identity-based national grounding civicvirtueisingeneraldefective. a that think to entitled republican be its thus of may depleted we and is meaning, virtue civic for accounting of strategy his where point the to nationality’ of principle ‘the with conflict in not or comes citizenship of notion republican Miller’s extent what to out spell actually could theory political Miller’s of of context the notion in obligation the of discussion depth in An above. identified have I that obligation political of notions two the between contrast the of lens particular the through republican citizenship and identity national between relation the on reflect I section following the In Republicancitizenshipandnationalidentity 2.4 sense first the than inclusive discussed above. more be to second, the and argumentation and of line practice republican concrete a from possible one be to emerging argued be first, can interdependence political and social obligation of consciousness of sense second this think aggregates. of out relationships and groups creating of a way a has has example, function, moralizing for deliberation out, points Miller As life. public in part take they when ‘ citizenship fromrepublican obligationthatderives ofpolitical call thisnotion Iwill duties ofcitizenship. and rights the in expressed as relations political and social of practice a of part be to feel they because fellow-countrymen their to obligations of set a with identify people obligation of notion second this to According belonging. of sense immemorial an than rather practice concrete a entails which citizenship, of notion republican the from springs that obligation of form the is That theory. Miller’s in obligation of notion second a argue, I however, is, There see Miller, Citizenship and National Identity andNational seeMiller,Citizenship oiia olgto a pbi practice’. public as obligation political : 17 92 iies sne f uy s sharpened is duty of sense Citizens’ 128 I CEU eTD Collection obligation, political of account play fair the with associated usually are that problems the circumvent thus would strategy This expense. compatriots’ their at ride free not and play fair show thus should they and country specific a to relocate to choose they because obligations incur individuals that initially, case the be may it citizens, immigrant of case the in Thus, compatriots becauseofasensefairplay. their towards obligation political uphold to prompted be may new origin community, immigrant of political citizens specific the governing practice public the of part and full accustomed become get they before first, at that argued be can it gap, naturalization the than of part become to time longer requires practice social a that out pointed be to is it if Second, community. political a of practice socio-political the constitute that practices of net the of part become to of immigrants for process time of theperiod long sufficiently all, a takes usually of naturalization First entered. only have they that practice public a of part become expected to be can origin of immigrant citizens here how asked promptly be will It their own. becomes that practice socio-political a into thrown are they community political the entering by because polity the in part active take and uphold to obligated are citizens immigrant Thus, citizenship. of republican practice the by accommodated be really can origin of diversity how called have I one the obligation, of understanding first the unlike words, other In citizenry. the define that obligations and rights the in share and polity the of part become can origin immigrant of citizens how see indeed 129 ( tackled just have I that obligation of notion second the compatriots, their towards obligations political have citizens citizenship of understanding republican a from deriving one the section, previous I pointtoattheendof To getbacktothediscussionofsecondnotionobligationthat strategy in arguing for associative obligations in Law’s Empire in forassociative obligations strategy inarguing it should be pointed out that this strategy of grounding political obligation is similar to Ronald Dworkin’s toRonald obligationissimilar grounding political thatthisstrategy of pointedout itshouldbe political obligation as public practice) public as obligation political ancestral obligation ancestral 93 (Fontana Press,1986) , which fails to say why immigrant why say to fails which , affords an understanding of understanding an affords 129 , one can one , CEU eTD Collection osbe S wa cud h nto o pltcl biain s oi-oiia patc imply practice socio-political as as obligation political much of notion as the could avoided what be So possible. thus should and theorizing republican contemporary in plague a really is Vagueness terms. concrete more in about be could writings Miller’s in intimated obligation political of notion republican the what about little preciously said have I far, So, such institutions. of potential mobilization the into tapping thus schools, around or unions groups trade churches, citizen mosques, organizing like methods opposite somewhat to refer could others while process, education public the in children citizens’ immigrant of integration the entail could ways these of Some citizenship. of practice the uphold to and practices socio-political the into integrate to isolate to tend that citizens immigrant motivate to found be should ways Thus, her. to obligations others’ by reciprocated are others to obligations her that feel should a citizen say that to which is public practice, as obligation of political notion characterizes the that reciprocity of principle the undermine do ofthey more, is notion What here. the favoured obligation underlies that citizenship republican of model the to challenge a represent are illegitimateand toabove I wasreferring isolationist practices thatthe Itcanbesaid tackle. issue to a difficult indeed, is community. This political defining the public practice the part of full becoming avoid thus and clusters, geographical in reasons socio-economic various for settle to tend that or isolationism, practice that communities immigrant the all to pointing by raised be could objection Another in. kick practice socio-political political a from deriving obligations until phase, transitional accommodation, an only represent to however, seen, be should obligation political of account play fair initial, The arise. not does problem this offer) to have countries those features specific and benefits the for countries certain to immigrate to choose do (people holds contrary the immigrants of case the in Since, rules. the by play to asked theyare for which people receiveand the services natureof concerning theuncalled-for 94 CEU eTD Collection being required to reflect in their public decisions the dominant principles of public culture) public of principles dominant the decisions public their in reflect to required being citizens’ to as conservatism entailed Miller’s with along goes (which obligation of ancestral notion The another. one of independently work they but writings Miller’s in intimated both are They practice. public as obligation political of notion the and obligation political factional terms.This,Iargue,isoneofthedistinguishing linesbetweentheancestralnotionof non- general, more in think to try rather but minds their of back the at interests factional with participate not do they that side: negative the on more something entails it Rather, should. suggest they to seems David Miller as the society in view dominant of the points according to debates public in decisions their cast should individuals that imply not does this that notice However, arena. public the the on words, case a making other in interests factional in strict, avoid view, to obligation of points of diversity existing the and interests public for eye special a with debate public the in participating of that public obligation, third a entail as may practice obligation political of notion the that citizenship, republican of notion Miller’s 130 needs. compatriots’ for provide to try to obligation the and life public in participate to obligation the obligations: two entails citizenship republican from springs that obligation political of notion the that Mason Andrew with together argue will I civic virtue. for strategy based national-identity his of discarding the out spells effect, in which identity, this national of on implications reliance the Miller’s renouncing later, entail out they point because wide-reaching will are I preference As latter. the to former the prefer to us difference warrants most importantly,howthis of ancestralpoliticalobligation,and the notion from different is notion this how suggest to try rather will but specifics, its in practice public obligationas of political notion defence ofthe a full providehere I willnot more specifically? Obligations to Compatriots, Ethics Obligations toCompatriots, o eyhlflatceo pca biain emyoet optit seAde ao, ‘Special Mason, Andrew see compatriots to owe may we obligations special on article helpful very a For , 107, no. 3 (Apr. 1997): 427-447 1997): no.3(Apr. , 107, 95 130 wud d, n ie with line in add, would I CEU eTD Collection Obligations 131 practice. The public culturehedoesnot introducetheideaofvalueasacontrolon national the of part be can principle in anything that say to appears Miller Because unjust. or illiberal be to allowed be can culture public of forefront the at comes that nationality of practice the that possibility the with confronted is it when problems faces nationality of principle the on is obligation of notion ancestral the while argument, justificatory instrumental) (not intrinsic an presuppose obligation of political notions both though even that, is notions two the between line distinguishing Another worth is it life, upholding. of walks all of individuals on equality and status confers it and valuable is it because and itself in good a is citizenship that is practice public as obligation political of notion the behind logic the Rather, it. behind motivation the not is it practice, socio-political the in participation of upshot an be may community political specific the of ethos political general a with obligations identification though the even Moreover, citizens. for immigrant recent account to pertaining to able is notion this why is This requirements. intrinsic not and are culture public the form history that principles ethical specific of endorsement specific or tradition cultural a with Identification citizenship. republican of practice the of value I shouldrathersayarepartof)theintrinsic citizens’ obligationstooneanotherderivefrom(or however, practice, public as obligation political of notion the of case the In identity. national underlies also that inheritance communal of sense the alive keep to order in deeds glorious and modern, or heroes, ancient parades its that re-enacted history a mean I ‘living’ history By citizens). immigrant recent of obligations the for account to failing (thus history ‘living’ its and nation the with belonging of sense their of because obligations incur citizens that implies public practice is public practice for this dichotomy see Simon Caney, “Individuals, Nations and Obligations”, National Rights, International NationalRights, and Obligations”, “Individuals, Nations Caney, seeSimon forthisdichotomy , eds. Simon Caney, David George, and Peter Jones (WestviewPress, 1996): 119-138 1996): Jones(WestviewPress, andPeter Caney,DavidGeorge, , eds.Simon value-dependent . 131 As I was pointing out repeatedly, Miller’s theory, basedtheory, Miller’s repeatedly, out pointing I was As value-independent, 96 the notion of political obligation as obligation political of notion the CEU eTD Collection 132 survive; to order in upheld be to needs practice the thus, and participation, citizens’ of actually consists itself citizenship republican of notion the it; uphold actively we unless out die otherwise would reciprocity, on based practice, its and us to valuable is citizenship republican because life public in participate to compatriots) our (towards obligated are we following: isthe as publicpractice obligation notion ofpolitical general ofthe to bepart here invoking am I obligations three the of each behind reasoning republican the that argue I status, areconferredrecognition,andenabledtoparticipateinself-government. equal gain can individuals citizenship republican Through respect. and concern equal with treated be and equals moral as taken be should individuals that content very its hand, in stipulates other the on citizenship, republican from springs that obligation political of notion status andrecognitiontothevariousmembersof thestate. equal confers that identity valuable a itself: in good a be to taken is citizenship of practice the because incurred are they and view republican the to according citizen a be to is it what of part are obligations These requires. individual each that value and recognition of sense the undermine to not as way a such in co-citizens their respect for and for citizenship care republican to individuals of nature the of part is it that idea the from springs obligation of thevariousothers;this own viewswiththose might uniteour that there andforthosethings out views of diversity the for concern a with arena public the in aims our forward to try to endangered; is citizenship of practice public whole the thus and practices, socio-political uphold to unable be will citizens satisfied, being needs basic their without because need in are who co-citizens those help to obligated are we biain bsd f aube eainhp se nrw ao, Seil biain t Cmaros, Ethics Compatriots”, to Obligations “Special Mason, Andrew see relationships valuable of based obligations 107, no. 3 (Apr. 1997): 427-447 no. 3(Apr. 1997): 107, For an account of republican citizenship as a valuable relationship, in the context of an argument for special for argument an of context the in relationship, valuable a as citizenship republican of account an For third 97 , we are obligated towards our compatriots our towards obligated are we , 132 second first , , , CEU eTD Collection aig lrfe Dvd ilrs taey o rpbia ctznhp i te ultimately the via citizenship our over think and pause to reasons of republican plenty have we identity, national of unsuccessful route for strategy Miller’s David clarified having Nevertheless, obligation. political for strategy republican a of investigation future a warrants citizenship republican on based obligation political of notion a of description tentative the Furthermore, shallow. is virtue civic for strategy identity national the that conclude to have I another, one to contrast in and independent stand two the that and citizenship, republican and identity national between link necessary no is there that out pointed having effect, In for argument the in element necessary republican citizenship. a not is identity national of notion the that idea the illustrate they think I here, defended or justified fully from far and preliminary certainly are obligation political on ideas these While compatriots. some of status the diminish’ ‘to attempt would that precludes practices thus and status, political equal of relationship valuable the on based is practice public as obligation political practices, unjust or illiberal for open door the leaving thus value-independent, is obligation political ancestral while Moreover, work. that do can citizenship republican by implied as obligation political compatriots, their to obligations have would citizens immigrant recent, why explain cannot identity national of understanding Miller’s from springs that obligation political of notion the while Thus, first. the to second the prefer to reasons good find in can one run that notions and another two one to the parallel that argued have I another. one against notions two the assess to was section final this in purpose My employs. he that citizenship republican of notion the by second, the while of notion the first, The writings. Miller’s in intimated both are political that of notionsobligation two between distinguish should we that section this in argued have I political obligation political political obligation as public practice public as obligation political can be seen to derive from Miller’s understanding of national identity, identity, national of understanding Miller’s from derive to seen be can 98 can generally be seen to be entailed be to seen be generally can ancestral CEU eTD Collection 133 repugnant’) dangerous or be want itto do not yet we and possible be to particularistic be to has virtue (‘Civic him confronts that dilemma simple the addresses Viroli principles. abstract to loyalty putative a by together kept agents rational impersonal, society ofa ofvision exclusiveness ortotheliberaltype either tonationalism’s it contrasting by patriotism promotes author The attractive. of normatively form is that inclusive belonging an is patriotism civic nationalism, unlike that argues, Viroli Maurizio Acaseforcivicpatriotism 2.5 in insistently opposition tonationalistarguments. argument his makes he because choice appropriate particularly following a the is in section analyze briefly I work whose Viroli, Maurizio republicanism. for basis a as identity national for prospects the change can it), call to wish may one however or civic (republican, patriotism of that view, of point different purportedly a from arguments how at looking by question this addresses briefly section next The citizenship? republican justifying in help this would how and identity national of notion the into defined be to is substantive ethically conservative, less less if something however, would happen, What Miller’s writings. David in presented as identity national of interpretation conservative a on dependent is far so some analysis in whole the importantly, most and identity’ Secondly, theory. republican a for ‘national do could version what at look hard second, a taking for reasons our however, exhaust, not does point cautionary general This thinking. of path pre-determined one’s along results the skewing analysis, the in up mixed get easily can biases one’s all, of First taken. have may we turn wrong some was there whether determine to order in steps argumentative as not and it, sustain that institutions the and liberty common of love as presented is country of Love country. a in personified liberty of tradition a of part are who those among solidarity ensuing the and patriotism for basis legitimate only the as ways particularistic various, in 1995): 12 Maurizio Viroli, For love of country : an essay on patriotism andnationalism onpatriotism country:anessay Forloveof Maurizio Viroli, 99 133 by making political liberty understood making political by ( New York: Clarendon Press, Clarendon Press, New York: CEU eTD Collection 29, no.4 (Princeton University Press, 2000): 313-341 313-341 Press,2000): (PrincetonUniversity 29, no.4 134 self- local of importance crucial the acknowledges Viroli Also, competition. the of to challenges open is that elite’ ruling ‘high-level a install to proposes he elite, incompetent and corrupt a of Instead patronage. of politics a to opposition avert an and justice social for need the on insistence an and ideals moral strong by inspired politics of form a of point vantage the from only occur can politics secular of revival a that argues Viroli Thus, undocumented. go not would This justice. for concern broader his for stand to ‘liberty’ on insistence Viroli’s a of justice. part on story thus broader is self-government Political name. its deserve not would state democratic that participation, active their without because state, democratic a of justice the promote and defend to have theduty Citizens justice. best approximate Democratic states of us. most all or in engrained something morality is or Justice different direction. a however, in us, point light, possible best the in seen when arguments, Viroli’s not. may others of while identity, sense personal a have to order in culture national thick a in engulfed be and affiliation a national have to need may people some argument: of line his with problem obvious most single acknowledge the not does liberty. Miller of main value its defense of and the democratic state just a for concern show should agents rational how about argument an ultimately is it Viroli, for while identity, personal of matter a is patriotism nationalist Miller, of for that lines is argument, two the between difference important single the and that, for reason The theory. Miller’s casein less the adoption. Thatis a countryof in canwork transplantable thing,which a be to patriotism civic of sort this imagine still could one arguments, Miller’s of case the in as just with, dealt be to baggage cultural of lot a is there be sense, that in to and alert, patriotically order in takes it what of part are liberty of stories featuring history common a with identification an and memories common though Even unity. ethnic or cultural from springing On a similar line of argumentation, see Pauline Kleingeld, “Kantian Patriotism”, Philosophy &PublicAffairs Philosophy Patriotism”, “Kantian Pauline Kleingeld, argumentation,see On asimilarlineof 134 The story I have been telling so far makes sense only if we take we if only sense makes far so telling been have I story The 100 CEU eTD Collection 137 136 135 city-states. Italian by undertaken independence for struggles tenuous the reflections on from arguments mainly his draws that Viroli is of doubt point Also, another is constrainedbyothermoralprinciples.” it as long so virtue a “remains which that as commentator, different a of words the in or duty, imperfect an as perceived be only can it that out point also should we a activism, civic of sense with synonymous less or more be to here patriotism understand we If justice. of notion of implications the republican argumentsistodrawonthefirstinterpretationthatemphasizesrelevanceof about on think can we way best the that argue I this, Despite engine. republican main the justice of willing rational any than rather affect making thus seeking, liberty- and courage of stories My national of power rhetorical the out point criticism. to keen is Viroli all, to impermeable or clear way overturned. After easily be justice could shorthandfor a symbolic no as interpretation of‘liberty’ in however, are, arguments Viroli’s townships andcitiesthepowertomakeimportantdecisionsforlifeofcollectivity.” give should we then spirit, civic and participation political revive to wish we “If government: amore have had yet otherswould and the past, empires of or strong powers, by thosecolonial subjugated been have would others powers, colonial former been have would arise.countries Some may notion the of appropriateness the to a as with questions of country sorts particular all another history, particular or one for mean might it what and liberty about hard thinks too one Also, if misty anachronism. a belostin abovemay tomake trying justice Iwas about point whole the then oppression against fight the of lines historical the along freedom Tradition”, Lineages of European Citizenship-Rights, Belonging and Participation inElevenNation-States, andParticipation Belonging Citizenship-Rights, ofEuropean Tradition”, Lineages the Republican and account, “ItalianCitizenship LucaBacelli’s for example, asaregulativeidealsee freedom Richard Bellamy, Dario Castiglione, Emilio Santoro (Palgrave-Macmillan, 2004): 113-129 2004): (Palgrave-Macmillan, EmilioSantoro DarioCastiglione, Richard Bellamy, For a meaningful discussion of the historical making of Italian citizenship with emphasis on the importance of on theimportance with emphasis citizenship making ofItalian of the historical discussion Forameaningful Stephen Nathanson, “In Defense of Moderate Patriotism”, Ethics Patriotism”, “InDefense ofModerate Stephen Nathanson, Republicanism Maurizio Viroli, , trans. Antony Shugaar (New York : Hill and Wang, 2002): 101 2002): York:Hill andWang, Shugaar(New trans.Antony , 136 101 , 99, no.3 (Apr. 1989): 538 no.3 (Apr. , 99, 137 f n understands one If eds 135 CEU eTD Collection utc. cnldd ht i nto o ntoa iett atmtd dlct equilibrium delicate a and by specificvalues, was defined which public culture, form of fairly substantive between a attempted identity national of notion his that concluded I justice. social for condition sufficient a not was identity national Thus, times. at suggest to appeared author the as justice, social necessity by ground not did identity national of that notion show Miller’s to was chapter the in made I that points crucial next the of One culture. public reach specific to the characterized that citizens principles ethical the with expected line in fora he public the in as decisions insofar bias conservative a entailed position Miller’s identity, national of crux the as culture public of understanding Miller’s of cast deliberative the despite that, found I unraveled. be to person the of conception underlying an was there that found I and identity’, ‘national by as well as notion, this by meant he what define to on I went Then, of republicancitizenship. notion David Miller’s scope of I definedthe way. First following the in proceeded argument The virtue. civic of value republican the for accounting of basedstrategy national identity behind a potential herethe toinvestigate I haveendeavored Conclusion 2.6 patriotism. Habermas’ thoughtsonconstitutional investigate theseideasfurtherwhenwecometoanalyze will we chapter next the In chapter. this in analysed kind the a of identity national on rely to have not should and not, does that theory political republican a of direction the in way some moved have may we then criticism, social of attitude general a and state just a for shorthand a as notion the understand simply and track, historical long a along country particular a for If, history. its in meant have point might liberty what on reflections minute such some from away stay to try we however, at liberty promoted and undermined have to said be both can country any that is really matter the of point The subjugation. country’s another be can country’sliberty Also, my system. social of their aspart of slavery theinclusion shadowed by been have would liberty, or independence for where fighting ‘liberty’, to relation complicated 102 CEU eTD Collection nie h frt aae t epan h rcn imgat iies r olgtd o their the to refers reason to second The citizenry. the obligated of rest the all like are compatriots citizens immigrant recent why explain to manages first the unlike notion, second the that be would reason One former. the to latter the preferring for reasons some give I then and another, one of independently run two the that argue first I citizenship. call I which first, The theory. Miller’s in intimated obligation political of notions two are there that argue I Thus, the author’sarguments. of the complex from within civic virtue for identity strategy the national assess try to chose to thatheappearstoclaim),I really substantiatedbyempiricalevidence,atleastnottotheextent not are identity national of importance the to as psychology and motivations human about assumptions critical Miller’s that argument obvious (the triggers readily the theory empiricist any on that argument pedal the pushing than Rather writings. Miller’s from emerging see I that obligation political of notions distinct two of discussion my in expression full gets paths interpretative possible two the to pointing by to alluded already have I that tension The rather envisagedasaday-to-daypublicpractice. was identity national that effect the to citizenship republican of notion the of predominance the claimed other the while will’, common of community ‘a as nation the envisaged he that principles) republican of interpretation Rousseauian a for preference apparent an (via at times suggested Miller that out pointed them of One paths. interpretative two take could one ambiguities textual through picking while that however, out, pointed I citizenship. republican of nature active the by represented was that bond national of type supra-cultural inclusive, an practice second, the while identity, national of path interpretative s ae o te nepeain ht ie poiec t te eulcn oin of notion republican the to prominence gives that interpretation the on based is neta pltcl obligation political ancestral 103 s osl drvd rm h first the from derived loosely is oiia olgto a public as obligation political value-dependent CEU eTD Collection is flawedandunnecessary. have I that obligation political on nationalidentity virtue based strategy forcivic concluded thata has tobe identified, thenit of notions two the of analysis and outline my in correct am I If constrictive. ethically them render that principles republican of interpretation certain a including direction, different a in points that evidence textual other of plenty however, is, emphasis. There intended his is this and that citizenship of notion a republican on really takes Miller that say could we then evidence, textual particular, this to only heed pay to were we If institutions. and rules self-appointed own, their of freedom the in other, no of domination the under live to desire shared a have people that say to thing Roman-inspired classical, a is it for bell, republican rings a it independence, then political just than entail more taken to is If this political self-government. aspiration to intrinsic its because of ethnic group from an out self- political attain to want not identity stands national aspecific defined by national group that a will claim is determination. The groups ethnic groups, national unlike that, says He identities. from ethnic identities national demarcates Miller David way interesting the It is entail. might practice public as obligation political of notion the obligations specific the into delve briefly I Finally, injustice. of practices potential against protection higher a affords thus and recognition-conferring, and status political equal as the citizenship republican about of is value intrinsic notion this that sense the in practice public as obligation political of quality 104 CEU eTD Collection 139 ofLawandDemocracy Discourse Theory 138 should followafteranalyzingbothPettitandMiller. we that path argumentative the is community’ political ‘self-determining a as understood nation the towards but baggage, cultural or ethical its all in nation the towards not allegiance and affect of form a to refer to Habermas Jűrgen by defended as patriotism Constitutional well a be not may Habermas Jűrgen deliberation. of notion the was which of centre the at route argumentative an however, us, for up opened also thought Miller’s David argumentation. of strategy communitarian coming a republicanism, to contemporary closer instead of representation best the not also was it that and take, could argument republican a that route normative attractive most the not was identity thick a to recourse national based on citizenship republican argued that make I have identity. national understanding of to having for without argument forwarded be the could because citizenship republican unnecessary and society, constrictive ethically a to conformist, lead could it because flawed theory: republican a advancing in and strategy flawed unnecessary a represented identity national that suggested have I chapter, previous the In 3.1 Introduction eorc isatae a rca rpbia srtg ta w epoe n hs chapter. this in explore we that strategy republican crucial a instantiates democracy deliberative of notion the around built community’ political ‘self-determining a for argument Affect Safe for Democracy?: on “Constitutional Patriotism”, PoliticalTheory “ConstitutionalPatriotism”, on Affect SafeforDemocracy?: ‘Between Facts and Norms’”, Constellations Norms’”, ‘Between Factsand inHabermas’s RadicalDemocracy “Rediscovering seeStephenGrodnick, theradical democrat, of Habermas, andadefense thedifferentpositions anoverviewof for democraticdirection; orinaradical in aliberaldirection cangoeither inthischapter, whichisofcriticalinterest Press,1999), TheMIT Massachusetts: (Cambridge and Between Facts and Norms, Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law andDemocracy TheoryofLaw toaDiscourse Contributions Norms, Between Factsand Chapter 3:Deliberative Republicanism andtheNotionofSelf-Government See also on this point regarding Habermas’ notion of constitutional patriotism Patchen Markell, “Making Patchen Markell, patriotism ofconstitutional Habermas’notion regarding See alsoonthispoint JűrgenHabermas, especially interpreted, The wayhisworkis , trans. William Rehg (Polity Press 1996) or in the edition Habermas, orintheedition Habermas, 1996) (PolityPress WilliamRehg , trans. 12, no. 4 (2005): 392-408 4(2005): 12,no. 105 139 rcgie rpbia ato, u his but author, republican -recognized Between Facts and Norms, Contributions toa Contributions Norms, Between Factsand 28, no.1 (Feb.2000): 38-63, esp.43 38-63, (Feb.2000): 28,no.1 , trans. William Rehg, William Rehg, , trans. 138 CEU eTD Collection 141 or achieving 140 of form necessary a as invoked is life public/political in citizens ordinary of be involvement the when certainly However, interpretation. this would about republican There particularly nothing more. nothing and system democratic a to refers government self- collective that argue simply however, could, We argument? republican a of claim basic most the self-government collective through safeguarded or achieved is freedom individual contested.” been all of have extent value and availability significance, key its though a Aristotle, since been thought republican has self-government collective in “Participation value: symbolic self-government. of notion the on value great places he that is Habermas to turning for however, reason, foundational important, most The defence ofadiscoursetheorydemocracy. a basic most its at is thought Habermas’ since direction right the in push a us given already has This others. with exchanges discursive in beliefs normative their form they that oriented, discourse- are individuals that assumption: important very a on based was which recognition, of notion interpersonal of feature liberal/libertarian specific a incorporated it as a insofar only non-interference as freedom from distinct notion republican specific a as defended be could Pettit Philip by promoted as non-domination as freedom of notion the that there argued I firstchapter. was openedupinthe a themethat in thischapterrejoins Second, thediscussion inHabermas. theory.ideas arestrongly represented These fromhis argued thatwecandiscern I which practice, public as citizenship republican of notion the and deliberation on insistence his appealing found yet and identity, national on emphasis Miller’s David outgrown have because we first reasons: immediate two for analysis the in point this Habermas at to turn We 3.2 WhyHabermas? models of republican liberty and self-government”: 17-38 libertyandself-government”: models ofrepublican Honohan, CivicRepublicanism Mouritsen, “Four liberty seePer republican to in connection of‘self-government’ for anuancedtreatment 141 hs seto sol nt e upiig fr s t o te oin that notion the not it is for surprising, be not should assertion This : 214 106 140 hs s rpbia tee a lat n its in least at theme, republican a is This CEU eTD Collection 143 142 thought isthenextstepweshouldtake. his exploring think I above, outlined reasons additional the as well as that, for and important, authorship. its reference to theory,butby forexampleinDwokin’s normative virtue ofitscontent,asitwouldbethecase by not democratic is constitution a representative Habermas, For into government. incorporate of frameworks to democratic tries it which ideal, democratic democratic radical a a only but not outlook, adopts argument basic republican The indeed. different very are liberty of interpretation positive a and negative a for justifications the that thinks he clear that quite is it but regime, democratic a self-government by here understands obviously Berlin liberal notionoffreedom,whichisanegativeone… classical the that contention Berlin’s Isaiah all, after is It sense. general a in least at territory, republican on are we that assume reasonably can we think I freedom, individual securing < University Press, 2002), 177-8, consulted on Oxford Scholarship Online Scholarship 177-8,consulted onOxford 2002), University Press, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/019924989X.001.0001 Isaiah Berlin, Liberty - Incorporating 'Four Essays onLiberty' 'FourEssays Liberty -Incorporating IsaiahBerlin, on the point about Dworkin, see Michelman, Brennan andDemocracy Michelman,Brennan Dworkin,see on thepointabout rsrbd om f ie wih h ahrns f h ‘eaie nto rpeet as represent one notion the lead ‘negative’ this, the to of is being, attimes,nobetterthanaspeciousdisguiseforbrutaltyranny.” — adherents the to it which freedom — For but life world. of from, form our freedom prescribed dominates not that liberty, of ideologies conception of ‘positive’ clash great the to end the in led have to as indeed, it, is different So thing. same the for desire a not is it But older. historically perhaps and action, for area free a for that as wish a deep as be may controlled, be to is life my which by process the in participate to rate any at or myself, by governed be to desire The both. of advocates many to seemed it than tenuous more deal good a is liberty individual and democracy between connection The do?’ or be to not, I am what and I am, say what is to or ‘Who ruled?’ I am ‘By whom but be?’, do or to free I am ‘What not question, the answer to try we if light to comes liberty of sense ‘positive’ For the consists. the end, in between liberty, and positive negative concepts of contrast the two great the that difference this in is It me?’ with interfere government does far ‘How question the from distinct logically is me?’ governs ‘Who question the to answer The rule. democratic and liberty individual between connection necessary no is there But libertarians. by such as defended been has and regimes, other than liberties civil of preservation the of guarantee better a provide whole, the on may, government Self- self-government. or democracy with connected logically rate, any at not, “(…)is 143 Habermas finds a rich notion of collective self-government very of collective notion rich finds a Habermas > 107 edited by Henry Hardy (Oxford: Oxford HenryHardy(Oxford: editedby . Oxford University Press, 3April2008 UniversityPress, . Oxford : 25 142 CEU eTD Collection Reinterpretation ofherPolitical Thought Reinterpretation 145 144 rights, subjective of reading possessive-individualist a to liberties ethical equal of meaning important the reduce one to “threatened of thus and disregarded well liberalism classic as which intuition talks normative Habermas lives. individual outlasts which and laws, of the form expressed in which is ties, world of a common men create that common, and have in things people political social,culturaland characterized bythe plurality iscommunicativeand own”. resembles our that system a political with compatible democracy make radical to is democratic liberal a togreatambitionof that “The out commentatorpoints setting. Asone democracy radical adapt to attempt the is level basic most the at authors two these connects What Norms”. and Facts ‘Between his in particularly Habermas, man the in identified be can have ideas Such question. into also called be may stature they republican whose sources that but clarity, conceptual lack they that fact the with only not lies ideas these discussing in difficulty The republicanism. about promising and interesting most are I think which ideas perspective those into put identify and to attempts chapter ultimately This is catr f h thesis. the of chapter first republican of theory the in a analyzed theory republican of form of instrumental the to posed counter sketch usually pedigree, the least at or theory, a of proponent the usually as to is referred She chapter. this for inspiration initial the however, provided, Arendt Hannah elements. republican and liberal combine to trying account, own his have on is, we who could one than exponent pinpointed better what sense, that in and elements democratic radical and liberal bringing together republicanattemptat the contemporary of goes totheheart think that earlier critical re-interpretation of Arendt along republican lines by Margaret Canovan, Hannah Arendt, A Arendt, Canovan, Hannah byMargaret republicanlines ofArendtalong re-interpretation earlier critical see in recent years her assessment as a republican author by John Maynor or Iseult Honohan as well as the aswellthe orIseultHonohan by JohnMaynor author asarepublican see inrecentyearsherassessment 395 FactsandNorms”: inHabermas’sBetween Democracy Radical Grodnick, “Rediscovering tms ay ok f anh rnt ad seily n h ltr ok f Jűrgen of work later the in especially and Arendt, Hannah of work hazy times y 145 rnts an nih i ta mn ie n lrlt, ht this that plurality, in live men that is insight main Arendt’s , (Cambridge University Press, 1995, first printed:1992) Press,1995, University , (Cambridge 108 Between Facts and Norms Facts andNorms Between 144 I CEU eTD Collection 148 147 Political Philosophy 146 unsatisfactory be to finds he which understandings, republican the and liberal the of elements of combination, a though even refinement, a is position fundamental a theoretical on discourse based politics deliberative of view his that out points explicitly Habermas all, After mostly in as developed and politics law theory of Habermas’ Arguing that being as process generated fromtheprincipleofcollectiveself-determinationisatcorerepublican. political the self- and laws of of principle understanding Rousseauian/Kantian general Habermas’ the legislation. from springs system legal the of authority out points himself he as that is preamble a as here Arendt mention I reason The community beyondmerelylegalrelations.” political a members of as citizens unite also but life, spheres of private within neighbours and not onlyfriends link of solidarity relatives, that “an intuitionaboutforms we shouldrecoveris terms”. instrumentalist in misunderstood Norms order legal a authorize and that institute means finally deliberative through self- community political entails a politics of organizing that self view the republican legislating, the with that lies power Arendt communicative from of adopts concept Habermas the of thrust normative The laws. legitimate by defined world a constitute they speech), and action in together come they when terminology, people when that claim lives (inArendt’s regulate their theywantto the way underlyingas to a consensus come to deliberate and its the and from power emerges communicative that of idea notion fundamental Arendtian one on rests politics on thought Habermas’s Press, 145-151: 146 Press, 145-151: for Habermas’ comments on Arendt’s concept of power see Habermas, Between Facts and Norms Factsand Habermas,Between see of power Arendt’s concept commentson forHabermas’ Jűrgen Habermas, ‘Equal Treatment of Cultures and the Limits of Postmodern Liberalism’:2 Limits ofPostmodern of Culturesandthe Habermas, ‘EqualTreatment could be given the attribute of ‘republican’ may at first look like a self-serving artifice. look like atfirst of ‘republican’may given theattribute couldbe Habermas, ‘Equal Treatment of Cultures and the Limits of Postmodern Liberalism’, The Journalof Liberalism’, The Postmodern theLimits of ofCulturesand ‘EqualTreatment Habermas, 13, no. 1 (2005): 2 1(2005): 13,no. 146 147 This normative intuition, which Habermas thinks Habermas which intuition, normative This 109 . aems rus ht h utmt suc of source ultimate the that argues Habermas Between Facts and Between Facts , Polity , Polity 148 , CEU eTD Collection 149 ethnic nationalityandradicalizesittowardasolidarity among “others”.” from solidarity civic of mobilization the disconnects universalism, egalitarian of perspective the from that, framework a “within solved be can faces republicanism that problems these of criticism that argues He his culture’. national and citizenship in of ‘fusing the of clear result the as republicanism very is Habermas conformism. ethical invite can and identity, national on relies which chapter, previous the in discussed theory the resembles closely most criticizes openly Habermas that theory republican of version particular the fact, In approach. conservative a reflects it as insofar only but theory, republican of critical is Habermas Thus, and thegeneralnormativeunderstandingsofpoliticssocietythatunderliethem. values republican my promoting in in adopted strategies republican capture specific the to is far endeavoured so analyses have today’s I to what and contribution important, serious is What a debates. attempts theoretical that theory republican a into be unavoidably incorporated will liberalism basic of form some words, other In multiculturalism. and pluralism complexity, of conditions contemporary and modern to responsive be to wants that theory any in component necessary a represent provisions liberal important but basic since principlesofindividualrightsforexample, discussion tothosetheoriesthatincorporateliberal my restrict would I arguments, republican various out mapping in that start the from argued I the contrary.Thus, to my thesis, in with be uncomfortable I would somethingthat no way in Habermas combinesliberalandrepublicanelements,butthat(takeninavery generalsense)is criticizes Habermas that argued, be can it case, the republicanism andthusappearstodisownit? not it is also, And own. their on Habermas, ‘Equal Treatment of Cultures and the Limits of Postmodern Liberalism’:3 Limits ofPostmodern of Culturesandthe Habermas, ‘EqualTreatment 110 149 CEU eTD Collection 152 151 150 discourses.” rational in participants as agree could persons affected possibly all which to valid are norms those “Just justification: of criterion general a as principle’ ‘discourse the is first The principles. main three around structured is construct normative Habermasian The 3.3 JürgenHabermasandrepublicanism the touching without politics.” of notion question its of core into intersubjective tradition republican the of reading communitarian the calls “[t]his Habermas, For strategy. feasible a not is community particular a of ethos and political achieve, the of expression being an them basis of the on outcomes democratic play, justifying to easy into come not will all) for good is is (what justice of consensus principles and bargaining both consequently ethical Because dissertation. this of chapter previous criticized inthe unearthed and precisely theview andthiswas particular community, a of consensus ethical an on based be to said are obligation and authority political which in republicanism of reading communitarian a thus is else anything than more question into calls freedom.” to accustomed populace a of will-formation democratic the of citizens which] outcome intentional the as nation a to as together them keeps that ethos political the [according understand republicanism, and liberalism between reading’, ‘third mediates a “which espouses explicitly He republicanism. and liberalism both of elements together brings that concept integrated an is thinks he which Republicanism”, “Madisonian the in uncovers conceptof writings oflegalscholarslikeFrankMichelman,healsowelcomesCassSunstein’s he which self-understanding, ethical of process collective a exclusively as law of notion republican a by unconvinced be to himself declares Habermas though Thus, to according Rawls, John with shared is that intuition universalist a to voice gives principle builds uponithistheoryofdiscursivedemocracy. he and politics, of notion republican the of core’ inter-subjective ‘the be to considers he what J Habermas, Between Facts and Norms Factsand Habermas, Between Liberalism’,3 Limits ofPostmodern andthe TreatmentofCultures see Habermas,‘Equal űrgen Habermas, Between Facts andNorms Between Facts , Polity Press:285 Polity , MIT Press:107 , MIT 111 151 Thus, Habermas is certainly drawn towards drawn certainly is Habermas Thus, 150 What Habermas What 152 This CEU eTD Collection process of legislation that in turn has been legally constituted.” legally been has turn in that legislation of process 155 154 underscores socialization, of context cultural 153 his on sense) relevant a (in dependence individual’s an entail to way recognizable still but general a in here taken argumentation, of line communitarian a from distancing his and communitarian not is thought Habermas’ anti- their democratic beliefs. keep and out stay or principle, democratic the implicitly discourse accept the and in processes participate either choose: thus should They principle. democratic the of “the normativecore” toacceptin practice inter-subjective argumentation,donothingelsethan in participants are yet and system, democratic a of superiority normative the and rights of it alreadypresupposestheprincipleofdemocracy,sothatthosedonotrecognizeasystem that nature a such of is participation’ ‘equal and access’ ‘equal of presuppositions necessary two its show to unpacked when and action, of courses or norms of collective validity the on a consensus reaching at aimed when itself, argumentation that is make to tries Habermas ( assent the with meet can that legitimacy claim may statutes those “…only that states which democracy’, of ‘principle the calls Habermas what by represented is legitimacy political for criterion the Finally, to. apply would norm the that everyone of interests the consider should discourse the in participants recognition, of those affected. all by any other to and preferred accepted are effects side and consequences anticipated its when only recognized and justified is norm moral a this, to According principle’. ‘universalization the by represented is morality of area the in principle discourse the of specification The accept. can affected all that norms on agreement the via accommodated be can world pluralistic a in interests varying which ‘Farewell to Justification , Habermas, Human Rights, and Universalist Morality’: 80 Universalist Morality’: Rights,and Human ,Habermas, ‘Farewell toJustification Abdel-Nour, 65,quoted inFarid 1993), MITPress, (Cambridge,MA: andS.Nicholsen trans.C. Lenhhardt Abdel-Nour, “Farewell to Justification , Habermas, Human Rights, and Universalist Morality”: 83. Morality”: Rights,andUniversalist Human ,Habermas, toJustification Abdel-Nour,“Farewell Norms Factsand Habermas,Between seeJűrgenHabermas, ofthisprinciple, forthestatement 155 , MIT Press:110 , MIT 112 153 Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action Communicative Consciousnessand Moral Zustimmung) In judging whether a moral norm is worthy norm is a moral judging whether In of all citizens in a discursive a in citizens all of 154 One important point that point important One

, CEU eTD Collection 156 is authority public of exercise The citizens. of power communicative the from derives in power political all “Read that states sovereignty self-determination: popular of principle the civic terms, discourse-theoretic of practice institutionalized an of that is democracy constitutional a of heart the at engine the accomplished, is this which in way straightforward popular of or direct principle no is there while the And people. the from to derived ultimately is authority According sovereignty, leanings. republican thoughts’ his of indication his of form the in is It sovereignty. popular of idea the with rights human of idea the normatively combine to law.” tries Habermas under consociates equal and free of association an as rights of system the with itself constituted has that community a of self-organization autonomous politically the serve to supposed ultimately is state constitutional the of organization “the words, own his In good, ratherthanimmediate,individualinterests. the common point a reference as that takes reason form of a that is, reason, public attention to and ties social formed communicatively by conduct her in guided mainly is but of contexts, series a in situated is who agent an is individual an him, For person. the of conception ‘disembodied’ entailing a without traditionalist, less is which approach republican a for scene the sets and argument, of line communitarian a from himself distances Habermas influence, of contexts of existence the of dismissive means no by is he though moulded, are individuals structuresofsocializationinwhich emphasizing reflectivecommunicationratherthanexisting rational discourse.Thus,by that is their conduct,and receive guidancefromin one mediumto ready of loss with left ultimately are the individuals that concludes and metaphysics or on religion from authority reflects Habermas one. communitarian a and here) analysis under variant the of least (at argumentation of line republican a between difference suggestively the Habermas, Between Facts and Norms BetweenFacts Habermas, , Polity Press:176 , Polity principle of popular sovereignty popular of principle 113 that we find the clearest the find we that 156 Thus, CEU eTD Collection proposes couldnotbeachieved. thatHabermas democracy understanding of normative making, the decision of formal process 161 160 159 158 157 to setting. agenda basically of function a perform system, political the of actions the direct to but monitor to just not supposed is formation opinion communicative informal of process the sense, this In administration. the by adopted decisions of ‘rationalization’ the about brings it Thus, power’. of ‘constitution the view, republican the be to takes he what mere than less and than power political the more of legitimating is it that out points Habermas democracy? a in function its is What for? good formation will and opinion deliberative a is What individuals. of characteristic being reason communicative like condition human modern the about presuppositions certain on reliance his to pointing by unravelled to be could which quality politics, and law less’ of theory Habermas’ ‘subject a is there Thus, insignificant. become actions individual that so much so structuralism linguistic deterministic, of form a on model his of foundation very the structure prior a of intersubjectivity “the and processes, communicative procedures, of talk this all In 3.4 Afeasibletheory? making” decision political influences and prepares that formation opinion- “informal of process continuous a Without shape. authoritative in process political will-formation.” opinion-and structured discursively a in themselves give citizens laws the by legitimated and oriented f oiis Tu, o hm h pltcl ytmde nt cuy cnrl oe bt t s one among manyothercomplexsocietalsystems. is it but role, central a occupy not does system political the him for Thus, politics. of Habermas, Between Facts and Norms Factsand Habermas, Between Norms Factsand Habermas, Between Norms Factsand Habermas, Between Norms Factsand Habermas, Between Norms Factsand Habermas, Between of possible mutual understandings” mutual possible of 157 t s liaey p o ii scey o ep h fo o the of flow the keep to society civil to up ultimately is It , Polity Press:302 , Polity Press:300 , Polity Press:286 , Polity Press:171 , Polity Press:170 , Polity 160 Habermas’ theory shuns however, a celebratory view celebratory a however, shuns theory Habermas’ 114 161 159 one may get the idea that Habermas relies at relies Habermas that idea the get may one 158 ht hud nom the inform should that CEU eTD Collection above all, “the initiatives of opinion-building associations” opinion-building of initiatives “the all, above and socialization”, political enlightened “an culture”, political liberal “a invokes he Then, tradition. democratic venerable a with states liberal established within feasible only really is democracy of theory discourse a of model normative his that point the makes explicitly He procedure wouldbeuseless. any which without for model, his mistaken, for deeply props sociological is demanding very abstraction on extreme relies Habermas of impression that yet, And air. thin than exemplifies, statement previous more not on model the procedural his in relying be to As sometimes impression the gives Habermas equation. the of part not is society civil within acting and organizing individuals of part the on initiative political that however, say, to not 163 to right 162 the like liberties well- positive of and absence the liberties in negative that only institutionalized not or is entrenched It reason’. of use ‘public a of aim the to refer to conceived case is this in which good, common the to eye an with also rights these exercise and to communicative second, and so, do their to law by forced of be means no by can use they though rights, participatory make to first, democracy, of model Habermasian the to according expected, are consociates Legal vibrant? How society. civil vibrant a of absence the in crumble easily would model normative his work, of body Habermasian the in subdued the opinions.” public developed informally with of processes deliberative institutionalized institutionalization of interplay the the on as on well as communication, but of conditions and citizenry procedures corresponding acting collectively a on not politics deliberative depends of success the theory, discourse to “According content: normative a with invested are that procedures of power the on relies it Instead, participation. collective or widespreadcivicvirtue rely meanslike it doesnot oncounter-intuitive This theoryclaimsthat Habermas, Between Facts and Norms Factsand Habermas, Between Norms Factsand Habermas, Between , Polity Press:302 , Polity Press:298 , Polity 115 163 Actually, though this remains this though Actually, 162 This is This CEU eTD Collection 167 166 165 164 in participants the that fact the despite ideas normative political universal, of specific also the but community, on contingent are that ideas ethico-political of and only rational, not being expressive debate of outcomes the about optimism Habermas’ place. into come rational” “intrinsically is process democratic the Habermas, For communication. political in embedded is reason theory, his In assumptions. general author’s the to back us refer to has questions these to answer the think I of practice the in “participation through only yet, And expected communicativefreedoms.” the burdenofreciprocallyacknowledgedandmutually obligations; theygroundaprivacyfreedfrom of communicativeaction,torefuseillocutionary oneto grantedlibertiesentitle “Legally admit that that? Hedoes have anyanswersto Habermas Does participate? to not simply one allow that rights negative the about what And succumb. simply would principle discourse the of lens Habermas’ the through and democracy of legitimacy, reading of normative deficit a be would there decision-making, formal feed to supposed is that information and reasoning of flow the to being contribute to willing enough people there without but legitimacy, their loose would laws communicate, and participate can legalsubjectsconceiveofthemselvesastheauthorsorder. Habermas, Between Facts and Norms Factsand Habermas, Between Norms Factsand Habermas, Between Norms Factsand Habermas, Between Habermas, irn cvl oit ad n nuvre pltcl ulc pee ut er good a bear must sphere public portion ofthenormativelyexpecteddemocraticgenesislaw.” administrative political unsubverted an by and population generated society civil a vibrant be of cannot that motivations a of structures law, the paradigm of proceduralist the why, in explains measures. This motivations the liberty, on to depends accustomed democracy constitutional extent, fortheirlifeincommon.Tothis the processofreachingunderstandingaboutrules in engaged are who participants of perspective the take and subjects legal private of role switch fromthe ifenfranchisedcitizens aslegitimateonly “Law canbepreserved Postscript, Between Facts and Norms BetweenFactsand 167 , Polity Press:285 , Polity Press:121 , Polity Press:120 , Polity and that is why he assumes that rational outcomes will outcomes rational that assumes he why is that and , Polity Press:461 , Polity 116 politically uooos lawmaking” autonomous 164 166 drop out 165 CEU eTD Collection 168 Habermas self-determination, as process political the of understanding demanding a such towards attitude sceptical the on directly reflecting When theory. a such to committing be not would Habermas then backing, empirical some have does proposes he that democracy of normative model that the sufficient evidence is there believe that not would if he the case, not were this If of. speak to process communicative a be to there for number sufficient a in laws of citizen-authors like act do ultimately subjects legal that idea hidden the by supplemented however, is, position, cautious This debate. of process underlying its in involved get not do and calculations, instrumental of out law the follow simply It they that them manner. to open be responsible should civically a in act and laws own their of authors the as themselves recognize to compelled be cannot citizens that thinks he since committed fully ultimately, of use make of should citizens formation, opinion process public the in participating when that, thinks clearly Habermas reflection, upon Also, be adiscursiveandliberalculturalsocializationatwork,inthebackground. to about needs there case, the be to brings that for order in However, outcomes. thinking enlightened and liberating that and own, the their that of entails processes turn reasoning in through This go individuals discussion. under issue the on normative stand take a to take participants to the standpoints, forces it that way a such in functions understanding reaching of purpose the for communication of process the that idea the on relies ‘lifeworlds’ specific in steeped generally are and experiences contingent have processes communication of use make should citizens That motivations. private than rather interests, and issues common Habermas, Between Facts and Norms Factsand Habermas, Between public reason public n otxs hrceie b a aaiy o lann, oh t h clua ad the and can blockadiscursivemodeofsociation.” cultural the at both learning, for rigid patternsofsocialization personal level.Inthisrespect,dogmaticworldviewsand capacity a by characterized contexts on such understandingstilldepends but reasons, andinformationarehandledreasonably, “ ecig uul nesadn truh icus ide gaate ta issues, that guarantees indeed discourse through understanding mutual Reaching is obviously a normative point, to which it could seem that Habermas is not is Habermas that seem could it which to point, normative a obviously is , Polity Press:324-5 , Polity 117 168 public reason, public that is, be perceptive to perceptive be is, that CEU eTD Collection 170 169 are calledfor”. virtues that of thecivic reduce “thecosts way asto in sucha conceived be can regulations legal Also, exercise. encourage their will process formation will and opinion the in participate to themselves, rights the of existence the that is hope the hand, resources. motivational other invoke to prompted is Habermas enforced, be ultimately cannot end, the in depends order political and legal legitimate sustainable, a which on rights, participatory and communicative of exercise the that thinks he Because outcomes. reasonable to lead to tends it that and beings, human other with communication requires it the and place, in practice civic a that conditions, modern town under game in the new ‘reason’ becomes that have deterministic idea which societies liberal established on eye his What wecanhintatsofarisacertainempiricalexpectationofHabermas’, has whoultimately democratic of opinion formation? process communicative a in involved getting avoid if to even free fuel’, are ‘civic individuals its of out run not does law-making that ensure could that here work at is what So, construct. normative his of component necessary a as society civil ‘vibrant’ a processes of talk communicative does Habermas And law-making. legitimate to enough extensive considered which be cannot under threshold some surely is There place? civil in weak society very a is there if however happens, What processes. communicative of check quality the ensure thus procedures Democratic and discussions. reasons erratic in the thrown out contributions sort inevitably will that filter the as procedures democratic invokes population a of initiatives the without disintegrate “(…) freedom cards: of of house institutions a democratic like rests ultimately construct theoretical Habermas’ which on autonomy political of exercise the nurture to culture political liberal a of traditions civic the Habermas, Between Facts and Norms Factsand Habermas, Between Norms Factsand Habermas, Between , Polity Press:131 , Polity Press:130 , Polity 118 170 Then,thereare 169 n h one the On CEU eTD Collection 173 172 171 however, need does, argument. He his in streak strong liberal discarding the to amount would that since understandable, is that and obligations, legal into them turn to want not does He mandatory. obligations civic make to want not does Habermas obligation. full-fledged political of notion clear a is opinion, my in account, Habermas’s in missing ultimately is What form ofpoliticalobligation. a as more processes deliberative in participation citizens’ of explanation a normative comprehensive to commit to needs he widely, more societies democratic reasonably to available normative model make his to Habermas wants If, however, normative case. his Arendt, builds the that like just appear Habermas, which would against background it the is sense,constitution-making of case that American In building. nation of history certain a with states to treatment, normative his in limited ultimately be may Habermas that? from draw we can factions of different of acompetitionbetweenwar-lords as thesettlement political community creation envisage would which say, let’s narrative, choice rational a from out start to however, were, spirit. reflective its with process will political act subsequent first the this impregnate that unavoidably thinks he persons’, equal and free of community a of constitution first the constitution makingas‘theself- an idealizedpracticeof us thestory of place. Becausehetells in formed are communities political how to as us offers he narrative the with do toanswerthisscepticism,ultimatelyhas What appearstocaptureHabermas’mindintrying regenerated fromtraditionsandpreservedintheassociationsofaliberalpoliticalculture.” accustomed Political Philosophy seeHabermas, see for example Jean Hampton’s rational choice understanding of the formation of political authority in political the formationof of choiceunderstanding rational see forexampleJeanHampton’s Norms Factsand Habermas, Between 173 , then none of the arguments he makes would appear persuasive. What conclusion What persuasive. appear would makes he arguments the of none then , o reo. hi sotniy ant e ople sml truh a; t is it law; through simply compelled be cannot spontaneity Their freedom. to Postcript , Westview Press, 1997 , WestviewPress, , Between FactsandNorms , Between , Polity Press:130-1 , Polity 119 , Polity Press: 462 Press: , Polity 172 f he If 171 CEU eTD Collection 176 175 174 distorted under understanding, of mutual how spiral ‘symmetrical conditionsof and the violence of how spiral that a understanding in claims result in can Habermas tool communication good decision-making. a of is spheres action formal communicative the reach they once/if language secular a into translated be to have they that mind in keeping while political, the view. of point secular both of required are animpartial, religious andsecularcitizensratherthananartificial,universaladjustingtowards processes learning complementary that thinks Rawls, John unlike and formation, will and opinion of processes democratic the in play moral to role a enhanced has sensitivity its with religion that believes Habermas multiculturalism? with grapple he can How overcome. be to are nature moral deep a of disagreements cognitivism, moral of one all after is which account, his on how, understand to first at difficult is It clearer obligation. a political of be forms as conceived to be can values needs republican how and there why to as contingency,understanding with problems identity-like national of one square the to back us get thus and place in dispositions civic being there on dependent fully of sanctions” withthethreat agree withhimthat“thevalue-registerofsocietyasawholecannotbechanged should which may We obligations. political be to society, processes, democratic underlie argument his to civil according of processes formation will and opinion the in participation and action civic show clearly would that argument an build and does he than further go to Argumentation and Possible Future Directions’, Political Studies Review Political Studies Directions’, andPossibleFuture Argumentation of Chicago Press, 2003) of ChicagoPress, 16 Philosophy in a Time of Terror: Dialogues with Jurgen Habermas and Habermas Dialogues withJurgen inaTimeofTerror: Philosophy Jűrgen Habermas JűrgenHabermas Habermas, ‘Religion in the Public Sphere’, European Journal ofPhilosophy Journal Sphere’,European inthePublic Habermas, ‘Religion Liberalism’:15 Limits ofPostmodern of Culturesandthe Habermas, ‘EqualTreatment 174 , but in order for his theory to be more consistent and not run the risk of being of being the risk run not consistent and more be theory to his for order in , but quoted in Ute Kelly, ‘Discourse Ethics and ‘the Rift of Speechlessness’: TheLimitsf ‘the RiftofSpeechlessness’: Ethics and Kelly,‘Discourse quoted inUte 175 Religious reasons can be explored, at least in the informal sphere of sphere informal the in least at explored, be can reasons Religious mutual perspective- 120 taking’ is the only solution. istheonly taking’ Jacques Derrida (Chicago IL: University IL: University (Chicago Jacques Derrida , 4 (2006) , 5 from Borradori, G. ,5from Borradori, , 4(2006) 14, no.1, 1-25 (2006): 1-25 14,no.1, 176 CEU eTD Collection y osiuinl values” constitutional by integrated community “a how show to needs first Habermas not. think I outcomes? adjusting and self- its for included hope and manner) is discursive as well as everybody reciprocal a in considered that are decisions (assuming procedure democratic the to up everything 180 179 178 177 public in communicate and participate to those as to referred generally here obligations, such Without affirmative. be to has answer the that think I far, so discussion our of light In participate? and communicate to rights the to correlative communicative, be to as well as communicate, to debates, public in participate to obligations being there for argue Habermas should Thus, rational of presumption justified this.” on based the be solely can run long the in outcomes for character; all deliberative includes a both has it and because participants precisely legitimacy generate to power the has democratic procedure “The that believes Habermas country? their of process democratic the in role their about care to disenchanted or poor too are who those all with cope theory his can How reasons they wherein formation will and opinion democratic of practices shared the in participants equal and free as themselves perceive not do citizens enforced, legally be cannot which civic solidarity, a bond of uniting the absence of the obligation.: “In political emphasis intheoriginal Habermas, Appendix II, ‘Citizenship and National Identity’, Between Factsand Norms Identity’, andNational Appendix II,‘Citizenship Habermas, Sphere’:13 inthePublic Habermas, ‘Religion Habermas, ‘Religion in the Public Sphere’:13 inthePublic Habermas, ‘Religion Sphere’:12 inthePublic Habermas, ‘Religion active self-determinationmakesofthem.” “Thus thelegallyconstitutedstatusofcitizendependson ht osiuinly rtce isiuin o fedm r wrh ny ht a what only worth are freedom of institutions population protected constitutionally that us reminds citizenship of model republican The good. common the towards oriented citizenry consonant backgroundoflegallynoncoerciblemotivesandattitudesa fortheirpoliticalstatementsandattitudes.” accustomed 178 s en o ucin rud n cer ruet o republican for argument clear one around function to seen is o oiia fedm n stld n h ‘e prpcie of perspective ‘we’ the in settled and freedom political to 121 180 179 177 Does that sound right? Can he leavehe Can right? sound that Does supportive spirit , Polity Press: 499, Press:499, , Polity w oe another one owe ofa CEU eTD Collection 181 the basisofinsightswe havesofardistilledfromouranalyses. on could construct we obligation that republican political of notion the freely exploring more to chapter last the dedicate to able be to order in depth, more in model Habermasian the of at thecore deliberation thatis notionof look atthe well as of ‘publicreason’,as of thenotion perspective the from arguments, Rawlsian and Habermasian separates what and unites what investigate I will chapter this section of next the in relevant. Thus, be normatively theories to liberal to close too coming up end not does theory republican meaningful a that sure make explore to need we terms, overtone, to civic more a with ideas general liberal Habemas against in identified as republican ideas more In obligation. political of a to version close very Rawlsian us gets it that is state democratic just a towards duty a of form the takes individual psychology. or contingency of issues any avoiding thus state, democratic just a value who citizens rational of idea the on based be to construed be could patriotism civic of duty the of duty Or, co-citizens. to owed be a to construed be might formation will and that opinion in participation analysis brief above the from seem would It ideas. Habermas’s on based obligation political of notion a construct to try might we how in ambiguity certain a is There butalso autonomy. self-understanding thatemphasizesnotonly personalautonomy, political a in entailed is that obligations of set a of existence the recognize to need also they system, a legal in laws, formalized their own authors of as the see themselves are to citizens If thesis. the of chapter last the of task discursive main the be will Habermas’s full the to that justifying Exploring model. democracy in necessary appears obligation political of notion A of democracy. discursive model his sustain cannotultimately consociates, Habermas of one’s aswelltocareand atavariety oflevelsthecivilsociety, provideforwelfare debates 2000): 338 Pauline Kleingeld, ‘Kantian Patriotism’, Philosophy & Public Affairs &Public Philosophy ‘KantianPatriotism’, Pauline Kleingeld, 181 The problem, however, with a strategy of republican political obligation that obligation political republican of strategy a with however, problem, The 122 29, no.4 (Princeton University Press, (Princeton University 29,no.4 CEU eTD Collection ol b itrrtd n eulcn ahr hn iea trs eoe e on a full a mount we before terms liberal justification forarepublican notionofpoliticalobligation. than rather republican in interpreted be would notion a such how on reflect to helpful is it thought, of threads liberal some to close come to seen be could obligation political republican for arguments our since and theorizing political by in used civic mindset a more also underscores that it Rawls. Ithink to is from Hobbes liberal authors but idea, republican exclusive an however, not is argumentation, of contexts public in used be can that reasons of kinds the to refers usually which reason’, ‘public of notion The deliberations. public in participating when reason public to heed pay to be would One them. behind lines along Habermasian can derive whichwe political obligation republican specific formof stand should obligation political republican a for and justification obligations, general political as defended and articulated be should next values the these in argue chapter, will I As emphasis. civic more a with values liberal from different be chapter. Beforewedothat,however,needtolookmoreintohowrepublicanvalueswould next the in mount will we which defence, thorough more a requires itself in argument This obligation. political of notion republican specific, a of defence convincing a lacks appealing, though citizenship, republican of picture this that argued I legislating. and decision-making of act final and debates strong-publics’ formal, the of legitimacy the for function, agenda setting its in necessary is society civil the in publics’ ‘soft among debating informal the Thus, by them. affected are who by those willed are they as insofar only legitimate are Laws disagreements. out smooth helps and rational decisions makes thought, clarifies function, democratic a serves conditions, ideal certain fulfilling when and understanding, mutual of purpose the for used when itself, Communication understanding. reach to prompted are they communication, of use reflective the through that, and plurality of condition this value they that plurality, of condition a in live people that idea the on identity, but national to affiliation strong the on not rests that argument republican of type different a identified have I far So 123 CEU eTD Collection 183 182 political the in information sphere.” and arguments certain of validity and/or use the for criteria include might which questions, political to specific reasoning of mode “a is reason Public for byundertakingthiscomparison. can stand notion fuller republican ofwhata gain abetterunderstanding be ableto that wewill nevertheless hope we ambiguous, positions their of labeling the makes cover they areas grey the and stances theoretical their between cross-over the times at If one. Rawls’ liberal the and position view republican the civic represent to of position Habermas’ understandings here republican take We and attitudes. liberal between differences the into insight of (…).” public the of good the is reason their of subject The citizenship. equal of status the sharing those of citizens, its of reason the is it people: democratic a of characteristic is its reason “Public Rawls: by assertion republican-sounding a in In reasons. individual private, good common democratic of form to a with entangled is notion this formulation, contemporary recourse making than rather arguments public making when good common of ideas invoking to refers reason public of notion The Rawls. John of that to compares reason public to approach Habermas’ how at look will I that assess to order In democracy? deliberative of use the is distinctive how second, and mindset, civic more a with arguments liberal from different ideas these are how First, questions. of types two triggers readily approach This self-legislation. civic as legitimacy democratic of strategy core a is society civil of sphere a broaderrepublican is partof society.This formof promoting acertain republican strategy in informal the also but sphere political formal the only I havearguedsofarthattheideaofa‘discursiveprocessself-legislation’takentocovernot 3.5 Republicanism,publicreasonanddeliberation no.1, (Spring 1997): 126 1997): no.1, (Spring Duncan Ivison, ‘The Secret History of Public Reason: Hobbes to Rawls’, History ofPoliticalThought History toRawls’, ofPublicReason:Hobbes ‘The Secret History DuncanIvison, Liberalism JohnRawls,Political 183 According to the standard liberal view, institutions shape individual character and character individual shape institutions view, liberal standard the to According , Columbia University Press, 1993: 213 Press, 1993: University , Columbia 124 182 Thus, it provides us with a window a with us provides it Thus, , XVIII, , XVIII, CEU eTD Collection 186 185 a endorsing not 184 despite community’ ‘justificatory credible a to amounts still society of notion republican a Whether fairness. of principles the to according society just a of notion a fulfill to order in necessary be to suggest to appears Cohen which occupation, of freedom the as freedoms such disregard individual to far as going as without moral responsibility, sense of wider for a focus andargues of institutional liberal threshold traditional over this clearly steps society, Habermas the widercivil of publicreasonin forasense people’s motives.By arguing people’s inform that virtues social motives on dependent are these that its claims and society and democratic endurance, a of character the with concerned is Rawls point. interesting an makes critique his for, argues Rawls one the like justice of notion specific a to committed not are arguments republican since structure, basic the beyond and above life, of spheres all permeates that equality radical of ideal an about argument Cohen’s endorse to bound feel not views. Rawls’ analysis of following the apparent in become will tension that a to points structure basic just a complement to has capacities private their in individuals to ethos pertaining radical egalitarian that a society, and a just understandingof Rawls’ line with fairness? as justice of notion particular the of specification Rawls’ to according least at society just coherent a governing as emerge should ethos egalitarian radical a that so much so justice of principles governed by be also should existence day-to-day their in society, in fulfill they roles various the in make people choices the that argues critic liberal One justice. of principles the by governed or to relevant not are roles, private their in society, that of structure basic the outside choices make individuals The reason’. ‘public of stringencies the under formulation, to classical according Rawls’ comes, society of structure institutional basic The attitudes. civic engender principles as just.”, John Rawls, PoliticalLiberalism JohnRawls, principles asjust.”, 2008: 315 289-322, No.3, Public Affairs36, “(…) in their conduct, citizens not only comply with the principles of justice, but they also actfromthose but theyalso ofjustice, withtheprinciples notonlycomply citizens “(…)intheirconduct, & Like?’, Philosophy JusticeLook Ethosof ‘WhatWould aRawlsian G.Titelbaum, onthispointseeMichael JusticeandEquality Rescuing Argument’, Cohen,‘TheIncentives 186 , and yet he focuses his attention on an institutional structure that is indifferent to indifferent is that structure institutional an on attention his focuses he yet and , 184 G.A Cohen’s argument that incentive inequalities are not in not are inequalities incentive that argument Cohen’s G.A : 77 125 , Harvard University Press, 2008: 27-87 Press,2008: University , Harvard 185 Even if we do we if Even CEU eTD Collection 188 187 liberalism. political with republicanism classical work to democracies constitutional for order properly. in crucial are reason public of ideal the by expressed values political the democracy: a in citizenship of nature the to linked is reason public that think Rawls and Habermas Both arguments. liberal and republican between lines fault the of indicative are analysis brief following the in capture to try will we differences the that trust I different. however are and consensus this reflection of content and of context The processdiscussion. a through emerge finally to views conflicting on convergence rational expect and reason public of understanding consensual a have Habermas and Rawls republican argument. a grounding in way some goes obligation political republican of notion a that argue I where chapter, in thenext be seen remainsto suggests, astheoneCohen radically egalitariansociety hs ulc esn en dfeet hns o Rws n Hbra. o Rws it Rawls, For Habermas. and principles whose justice, of conception Rawls political strict, a imposing for by pluralism circumvents things different means reason public Thus of society. structure tothebasic apply only reason should that public mostpart forthe debates andthinks political in viewpoints comprehensive from ideas welcome not civil does of Rawls context while wider society, the in importantly, most but politics formal of context the in only not apply should approach reason’ ‘public a of stringency the that thinks and debate political in ideas the comprehensive welcomes widen Habermas society. to civil to wants reason public of Habermas applicability stake. at are matters constitutional when holders, office public among politics, of sphere formal the in ensue only should reasons public on based Problem for Rawls’ Ideal of Public Reason’, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly Philosophical Reason’, Pacific IdealofPublic Problem forRawls’ John Rawls, ‘Political Liberalism’ John Rawls,‘Political A forRestraint: on Reasonsand Lott, ‘Restraint seeMicah toRawls for thispointinrelation 187 In fact, it was Rawls who actually said that there was nothing incompatible in incompatible nothing was there that said actually who Rawls was it fact, In , (Columbia University Press, 1993): 205 1993): UniversityPress, (Columbia 126 188 Rawls, however, argues that justifications that argues however, Rawls, 7(06:85 87 (2006): CEU eTD Collection a ad eorc- rtcl exchanges critical Democracy- and Law 189 public reasonasamodernformofcivicvirtue. rationality.” of supposition a with virtue of expectation through the of replaces that theory us normative a “(…) convince is his words, to own his in endeavored for, means: unexpected generally have republicans that polity of sort the justify to claims Habermas society. civil wider the to pertaining as also but does, Rawls the as politics, endorses of fora formal Habermas the to only that pertaining as not democracy is deliberative of standards outcome essential its in difference Habermas the and apparent, Rawls become between will it As argumentation. of understanding cognitivist anti-fallibilist, an is This argumentation. of such entailed as process of is the in reason presuppositions Habermas to public according necessary participation), the equal When and access argument’. (equal obtain better communication the of force ‘the to yield to ability and willingness a words, other in others’, to contrast in lacking found if opinions changeone’s a willingnessto and beliefs entails respectforothers’opinions attitude. This For polity. democratic inthat itreferstoanargumentative Habermas, ontheotherhand,notionislesssubstantive specific the of jurisdiction the under fall who those of consensus of subject the are that principles of set a to refers reason public overlapping him, for an Thus, of consensus. light in views their adapt to willingness a and good the of notion own their towards skepticism of form a exercise to people incline will hopes he which civility, of duty moral a of idea his on bases solely instead but pluralism’ of ‘fact stark the on emphasis given his justify, to fails he ultimately which principles, convergence on first via convergence cooperation ensures reason public Rawls For citizens. fellow one’s of equality and freedom disregard forthe Rawls, a which impliesaccordingto disregardof ofcivility, the a moralduty by supported is It essentials. constitutional over debate public in allowed reasons only the are London Univ. of California Press, 1998): 386 1998): CaliforniaPress, London Univ.of Jűrgen Habermas, ‘Reply to Symposium Participants, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law’, Habermas on Habermas Law’, of School Cardozo N. Benjamin Participants, Symposium to ‘Reply Habermas, es Mce Rsned n Ade Aao Bree, o Angeles, Los (Berkeley, Arato Andrew and Rosenfeld Michel eds. , 127 189 In turn, John Rawls conceives of conceives Rawls John turn, In CEU eTD Collection 191 institutional mere beyond 190 goes that argumentation of line republican a to words other in come close good’,to concerns ofthe‘common particularheedto of ‘will-formation’thatpays apublicprocess the ideaofKantianorigin‘thepublicusereason’, ontheparticipationin on insistence Habermas’ to close come to it, of face the on seen, be could views or interests particular aside cast must one which in exercise civic individual, an as voting of discussion friendship’ ‘civic by governed as society democratic constitutional a in relations political of characterization his civility’, ‘duty of the on emphasis an with citizenship of conception his reason, public of notion Rawls’ that argued be could It public mattersisanintrinsicallymoralduty. on decide they when legislators as themselves view to and reason public from act to citizens of duty the that argues He Habermas. than so more direction, republican a in going is Rawls regard one Finally, in is. normative approach preferred what his as to ambiguity some there is why is That reading. republican substantive, more a to closer is which reason, public of ideal the of direction the in points at waving is he if even reason’ ‘public of notion liberal a with works mostly he say that to fair is it I think reason. Thus, public of ideal the reinforce they as long as invoked be situations special certain, in could, doctrines comprehensive from coming reasons that view, established former his against argues, and reason, public of views ‘wide’ position his of statement revised a In sphere. public the in views comprehensive of expression the encourage to not appears Rawls while sphere, public the in views comprehensive of plurality a between deliberation the welcomes Habermas as insofar content in but scope, in only not different are approaches their Also, Habermas. for society civil the of matter a is it while Rawls, for politics formal of area the to restricted is possible reason public make that virtues civic certain of exercise The 1999): 137 John Rawls, ‘Public Reason Revisited’: 137 Reason JohnRawls,‘Public LawofPeoples Revisited, The Reason JohnRawls,‘Public 190 , Rawls also distinguishes between the ‘exclusive’ and the and ‘exclusive’ the between distinguishes also Rawls , 128 , (Cambridge/London, Harvard University Press, University Harvard , (Cambridge/London, 191 ad n atclr hs pointed his particular, in and , CEU eTD Collection 195 194 193 192 such from derived reasons the if only but discussion, political public, of part made be may cover. to expected is debate public what on placed be to are restrictions pluralism’, ‘reasonable of context the in ensured be to consensus for order in words, other In reason. public of lexicon the of part be should controversial nothing Rawls, to According good beingnon-revisablepartsofone’sidentity. the of conceptions of sense communitarian distinctive more the in however, communitarian, a not is He communitarian. a is himself Rawls say, to on goes Barry position, communitarian the of component a is good” the of conceptions with conflicts it when justice Rawlsian-style of force “motivational the about skepticism a such If hold. individuals that good the of ideas comprehensive the with convergence their of absence the in society liberal stable a for basis the be could fairness as justice of principles the that idea the from himself distances Rawls work’s his emphasizes which and theorist, overtones. communitarian minimalist a as Rawls view not does that approach critical certain a with line in fall would that terms, interpretative In considerations. wide view of public reason’ public of view wide ‘the calls he what in reason, public of notion the of consideration latest good Rawls’s a In as reason. qualify not would That stance. a such take to us encourages Jesus that or wish dying last grandmother’s her was it that arguing by women for rights equal public in support not should one example, for issue: certain a supporting in provide citizens that reasons of kind the with is concern main Rawls’s that seem would It here. work at ambiguity important policies and laws- see for this James W. Boettcher, ‘What is reasonableness?’, Philosophy and Social Criticism Philosophy and reasonableness?’, ‘Whatis James W.Boettcher, seeforthis policies andlaws- 22, samepage. of Rawls’s notion of public reason is the weakening of proper deliberation. weakening ofproper isthe ofpublicreason of Rawls’snotion implications the less‘likeable’ that,thatis lessthan Isuggest,however,something 5-6 (2004), 600; 30, no. see Rawls, ‘Public Reason Revisited’ seeRawls,‘Public the exactspecification of atoolfor as notbeunderstood should outthat‘reasonableness’ onecriticpoints Stability’, Ethics theSearchfor ‘JohnRawlsand BrianBarry, Liberals andcommunitarians AdamSwift, StephenMulhalland 192 195 s ra Bry ons u, ih Pltcl ieaim John Liberalism’ ‘Political with out, points Barry Brian As , he allows, however, that reasonable comprehensive doctrines comprehensive reasonable that however, allows, he , 129 193 105, 874-915, July 1995: 890; see also footnote 890;seealsofootnote 874-915,July 1995: 105, ( Oxford, UK : Blackwell, 1992) UK :Blackwell, Oxford, 194 hr i an is There , CEU eTD Collection 198 197 196 only all, to not but discussions political to applies reason Public political’. ‘the of domain the to ‘re-tailoring’ of speaks he when Liberalism’ ‘Political in mind in has usually Rawls what generally, more is society) structure of basic scale (the in limitation specific. This and limited very is it promotes Rawls as reason public of idea the that is notice now to important is What justification, whichmeansthatthesamereasonsshouldobtainforallcitizens. public of mode consensual a under reason public understands he crucially, And shared. also is interpretation specific whose principles, first shared, by represented is reason public Rawls for however, consensus, political of model culture public rich, Miller’s Unlike consensus. of majoritarian the object which canbe of that should consist public culture insistence thatthe Miller’s David of reminiscent somewhat also is It support. to appears Rawls which character, deliberative its of debate public effect in strips and terms in contradiction a like sound may reasons. of kinds right politically same, the for on, further and agree, can everyone which on debate, public of part be to allowed are issues those only it, understand I as far As democratic virtuesofsomecomprehensivedoctrines. liberal- or reasonableness the with confused be to not was which reasoning, public of form political a place: first the in of sense make to trying was Rawls what undermines however, suggestion, This values. constitutional basic of support in were doctrines their end, the in of view,because, a religiouspoint actions from beliefsand they justifiedtheir proviso, evenif claims fulfilledthe above CivilRightsMovement,thathe Abolitionists andtothe refers tothe reasons. political proper with course’ due ‘in replaced, are doctrines comprehensive to Rawls’:127 esp.616-18 reasonableness?’: ‘Whatis Rawls- seeBoettcher, by reason advanced notion ofpublic withthe isentirelyconsistent debates inpublic comprehensive doctrines of thatthediscussion onecriticwhoclaims by bythepublic isdenied assuch andrecognized that areconsensual for a classification of modes of public justification see Ivison, ‘The Secret History of Public Reason: Hobbes ofPublicReason:Hobbes ‘The SecretHistory seeIvison, justification modesofpublic foraclassificationof points ofview issues or only inpublicdebate allowing asmeagre,and ofpublicreason Thisinterpretation 144 Reason Revisited’: seeRawls,‘Public 130 198 196 197 Rawls This CEU eTD Collection 199 the represents making decision formal on impact with society civil ‘vibrant’ a where processes, political formal of undercurrents the in important storygoeson him, the In fact,for politics. more formalforaof society, andinthe of civil model in both two-layered extolled is virtues Habermasian, civic certain of the exercise the to where democracy, deliberative contrast striking most the is This reason. public of application of realm the of part not are culture’ background ‘the calls he what or the verylimitedcoveragethatpublicreasoncanafford,accordingtoRawls,sincecivilsociety notice to important is it now, For system. security social the redesigning or system electoral by the amending of issue tackled an as much be as just reason, public to of view of matter point the from legislators a as figure not could renting house state-regulated of amend market to the bill on proposed conditions a why see to example, for difficult is it as grasp difficult to is theoretical delimitation This fundamental justice. of issues to relate those that in a as figure but only find themselvesin, government officials,forexample that requirement inallcontexts not does it that so situation-specific, always is reason ways. public organized above specified in politically, acting citizens to refer can it Also, office. political to candidates judges, legislators, officials, government as such citizenry, the of service the in or of behalf on act representatives official where contexts to refers forum political public The forum”. political public “the calls Rawls what in occur they when only discussions these to applies it Then, design. constitutional or justice fundamental of matters concern that those to s fnaetl etn pit ewe te eulcn n pltcl iea theoretical liberal political and republican the between point meeting fundamental a is which person, the of conception complex a with works Rawls that then, surprising be may It process. formal, politicalprocess. wayinthe partinsome formalbodies, taking ofsome onlyiftheyarepart mentioneditis citizens arealso when officials,and restrictedto reason isgenerally ofpublic oftherequirement Rawls’sidea Reasonable’: 582; ofthe andtheNormativity claims,‘PublicReason Alessandro Ferrara overvoting”,as the largercitizenry It is simply not accurate to say that Rawls has in mind, as also belonging to the public forum, “deliberation in “deliberationin publicforum, belongingtothe inmind,asalso that Rawlshas tosay It issimplynotaccurate sine qua non qua sine 131 of a legitimate political and law-making and political legitimate a of 199 As CEU eTD Collection hy cig oey u o sl-neet ad hy eonz te od f plt organized polity a around legitimate,consensualtermsofcooperation. of good the recognize they and self-interest, of out solely acting they Most cooperating. are nor but on such, as good general by the driven are not keen people reasonable Rawls’ importantly, consociates, equal and free as themselves view to prone are pedigree, liberal clear a with society, of type certain a of citizens that presupposes Habermas 202 201 200 to ready stand them.” and with cooperation of terms fair be, may others case the as accept, to or propose of world public the equals as enter we that reasonable the by is “it status: equality of gain an to citizens individual enables ‘reasonableness’, of term by the defines Rawls which behavior, of form civic certain a Habermas, of case the in as Similarly citizens’. equal and ‘free like feel they where society a in live do actually they if only good, and the of a notion for and of justice a sense for capacity a that of ‘moral powers’: of two with system endowed are they because fair only that do a can they but place, as first the in cooperation society envisage they of because Citizens reasonable evidence. are same societies the assess democratic people which in ways different the example for of burdens ‘the accept to persons, between willing disagreement of sources represent and that things those all meaning of judgment’, aware also are they and deliberation, fair of process a in upon decided been have they once standards such by abide to ready are they and behavior collective of rules living, of standards shared propose to ready are they that sense the in reasonable, are states democratic liberal of citizens Rawls, to according Thus, virtue. civic of subject the on flourish rhetorical the of less exhibits latter the that only standpoints,

Rawls,Politicalliberalism Rawls, Politicalliberalism Rawls, Politicalliberalism capacity to propose, or to endorse, and then to be moved to act from fair terms of terms fair from act to moved cooperation fortheirownsakeisanessentialsocialvirtueallthesame.” be to then and endorse, to or propose, to capacity self- the of society a thatunderliesthe it.Yetthemoralpower much virtue,untilwefindourselveswithout nor saints of of we think society world a not world, human our ordinary of a part much a very It is centered. neither is society reasonable “This : 53 : 54 : 19 132 202 201 200 John Rawls John Similarly, CEU eTD Collection 205 204 203 principles the from act and internalize to have general in individuals autonomous, fully be to order in If, latter. the to only apply to taken is reason public as insofar life of public and politics fora formal and society civil between delineation strict Rawls’ about previously made assertions the to contradiction a as comes society a such forming individuals the of outlook moral general, the unavoidably and ‘society’ of understanding Rawls’ of discussion This collective self-determinationovertime.” its in sharing and affairs public society’s in participating by realized also is it liberties; and rights the basic of enjoying theprotections justice and principles of political by “affirmingthe a of realized citizens be can of value political a expects as autonomy Full he compliance. mere not that society, democratic principles public of basis the on conduct proactive is It principles. these from act and internalize to have They society. political define that principles the with comply than more do to have individuals powers, moral their exercise to able be to persons” full become “to or autonomous fully be to order in that out points Rawls in notdoingso.” their pursue to and powers character of weakness and self-respect of a lack they show think moral We good. the conceptions of their exercise and develop to order in opportunities tocareabouttheirbasiclibertiesand a democraticcultureweexpect,andindeedwantcitizens possess: “In individuals do interests, which higher-order articulation of the are instrumentalto they because liberties basic their about care indeed people that saying of that is strategy His society intheabstract,asrepublicanauthorsgenerallydo. liberal a of members as individuals to consciousness civic much as attribute to appears thus Rawls,Politicalliberalism Rawls, Politicalliberalism Rawls, Politicalliberalism 203 : 77-8 : 77 : 76-7 205 133 204 , that is, that , CEU eTD Collection 210 209 208 207 206 is and democracy, of roots social and political the of one is reason, public violate who office candidates forpublic government officialsand to repudiate legislatorsand themselves asideal duty moral intrinsically an being this as legislators, view themselves should citizens ideally, that Rawls stipulates In fact, desire tobethatkindofperson.” effective an elicit may and learned be can citizenship of ideal the which within world social a realize publicity conditionisto realize thefull citizenship: “To ideal ofrepublican close tothe comes role widest its in liberalism, political of notion Rawls’s Thus, so. do to aspire or roles public taken willingly have who those for only holds reason public of requirement the which in theory the of version restricted more a to keeps generally he that but liberalism, political his of version idealized more a in writings Habermas’ in model society civil the to similar reason. public of ideal the and reason ofpublic between theidea Rawls’ differentiation comesfrom This confusingwavering citizens’. ‘full be to they want finally, because and others, reasonable by found be could that only ideas defend and propose they that in judgment” of burdens “the recognize they because justice, of “a with endowed are citizens that says psychology” moral he reasonable when this in explicit quite is Rawls view? of point reason public the adopt to ultimately expected are citizens as individuals that imply not also does this For, a civic-consciousway. should actin citizens areas inwhich extends the this then reasons, egoistic or rational of out them follow to just not society, political defining Rawls, The Law of Peoples Rawls, TheLawof Rawls, Politicalliberalism Peoples Rawls, TheLawof Rawls, Politicalliberalism: Rawls, Politicalliberalism: 207 : 71 86 : 136 : 134-5 82 210 : “when firm and widespread, the disposition of citizens to view to citizens of disposition the widespread, and firm “when : 206 208 209 because they are prone to cooperation around fair principles fair around cooperation to prone are they because t ol apa ta Rws los o smtig more something for allows Rawls that appear would It 134 CEU eTD Collection 212 211 citizens laws, and candidates for voting when that out points himself Rawls incumbents. the replace to parties and candidates for voting periodical the course, of is term the invoking when of, think to natural rather is What forbidden. are they Germany, like past, majoritarian murkier, a with countries some in fact in day, the of order the exactly not are which justice, of issues fundamental on referenda of think one makes it since incomprehensible to close sounds This basics. constitutional or justice political of questions fundamental on voting to regard relevant with is it but of issue, any kind on concern voting not does this Again, reason. out points himself Rawls as on, takes thus Voting reason dictates. public of what the basis on true, but right or is she thinks of what basis on the reason not should voting, of act the in when individual, the that entails This reason. public of requirements the to according way, particular a in exercised be to is voting of act the least at that voting. Heinsists on isRawls’ideas certainty somereassuring provideuswith What may attribute ofthepublic-politicalforaincertain,stringentcircumstances. the as reason public of form subdued the and society civil of form republican substantive, more a of stipulation the between wavers actually Rawls that indicate to seems this mistaken, is here reading my Unless reason. public exercise and life public in participate to want they that is, that citizens”, “full be to want individuals that is profile moral that of part that states moral “reasonable the on he that notice we democracies, thoughts constitutional of citizens to Rawls’ attributes he which psychology”, of outline the to however, back, Looking effect. in be not could or could that citizens of disposition a as kind ideal the reason of public of talking by interrelated, and second, and to, resort can we reason public of idea graspable more a is there that and notion the of version ideal an is this that out pointing by first reason, vigor.” and strength enduring its to vital Rawls,Politicalliberalism Rawls, The Law of Peoples: Rawls, TheLawof : 219-20 135-6 211 Rawls does qualify his discussion of ideal public ideal of discussion his qualify does Rawls 135 212 , a Rousseauian dimension of revealed of dimension Rousseauian a , CEU eTD Collection 216 215 214 213 certain stringentcircumstances. political in officials, to thus reason public the and on reflection society,active all leaves civil former the while of autonomy, understanding robust more Habermas’ with line in more is latter the that and reason, public of ideal the and idea the between equivocates Rawls that again once out point to help may it criticism, seems this developing position in original misplaced somewhat the on focus Habermas’s while and theory, his in compromised perspectives.” interpretive their intersubjective ‘enlargement’of an idealizing to these involved which enjoins argumentation practice of an in “embodied is this since view’ of point ‘moral the contrast, nurtures by naturally method, theoretic discourse his that claims He constraints. informational its and ignorance’ of ‘veil the of result the be to sees he which pluralism, of stifling the deplores justice. of aims the undermine allegedly which egoists, rational of those like reasoning of tools and assumptions of use makes it how and position original the of design the regards legitimacy”. of principle democratic “the over rights basic liberal to priority giving ultimately by moderns the of liberty the with ancients the of liberty the reconciling of project declared his in fails Rawls John Habermas, Jürgen to According was short-lived. ‘voting’ on this paragraph beginning of at the promised thatIhad the clarity seems now, As it justice. fundamental of matters concerns voting the when apply only should stringencies such reason public the considering by only so do should Liberalism”: 117 Liberalism’: 112 JournalofPhilosophy Liberalism’, The Habermas, “Reconciliation through the Public Use of Reason: Remarks on John Rawls’s Political JohnRawls’s Reason:Remarkson thePublic Useof through Habermas,“Reconciliation Political JohnRawls’s Reason:Remarkson thePublicUseof through Habermas,‘Reconciliation Political JohnRawls’s Reason: Remarkson thePublicUseof through Habermas,‘Reconciliation ofpeoples quote,Law seeRawls,previous 216 al dne Hbra’ cag ta pltcl uooy is autonomy political that charge Habermas’s denies Rawls , 92, no.3 (Mar. 1995) (pp.109-131): 110 1995) (pp.109-131): no.3 (Mar. , 92, : 135-6 136 213 , so it is not clear why he also says that says also he why clear not is it so , 214 aems mi criticism main Habermas’ 215 He CEU eTD Collection 218 217 interpretation. by their especially to as but disagreement principles, but first principles, first about about disagreement agreement by only not bred be can of views pluralism remarks, critic one As example. for equality, of notion the of understanding undisputed one, of think to conceivable not is it where interpretations, of multitude a of trap the up in ends requirement, public reason the compliance with in judgments, thus individuals’ into plugged coolly be can that principles universal like look may what that, is view abstract fairly this with problem The that. to contribute that goods primary the all and self-respect equality, liberty, society: democratic a of members as interests fundamental individuals’ to speak that those are consensus of object the as imagine could we that principles The view. of point a majoritarian the theory, from distilled been Miller’s basically has David that culture of public of form case particular the in as not, is It with? contend’ ‘to reason public for of doctrines, left then comprehensive is exactly what So, contention. of to subject are that elements views ethical religious, particular the all means to basically seen which be it, could undermine that anything exclude but cannot a consensus’ that point overlapping the ‘reasonable on clear is Rawls diversity. a tackling between of approach strategy in liberal a difference and a republican indicate to taken be may divide That political. the of realm the leaves never liberalism political while doctrines’, comprehensive of ‘realm the enter to him leads sphere public the on emphasis Habermas’s argues that turn, in Rawls, John oiis r mr iprat hn hi dt t at rm ulc esn n h Rawlsian the in reason public from understanding. act to duty their than important more are policies certain for and principles certain from act to duties their that feel would who people from defense passionate a engender to likely most is justice fundamental of issues of discussion Lott, ‘Restraint on Reasons and Reasons for Restraint: A Problem for Rawls’ Ideal of Public Reason’, 79 IdealofPublic forRawls’ Restraint: AProblem Reasons for Reasons and Lott,‘Restrainton toRawls’ ofPublic Reason:Hobbes SecretHistory Ivison,‘The 218 137 217 lo the Also, CEU eTD Collection 220 219 abandoned.” lightly be to not are express they ideals constitutional the and overridden easily not well-ordered and values great very are a regime by realized values political “the republicans: instrumental democracy. of enduring the for vital is it and duty” moral intrinsically “an is public civility’ of duty of ‘the or reason standards the by judge to duty the this: in explicit is Rawls morality, to system legal subordinating the of fear for moral duty a debate as public in common good the of think to requirement the or reason’ of use ‘public the defining from away shies Habermas. Habermas While than wish, you if republican’, ‘more actually is Rawls respect, crucial one In particular on notions ofjustice. built are that and embrace people that doctrines reasonable different, many are there out, points himself Rawls As granted. for taken exclude be not to should and justice, of sectarian notions be to bound are life good which the of to ideas according comprehensive notion, people’s this underlying dichotomy implied the that however, think, I abstract. too of, conceive to difficult too seem may polity the of members the of interest common the in be might what and views comprehensive one’s between balance a Achieving notion. paper a of less be to appears beliefs, deep-seated one’s up giving however, without, groups, its different bodywith interestofthepolitical inthecommon terms ofwhatis think in ultimately and view, of points other for tolerance and empathy respect, of show to required is is citizens what which in reason, public the of version Habermas’ view, of point that From liberalism. political developing in point starting pluralistic his and consensus perfect of keeper a as reason public of solution Rawls’ between tension true a be to appears There o te nuac ad ult f eortc oiis ad n h ohr pbi rao i an is reason public other, the on and polities, democratic of quality and endurance the for Reasons and Reasons for Restraint: A Problem for Rawls’ Ideal of Public Reason’:85-6 of Public forRawls’Ideal AProblem forRestraint: Reasons and see Rawls, ‘Public Reason Revisited’, The Law ofPeoples TheLaw Reason Revisited’, seeRawls,‘Public Rawls, Politicalliberalism 219 e os on pet psint aot t rmnig s f h pe of plea the of us reminding it, about passionate pretty sound does He 220 (e ok oubaUiest rs,19) 1,qoe nLt,‘Restrainton inLott, 218,quoted 1996), Press, Columbia University York: (New Thus, on the one hand, the exercise of public reason is instrumental is reason public of exercise the hand, one the on Thus, 138 : 136 CEU eTD Collection on political liberalism. political on work his of undercurrents the in is which toleration, of discourse liberal classical the beyond going clearly think, I is Rawls, civility, of duty a as reason public of use the postulating In equality. and freedom persons’ those violate thus they and citizens fellow their for disrespect 222 221 made.” be should views their to accommodation when deciding in fairmindedness a and others, to listen “to willingness a is it reasonable: find can persons other that arguments only use to try should reason public of use make to situation a in placed when citizens, that presupposes civility of duty The respect. of form intersubjective from weighissues be willingto andto avoid dogmatism, of others,to theviews take seriously to and to listen to open-minded, be to them expects also He consideration. under norm the affected by be are to others that of all and positions the interests to consideration giving equal in good common the heed to them expects He place. into come can argumentation real of process a that so manner, reasonable and rational a in certainly opinions their present He to them expects discourses? public in argumentation in expect, engage he who does citizens exactly from What however, argument’. ‘better the of finding the undermine to be taken would that Mill’s, Stuart John to similar fashion a in for excluded, be should opinions No course ofaction. norm or forthevalid ideas insearch testing ofall taken torepresentopen is first: argumentation clarity at affordmore appearto public reasonmay Habermas’ notionof view of‘publicreason’ratherthanthewideunderstanding. thenarrow thatheisreadytodefend It maybefairtosay normative commitmentsfinallyrest. his where points at unclear be may it and however, remains ambiguity The reason. public Public Reason: Hobbes to Rawls’: 141 toRawls’: Public Reason:Hobbes on the idea of ‘toleration’ and its inspirational value for Rawls’ later work, see Ivison, ‘The Secret History of Historyof ‘TheSecret laterwork,seeIvison, value forRawls’ itsinspirational ‘toleration’and ontheideaof Ralws,Politicalliberalism 222 : 217 Or at least he does so when he talks of the ‘wide’ understanding of understanding ‘wide’ the of talks he when so does he least at Or 139 221 If they fail in that, it is a show of show a is it that, in fail they If CEU eTD Collection middle-ground alternativeofthereasonablediscussioncomprehensiveclaims. 227 226 225 224 223 when that, is McCarthy, Thomas by out pointed as suggests, Habermas that idea Another accept. to difficult seems that But answer. ‘right’ a have value of conflicts that is idea One consensus onthecommongoodisnotasforthcoming. recognize that also he must value pluralism, force of recognizes the Habermas and since just), and ‘right’ the of notion (a ideas moral from insulated be cannot identity) of ‘good’, the of the measureofjusticeisgivenbywhatequallygoodforall,andthus,ethicalideas(anotion Habermas, for Since, conflicts. moral irresolvable with ripe is argumentation when happens what explain to able be to seem not does Rawls, like consensualist a though Habermas, while public reason, of the device the limiting consensus through account for theory can his say that to able be may Rawls sense, that In agreement? an forge can ideas people’s other for interest and respect mutual of form no that mind) to comes immediately abortion over debate (the are sodivisive issues underdiscussion happens whenthe bring. Inotherwords,what bound to are latter) the (especially worldviews and interests of pluralism that problems the resolve argues critic one as true, it Is lacking. found if opinions their change and sides all how artificial and unrealistic in may seem may in unrealistic and artificial how of irrespective argumentation, of scope the on straightjacket a as reason public of idea the of the form in pluralism’ ‘fact of the answer to an does provide who Rawls of the case Unlike in issues? public on arguing when argument better the of that than authority’ “normative other Reconstructivism: Rawls and Habermas in Dialogue”: 52 Habermas inDialogue”: Rawls and Reconstructivism: and Constructivism them?”,“Kantian reasonsthatnourish theenvironmentsof off thiswayfrom separated seas caty KninCntutvs n eosrciim al n aemsi ilge:55 inDialogue”: RawlsandHabermas Reconstructivism: Constructivism and “Kantian seealsoMcCarthy, be andvaluesreally “Can politicalprinciples with McCarthy: well asktogether wemay somuchso,that 75 morality’: rights, anduniversalist human ,Habermas, toJustification Abdel-Nour,‘Farewell 62 inDialogue”: Rawls and Habermas andReconstructivism: Constructivism McCarthy,“Kantian caty caty KninCntutvs n eosrciim al n aemsi ilge:62 inDialogue”: andHabermas Rawls andReconstructivism: “KantianConstructivism McCarthy, 225 that he also expects citizens in public debate to recognize no recognize to debate public in citizens expects also he that 226 , it is certainly not clear how Habermas hopes to hopes Habermas how clear not certainly is it , 140 227 223 n ht es, aems fes a offers Habermas sense, that In 224 CEU eTD Collection 229 228 non- as picture to us only in life, but spheres of all obtain in address or does not wants it that the sense comprehensive, in he which justice, of conception political a is reason public Rawls, For Habermas. Jürgen and Rawls John of arguments the in points turning unexpected and various ideas, understand to tried have reason, we of public investigation Throughout this account oftheothers’interestsandcomprehensiveideas. thattakes in away they areproposed encounters, aslong debate ofdiscursive thrown inthe be to ideas comprehensive for allows he why is that and perspective participant’s the on keen is Habermas sovereignty. democratic of scope the limits indeed and deliberation, of breadth observer’. ‘the of perspective the to reason’, ‘public designs he way the in inclined, more is he but others, to actions her justify to wants a citizen which through perspective participant’s a and pluralism, of irreconcilability sometimes and depth the recognizes citizen a which through perspective observer’s an combines Rawls like”. the and privacy, of rights to values conflicting from conscience, of liberty to beliefs opposed from choice, of freedom to preferences different from example, “for discussion the moving by ensues, disagreement whenever abstraction greater for push to as is with, out points up McCarthy comes Habermas response second The rationality. communicative on based hardly is outcomes, though legitimate to which, leading thus voting, and legitimate, via as solved recognized and be acceptable could it Or process. a such into come that powers communicative reasonable, bargaining the out a cancel to difficult to very is it lead since unfair, be way even may it no and agreement, in will course, of that, But bargaining. to making recourse by deadlock the solve may individuals value, of disagreements faced with See Thomas McCarthy on the point regarding the two different perspective and the Rawlsian preference theRawlsian and differentperspective regarding thetwo onthepoint See ThomasMcCarthy 56 inDialogue”: Rawls andHabermas and Reconstructivism: Constructivism McCarthy, “Kantian 228 Butthat,ineffectbringsHabermasclosertoRawls. 141 229 ndig o hwvr esils the stifles he however, so, doing In CEU eTD Collection 230 justification.” public of process a in at arrived are decisions political valid that reason, public deliberative idea the a from “springs reason public deliberative of notion of This way. certain a in understood notion the a from is reason interpretation public republican of understanding Habermasian, liberal Rawlsian, a aside sets ultimately What of process and decision-making. sphere formal the as political the of understanding strict very the beyond reason public uphold to them prompt basically would which psychology’, moral ‘reasonable a with endowed being individuals about talks he when reason, public of scope the to comes it when least at civicness, of picture Habermasian more a endorse to seems he because clear, from far is position Rawls’s that however, true, is It possible. is reason) public (read justice of conception political clear-cut a on consensus that believe to difficult very still is it then pluralism, value startling and serious is liberalism political Rawls’s of premise starting the education understanding, if I havetrouble formal life, which human being’s ofa without touchingotherspheres of sphere the in insulated be can to) down boil public ultimately of could principle reason first a imagine can we that something (as action affirmative say let’s likelythatsuchprinciplesas, first principles, butitisnotcomprehensive.Evenifwethinkthat of set a of formed is it since substantive, be may it So, society. of structure basic the promising most found have I republicanism of form moderate this in participation, enhanced because that say I theory. political contemporary to contribution their as articulate to want much so republicans which that of heart the at be to seen be could equality, and freedom of conditions under state, the of structures formal the in or society civil of arenas the in citizens by and exercised opinions, or probing decisions collective reaching of the purpose matters for socio-political on ideas of exchange reasoned a as here understood preliminarily deliberation, See Iseult Honohan, CivicRepublicanism SeeIseultHonohan, 142 230 n fact, In CEU eTD Collection 234 233 232 231 and deliberations, legislative open discussion, political “free as in democracy commonsense, understanding of intuitions the on build to try Both concepts. explanatory than rather and republican, arguments as deliberative together pieced far so have we what between similarities The theory. deliberative of sort another than else nothing is setting contemporary a most in the kind of promising theory republican a that outset, the from that consider to need we be, may It deliberation. core its at requires republican thought argument, of line this follow we if appear that would it of realm public expanded an be to needs “There that is argumentation republican of line a such of argument, conclusion The republicanpolitically. defined be this to need goods of common strand general the to According arguments. contestation Habermasian of form the in participation of notion restricted and formal more the on instead concentrate to choose who republicans instrumental for role a important as play necessarily not does deliberation chapter, first the in shown As only is deliberation shortly, follows criticism comprehensible insmallcommunities. the then, But communities. self- governing of deliberation public extensive the to refers it as insofar attractive is republicanism more democracy. deliberative the of to idea modest but such, as democracy participatory of vision a to amount to have not does Democracy”, Polity Democracy”, see Iseult Honohan, CivicRepublicanism seeIseultHonohan, Civic Republicanism IseultHonohan, 55-76 “FolieRepublicaine”: Goodin, seeforthispoint, Critique ofParticipatory Democrats’ LeftistDeliberative beMore? ,“CanLess EmilyHauptmann, , 3 o3(2001):397-421 33, no.3 per se run indeed unmistakably deep. They are both political ideals, political both are They deep. unmistakably indeed run se : 236-7 : 215 232 231 In fact, critics of republicanism do recognize that recognize do republicanism of critics fact, In 143 233 bt t s nrnial rltd to related intrinsically is it but , deliberation .” 234 Thus, CEU eTD Collection 240 239 238 237 236 235 to lead public reason” not does power social unequal that distortions. so role overseeing an play to supposed are who movements) social (e.g. actors certain of prominence the or safeguards constitutional and legal like regulation of mechanisms various introducing by to so does it citizens, ideally all engulf proposed, is deliberation when Also, structures. state organized, to limited are deliberation of notions some deliberation: with non-domination. co-extensive be to have not respect, does Democracy and recognition equal self-government, autonomy, fairness, like political properties moral entail to taken is kind deliberative the of decision-making democratic because also democracy of versions thicker for argue authors republican as well as democrats, deliberative outcomes, just produce and rights individual protect to likelihood and freedom individual equality. promoting and maintaining in interest shared citizens’ to refers good thecommon ofupholding the idea of justice.Thus, somesense amountto citizen, andto each of equality and freedom the on founded be to interpretation, of line Rousseauian a on good common the understand both importantly, most Also, others. to laws of justification the general, politicalprocess,andexpectcitizenstobeconcernedwith legitimacy oflaws,andthe preferences. personal than common good”. pursuit ofa Democracy’, Political Studies Democracy’, democracy’s notion of common good on the link to Rousseau’s thought:376 toRousseau’s goodonthelink ofcommon democracy’s notion 375 interest,: astowhatisinallcitizens’ judgements basisofimpartial interest), butonthe isintheir (what personalpreferences thebasis oftheir to votenoton thedutyofcitizens mayberole, or even views ofdemocracy incontrasttoaggregative ondeliberativedemocracy exclusive discussion violence and inequality of an anarchic public sphere: 494 publicsphere: ofananarchic violence andinequality Freeman, ‘Deliberative Democracy: A Sympathetic Comment’: 377 Comment’: ASympathetic Democracy: Freeman, ‘Deliberative ofdeliberative forthischaracterization Comment’ ASympathetic ‘DeliberativeDemocracy: seeFreeman the whenvoting,itis whosaysthat Comment’, ASympathetic ‘DeliberativeDemocracy: seealsoFreeman, inan hemakesthischaracterization 373; Comment’, ASympathetic Democracy: Freeman, ‘Deliberative Carolyn M. Hendriks, ‘Integrated Deliberation: Reconciling Civil Society’s Dual Role in Deliberative DualRolein CivilSociety’s Reconciling Deliberation: ‘Integrated Carolyn M.Hendriks, 388-89 Comment’: ASympathetic ‘Deliberative Democracy: see alsoFreeman, 237 239 f iea agmns eeal pooe eortc rcdrs o ter better their for procedures democratic promote generally arguments liberal If Finally, “integral to the idea of a deliberative democracy is then some idea of idea some then is democracy deliberative a of idea the to “integral Finally, 240 , whichcanequallybesaidabouttherepublicanposition. 54 (2006) commenting on Habermas’ strategy in adjusting the potential for adjustingthepotential strategyin commentingonHabermas’ 54(2006) 236 235 Also, both invoke deliberation as a necessary condition for the for condition necessary a as deliberation invoke both Also, Both say that in the act of voting, citizens should express more citizens should ofvoting, the act thatin Bothsay 144 238 CEU eTD Collection 246 245 244 243 Democracy 242 Democracy, 241 constitutional a of setting the I think, is, setting deliberation micro a of example paradigmatic picture. the of out society civil broader leaves usually account this that means which on stance state-collaborative primarily a representatives, public usually are deliberation in involved be to seen actors The deliberation. taking thus the deliberation, on of and conditions, fora ideal structured its and procedure deliberative a defining on focus mainly approach. the deliberation: to approaches main two contrast into sets distinction, previous the with overlaps possibly which systematization, at attempt Another variety second the theory, critical displaying morecriticismanddiscursiveness. from or liberalism from takes thought deliberative overtones? Habermasian and Rawlsian both carrying formulations these of last the fora, public the in equals among reasoning free of concept ambitious more the to refer it does still, further or ‘discussion’, of change a to amount it preferences does and outcome-driven, it is place: first the in deliberation understands by what one is important it astoundingdiversity, forthe discerned.As can stillbe camps and directions some but theorists, deliberative as arguments deliberative many as are There sounds. with deep well a is ideas of body a as however, itself, democracy Deliberative hi peeecs oad te omn od hn rsne wt rlvn reasons. relevant with presented when good common the towards preferences their change to willing and open-minded be deliberation in participants that is requirement main Deliberative Democracy’ Democracy’, 491, with reference to Dryzek. 491, withreferenceto Democracy’, Hendriks, ‘Integrated Deliberation: Reconciling Civil Society’s Dual Role in Deliberative Democracy’: 493 DeliberativeDemocracy’: DualRolein CivilSociety’s Reconciling Deliberation: Hendriks,‘Integrated Ratio Juris onDemocracy’, Habermas ‘Reflections on JoshuaCohen, DualRoleinDeliberative Civil Society’s Reconciling ‘IntegratedDeliberation: inHendriks, thisismentioned for this dichotomy see Hendriks, ‘Integrated Deliberation: Reconciling Civil Society’s Dual Rolein Civil Society’sDual Reconciling Deliberation: ‘Integrated seeHendriks, for thisdichotomy 1-18,Deliberative ‘Introduction’: seeJonElster, ofconceptsdeliberation ofthediversity for thediscussion Deliberative ‘Introduction’, 1-18, JonElster’s 123-139and Deliberation’: of Susan Stokes,‘Pathologies : 8 244 e.JnEse CmrdeUiest rs,19) 8 Press,1998): Elster(CambridgeUniversity ed.Jon 241 The o i i rte a om f ovrain oty n tef sml a om of form a simply itself, in worthy conversation of form a rather it is or , micro 242 eieaie hoit (o eape oha oe o Jn Elster), Jon or Cohen Joshua example (for theorists deliberative One systematization could be made according to the inspiration the to according made be could systematization One 145 243 , 12, no. 4 (Dec 1999):390 no. 4(Dec , 12, micro prah n the and approach 246 245 macro The The CEU eTD Collection state. the against possibly and of, outside thus and sphere, public the in place take that processes deliberative informal the on attention their focus Habermas) Dryzek, (Benhabib, theorists 250 249 248 247 accept.” reasonably also could they think we conclusions to accept could reasonably others think and accept we premises from correctly “proceeds others’ to addressed ‘argument this that say to on goes however, Rawls, agreement. in are Rawls and Habermas here, (…)”. Upto others argument addressedto validreasoning,but not simply justification is “Public telling: thus is emphasis Rawls’ important. as least at than important, more not if be to see stripes Habermasian and Rawlsian both of theorists deliberative that other- attitude regarding an is there role, important very a plays certainly communication reasoned Though directly-deliberative of idea polyarchy.” an on based democracy, radical of version institutionalized the to assigned simply be cannot thus, and democracy, radical endorses who Habermas), and Rawls both by (inspired deliberation of theory Cohen’s Joshua like cases mixed the to justice do not do they weakness inthat have apredictable diverse theoreticalenvironment, otherwise too sense ofan unrestrained. and spontaneous more this isseentobeinthesesettings objective, butratheropinion-formation,andthuscommunication of breadth main wider the be to taken is the that such as decision-making of not is it deliberation, Because of understanding networks. and media the associations, various particularapproach. background tothis the Rawlsian indicative, Ithink,of is but detail, small a just not is This invoking. on keen always is Rawls which example court,

Joshua Cohen, ‘Reflections on Habermas onDemocracy’:390 Habermas ‘Reflections on JoshuaCohen, 486-7 DeliberativeDemocracy’: DualRolein CivilSociety’s Reconciling Deliberation: Hendriks,‘Integrated John Rawls, ‘Public Reason Revisited’: 155 Reason John Rawls,‘Public 493 Democracy’: DualRoleinDeliberative Society’s Reconciling Civil Deliberation: Hendriks, ‘Integrated 247 Theirs is a less structured view of deliberation with a focus on social movements, social on focus a with deliberation of view structured less a is Theirs 249 micro deliberative box, since what he promotes is, in his own words, “a more “a words, own his in is, promotes he what since box, deliberative 248 Such dichotomies, while helpful insofar as they make they as insofar helpful while dichotomies, Such 146 Macro 250 deliberative Habermas CEU eTD Collection 30, no.5 (October 2002): 748 (October2002): 30, no.5 252 ‘discursive Dryzek, 251 following call, may we which by strand, inspired This actually is writings. which democracy, Habermas’ deliberative in strand one to similar very be to bound is focused, now has attention our which on republicanism, of brand Habermasian A reasoned end communication hastocarrytheday. the in if even differences, that bridge be to used could be it could Thus, rhetoric and faith. storytelling good in made are they as long as the of process, out communication left be need expression of means other that think not do I this, in forthcoming exactly not is Habermas if even Also, shortcoming. a be to have not does think, I that, but conducted, be can deliberation which under mode main the be to expected is communication over-rationalism. of charge the to open more much jury’s a is the jurors among public discussion actual, of the the detriment to example, of proceedings, for phase’ ‘information the in reflection’ ‘internal of the importance the for emphasizes least at importance, great that of deliberation a view find that I sense, Inthat of theory. of deliberative Habermasian strand is exchange interpersonal and communication of processes of creativity the as long as warranted not is rationalistic, overtly is deliberation that charge critical the that thus, think, I view. of points others’ for respect show generally and un-dogmatic are reflect, to time take they as long as views own their with in come them ‘lets’ Habermas deliberation, into self purged and toughened’ ‘morally a with enter already individuals has Rawls Whereas understanding. and consensus more to lead ultimately and and principles, arguments people’s on other reflect people to prompt and ‘enlightening’ work, its do will it that trusts and way, controlled less a in communication of process the envisages Press, 2000, reviewed in Sally J. Scholz, ‘Dyadic Deliberation versus Discursive Democracy’, Political Theory Political versusDiscursiveDemocracy’, Deliberation J.Scholz,‘Dyadic inSally reviewed Press, 2000, OxfordUniversity Contestations”, Liberals, Critics, andBeyond: Democracy “Deliberative review ofhisbook PoliticalStudies Democracy’, inDeliberative PublicDiscussion ‘Reflection versus John S. Dryzek for example, argues that such modes of communication can play an important role; seethe canplayanimportant modes of communication thatsuch forexample,argues JohnS.Dryzek &SimonJ. Niemeyer, E. Goodin seeRobert empiricalresearch based on ofdeliberation, forsuchaview 252 147 251 t s re hwvr ta reasoned that however, true, is It , 51 (2003): 627-49 , 51(2003): , CEU eTD Collection 253 political obligationinthisoverallargument. The society. of of function the at vision look we until clear however, not, is deliberative deliberation of justification republican extensively Habermas’s from apart stands reason or heated public Rawls’s of no version sanitized The place. that take to allowed appears are discussions controversial it where consensus overlapping an of environment political Rawls’ from different fairly is views those to attached dogmatically not ultimately, thus are and process, deliberative the of function educational the to open-minded remain they as long as views comprehensive their in bring can citizens where deliberation, of spheres multiple decision-making.” political to convictions deepest their bring to all by allowing realized better “Political equalityis that liberalism is political Rawls’s in as public justification of version liberal a against share, of thought strands that these the crucial core Ultimately, does. Habermas way the deliberation, by endorse shouldered who be democrats republican to have democrats deliberative against raised are that criticisms same The micro-deliberation. than rather macro-deliberation of form a is and democracy radical to closer strand the of part is ideas Habermas’ to similar so is which argument, deliberative of form This deliberation. requires authority political and authority, political and legitimacy of version promising most requires last, to is it the democracy, if claim that bigger share the as both also republican thought, be to claim I what to similar very indeed is democracy’ Honohan, Civic Republicanism Honohan,Civic : 228 148 253 A discursive democracy with democracy discursive A CEU eTD Collection atcpt i pbi lf. hs o ol srntes h rpbia cs, u i poie a provides it but case, republican the strengthens only not This life. public in participate to obligations republican particular grounding in route appropriate most the is obligations role of lines along the justification a that argue I Also, citizenship. republican for justification normative a achieving about go to way appropriate most the be would perspective republican a from obligations political for justification a constructing that chapter final this in argue I for whypeopleshouldtakeactivepartinpublicliferatherthanmerelyobey justinstitutions. justification normative a with up come to able were we if defended be could republicanism having After arguments. republican of contemporary the distinctiveness I think values, for republican arguments surveyed various of core normative the assess to position better a in be would we obligation, political of notion republican defend a and construct to able were we if that think I notwithstanding, theory socio-political or institutional at efforts authors’ marked more Republican morally. grounded be can citizenship republican of notion enhanced this how other, the on and long-run, the in systems democratic upholding for necessary is participation civic active of form why some hand one the on understand us help can theory, it political contemporary of map the on thought republican of relevance normative the place active republican for better us help justification can obligation political of moral notion republican a devise general to trying by citizenship, a exploring that argue will I thesis. the of part constructive the to contributes chapter This constructive. part and reconstructive part interpretive, part were dissertation this in efforts my that introduction the in mentioned I now needtofocusonthecoreissuethatcanunravelrepublicanthoughtbeyonditsdiversity. we particular emphasis, its each with propositions, republican different three After examining 4.1 Introduction Chapter 4:RepublicanPolitical Obligation- AJustification 149 CEU eTD Collection freedom as non-domination, from that of republican citizenship based on national identity or identity national on based citizenship republican of that from non-domination, as freedom view of pointof is fromthe whether it to convey, that republicans want The essentialmessage citizen inareasonablyjustdemocraticsociety. role of the around obligation republican political of a justification construct on to I go chapter the of section final the In avoid. to able be should obligation political of notion republican a that a way in are flawed, they I think how and associative obligations of accounts the existing political of some discuss I republican and form obligation role of a rather, or associative an take justification should obligations a that argue I Finally, participation. civic enhanced for may have individuals motivations other or virtue from arguments to sticking off are better whether we or forrepublicanism conceptual tool isauseful obligation to askwhetherpolitical on go I Then, those. answer to able be might ideas republican how and general, in obligation political arguments against behind assumptions basic most the unpack I chapter the of section next the in Thus, obligation. political republican of justification a the construct I clarify before to in perspective republican a from steps wemay need various objectionswemightencounteror look into introduction, Igoonto obligation for scene political the up for setting After arguments notion. a considering such of outline justificatory the define to tries the is second the and take should perspective citizenship republican for argument more normative a form republican appropriate explores a from first obligation the political blocks: of notion structural a main why two systematically of up made is chapter the Thus, camp. obligation associative the in prevail that arguments analogy-based by usual the using than rather general, in state, democratic just obligation reasonably a in political ‘citizen’ of role of the around argument an account constructing obligation role the to addition needed 150 CEU eTD Collection 254 of thedynamiccharacterpublicculturethat informspoliticalinstitutions. awareness broader a by informed thus is for call republicans that vigilance of sense basic The life. public of acts the in reexamination constant to subject but institutions those of property inherent the not thus is institutions political of authority The reinterpretation. and change the through themselves reinvent whichthemodeofpublic collective poweroftheircitizens.Thatishowpoliticallifeconducted,in associations, political democratic for case the is That reinterpretation. and interpretation to subject are life collective of rules and grounds common the define that principles these but constitutions, of form the in structured principles basic of frameworks around organized are associations Political life. collective organized, unchanging frameworkof a static, is association no political association: political character of the about fact basic and profound more a underlies concern This with. deal to needs public the that societies democratic to threats real then are officials public by misrepresentation or interests special of interference Corruption, strategizing.and complexities all its with politics, party of game competitive the in up caught are they once intentioned first had they reasons right the on act to difficult it find may well-intentioned most the Even morality. of grounds the on acting to obstacles stringent more face may individuals politics, of game the entering When Greece. or Rome ancient in was it than today relevant less no is its influence corrupting and power with concern republican classical the character, moral and virtues the with concern the Unlike power. of company the in be to them want we as virtuous as be not may who individuals by are they as enacted frail, are institutions that is claim this behind sense life. The in public take activepart citizens democratic fail unless to them, arebound know societies aswe that is deliberation public through self-government of view of point the from Misconceived Discourse on Political Obligation’, PoliticalStudies Obligation’, onPolitical Misconceived Discourse On a strong argument regarding the non regardingthe Onastrongargument a priori character of civil authority see Bhiku Pharekh, ‘A seeBhikuPharekh, civilauthority characterof 151 XLI, 236-251(1993): 241-44 XLI,236-251(1993): 254 CEU eTD Collection a ad eorc- rtcl exchanges critical Democracy- and Law 256 255 of virtue a‘modicum’ but only dispositions, civic widespread pre-existing assume simply arguments their that claim not do they useful, be that may of character certain traits authors discuss republican participators. While as active exhibit to need individuals dispositions the and virtue civic on emphasis anachronistic a fairly around built are they that arguments republican approaching when first, at seem may It republican of justification moral general more citizenship. a is lacking is what think I but values, republican to explanations giving normative at are attempts far, there so I analyzed arguments effort intothenormativeworkthatshouldunderlierepublicanproject.Aswesawfrom more put way this in and that, just do to tries chapter This civility? republican to justification moral a give we Can grounded? morally it is or societies particular of systems educational to institutions and the conventions,laws, exclusively contingentmatterleftto conceptualize itan wish republicans various form whichever in participation civic Is question. normative a also but texts, their perusing when seem may sometimes it as question, empirical an just not answer. Itis try to at authorswelooked allthe central questionthat the single,most this is way, a In participation. civic ensure or for account to how project: republican the over looms that question crucial one the raises This interests. special to systems democratic of derailing the against safeguard necessary a theorist republican the to according is, participation Civic rationality of supposition a with virtue of expectation the replaces that theory normative a “(…) words, own his in ground, to endeavors example for Habermas life. public in part taking for have London Univ. of California Press, 1998): 386 1998): CaliforniaPress, London Univ.of chapter.”: 206 inthenext described modicum ofthecivicvirtue given a thesanctionsoflaw, by motivated be adequately Jűrgen Habermas, Habermas, Jűrgen Pettit, Republicanism, A Theory of Freedom andGovernment ofFreedom ATheory Pettit, Republicanism, .” 256 age ht xlrn a eea mrl utfcto fr eulcn civility, republican for justification moral general a exploring that argue I ‘Reply to Symposium Participants, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law’, Habermas on Habermas Law’, of School Cardozo N. Benjamin Participants, Symposium to ‘Reply es Mce Rsned n Ade Aao Bree, o Angeles, Los (Berkeley, Arato Andrew and Rosenfeld Michel eds. , 255 152 , and look instead for reasons that peoplemight reasons that look insteadfor , and : “But I shall assume that citizens in general can ingeneralcan assumethatcitizens : “ButIshall CEU eTD Collection 258 257 be to have then would nature this of requirements Moral deliberations. civic in part take or moral basic more other taxes to pay somelaw, toobey duty some is no but there to kill, duty not a moral principle. Thereis from derivative be to seen usually is obligation Political all. at useful is it whether but arguments, republican to relation in use to concept right the is a as obligation obligation political whether only political not is The question not. course or its run has whether conceptual tool is obligation, political of notion republican a up build to proceed we before consider to need we which from, start to need we objection first The 4.2 Argumentsagainstpoliticalobligation of politicalobligation. think thattobethecase.Then,Iwillproceedbuildupajustificationforrepublicannotion I following why in the explain to try Iwill obligation. of political notion indeed the thought is political of notion obligation. republican a for such as argumentation careful at effort concerted no there is but republican values, for justification general, moral a of possibilitythe explore least at thus and concept this employ casually less or more who Honohan republican Iseult as those such authors are there obligation, political of notion the towards attitude ambivalent it.” about talk seldom communitarians political why explain to communitarian, seems rate, any the at that, saying’; “For without ‘goes authors: that something is communitarian obligation of case the in as author one remarks, as surprising, as is which silence, striking a discussed, we authors republican the by obligation political of notion the of tackling consistent or clear no however, is, There way ofdiscussingthenormativerelevancecontemporaryrepublicanism. useful more a is provide, to able be would obligation political republican of notion a which 105 For Iseult Honohan’s views see herCivicRepublicanism viewssee ForIseultHonohan’s Studies Obligation’, Political Play, andPolitical Fair ‘Membership, RichardDagger, 258 I will argue in this final chapter that the core issue that can unravel republican unravel can that issue core the that chapter final this in argue will I 257 hl Pti, ilr r aems ae t et an best at have Habermas or Miller Pettit, While 153 (London & New York: Routledge: 2002) Routledge: &NewYork: (London , Vol.48, 104-117, 2000: 104-117, , Vol.48, CEU eTD Collection 261 Public Policy 260 of Anarchism 259 anarchist authors. or philosophical skeptical to according not least At justified. be possibly cannot obligation political that seem would it then outside, the from imposed are but choice, own our of not are that acts towards us obligation binds and political masters, own our we be that autonomy requires moral one: if normative a is point the but general, in law the obey do people since perplexing, seem may this Now, normatively. justified be possibly cannot and immoral is authority political that claim authors such agents, moral autonomous are men which to according philosophy moral of assumption fundamental the from Starting agency. moral of quality basic the on based deny strongly Wolff R.P. like anarchists philosophical that something is rule to right moral perversion”. moral “a be would obligation political exist, to were it if that claim some skepticism, this of side extreme the place. the first in obligationsexist whetherpolitical the controversyof they arein as shrouded haggled, particularly are obligation political of notion the surrounding Debates non-voluntary affiliation. a or act voluntary a from principle, moral basic more a from else, something from derived for politicalobligation. justifications providing in overpass to difficult proven has that skepticism liberal basic this is It structures. supra-individual by overruled morally be cannot and lives their to direction give individuals which to according thought of undercurrent liberal classical a radicalize they but Wolff, ‘The Conflict Between Authority and Autonomy’ Authority and Between Wolff, ‘TheConflict on the skeptical side see Raz, ‘The Obligation to Obey: Revision & Tradition’ and on the anarchist side see andontheanarchistside & Tradition’ Revision ObligationtoObey: see Raz,‘The ontheskepticalside Law, Ethics& Journalof NotreDame &Tradition’, toObey:Revision Raz,‘TheObligation seeJoseph InDefense andAutonomy’, Between Authority Wolff,‘TheConflict Paul view seeRobert Forthesceptical 1 (1984): 139-55, 161 139-55, 1(1984): (New York: Harper &Row, c1976) York:Harper (New 260 261 Teie ta sm mn toehlig fie ae the have office) holding (those men some that idea The These views may seem extreme and therefore unserious, andtherefore seemextreme These viewsmay 154 259 In fact, at Infact, CEU eTD Collection 262 that and communities political specific into born are individuals argument, of line this to According consent-based. is obligations political for ground conceivable only the that argues who corner, skeptic’s the from comes republicanism of arguments critical in apparent and obligation political of the notion of by critics voiced of criticism form basic Another common obligation. This autonomy. moral with comply political of republican notion explore a reason to additional an think, I gives us, consideration could that obligation political demanding more of a into look understanding to try to sense the all makes it place, first the in obligation political of notion the defeat to said is invokes Wolff one the as autonomy moral of notion demanding a such If table. debating the at basis equal an on part take to them enabling thus co-citizens, of welfare the to contribute to potentially and debates, such of part when reason public of use make to concern, of issues on deliberations public in part take to obligations political establishing first by law the obey to obligation an of idea the buttress to try to sense make fact in may It objections. such address to equipped better being of promise the least at be. deliberative orcontestatorydemocracy,republicanismasapoliticaltheorycanbeseentohold may outcomes likely the what predicting and on reflecting knowledge, up building information, seeking by the do that to ought also she what but determine choice, individual of freedom only not is required is what that, For actions. one’s for responsibility taking constitute not does it because enough ground not is and It obligation. autonomy political moral safeguard to enough is authorities political the by required action an undertake to choosing even not that proposes he when further much goes Wolff like philosophicalanarchist ahard-core obligationassuch, general political is no even ifthere obey to reasons or obligations political be may there that recognize authors skeptical While See Wolff, “The Conflict Between Authority and Autonomy”: 12-3 andAutonomy”: Authority “TheConflictBetween SeeWolff, 155 262 ih t epai on emphasis its With CEU eTD Collection obligations 265 264 263 political.” matters in ways certain in act to requirement moral “a to refers obligation political understanding, basic most its In address. to need first we that project this to objections specific more still are there obligation, political of notion political of criticisms republican a for justification behind the develop to proceed we before and generally, more obligation assumptions basic the exposed briefly have we that Now Ispoliticalobligationtherightconceptforrepublicanism:consideringobjections 4.3 effectively guideandmoderatethepoliticalpowertowhichwearesubject.” and liberties, and rights basic our specify that standards and principles, ideals, the judgment, andreasoned toaccept astheoutcomeofreflectivethought over thecourseoflifecomefreely may “(…)we on goes he Still, authority. government’s the freely accept to said be cannot we culture, specific a with society specific a to related character formative the and nation-state, a in membership of character non-voluntary the to due that example, for out, points Rawls life. political modern of picture implausible highly draw a would This unit. political that underlies that structure collective the to ties relevant any without lives their lead to happen and state same the of borders the inside born been have to happen that individuals of sets just not are communities political yet, And underestimated. be cannot obligation political of arguments to regards with skepticism of source primary and assumption common this of popularity The “dropped into”. simply is she community political a of scheme cooperative the with identify to able be to not said is individual an consequences: moral wide-reaching has allegedly alone arbitrary fact of notion the with associated intimately very been always “has this for obligation, political bringstomindthenotionof republicanpolitical participationisraisedby authors immediately Press, 2001: 23-4 Press, 2001: A. John Simmons’ most basic explanation of what political obligation is, in Moral Principles andpolitical Principles obligation is,inMoral of whatpolitical explanation mostbasic A.JohnSimmons’ Rawls,PoliticalLiberalism A. John Simmons, Justification and Legitimacy Justification and A. JohnSimmons, (Princeton University Press, 1981): 3 Press,1981): University (Princeton 263 : 222 , Essays on Rights and Obligations, Cambridge University Cambridge onRightsandObligations, , Essays 156 265 h wy h cam o enhanced to claim the way The 264 CEU eTD Collection onto oneself,butexpressesinsteadhisinstrumentalcredo: laws giving by life, public in participation through obtained be only can autonomy individual of kind certain a which to according proposition Rousseauian/Kantian the of instantiation other words,ofrepublicanformsvirtueorgoodcitizenshipcivility.” in support the norms: republican of support the need laws “republican mind: in have they that citizenship good of obligation an it is but interchangeably citizenship’ ‘good and virtue’ 269 268 267 266 in engaged are who participants of perspective the take and subjects legal private of role the from switch citizens enfranchised if only legitimate as preserved be can “Law participation: civic widespread on depends systems democratic of legitimacy very the which to according argument the also but generally, more failures systemic or power in those of corruptibility the by caused failure against systems democratic of workings the safeguard to necessary is participation civic of form some that argument the only not explicit make to therefore bound is and self-government as autonomy of notion the embraces hand, other the on Habermas, liberty”. republican of price the constitutes the eternalvigilancethat have tomaintain “ordinary people society: necessary inademocratic is participation citizen active that idea the on verge all arguments republican Contemporary sense.” minimal fairly “good some a in be citizen” to obligation an like something as of thought been often has and citizenship, Pettit, Republicanism, A Theory of Freedom andGovernment ofFreedom Republicanism,ATheory Pettit, Obligations andPolitical MoralPrinciples Simmons, Pettit, Republicanism, A Theory of Freedom andGovernment ofFreedom ATheory Pettit, Republicanism, andGovernment ofFreedom ATheory Pettit, Republicanism, t idpnet trcin: o bcue reo a a oiie ocpin would conception positive a as freedom suggest, isnothingmoreorlessthantherightofdemocraticparticipation.” because not attractions: independent its is it because because of not as non-domination, is freedom of the enjoyment promoting necessary for that but republic, the to essential be may participation “Democratic 266 eulcn uhr ide apa t ue ‘civic use to appear indeed authors Republican 157 268 : 5 o Pii Pti, hs s o ncsaiy an necessarily not is this Pettit, Philip For : 8 : 280 : 251 267 269 CEU eTD Collection 270 a build to need they Then political. matters in way certain a in act to obligations that: just fact in represent mind, in have may they when duty civic of good form whatever or deliberation common voting, the account into taking contestation, that say to courage normative the have should republicans that argue I considerations. moral other by overruled be may a is obligation this if even agenda, the public the in of setting participate to and account to officials public hold to obligation an requires system democratic functioning a that saying be should they think I but far, too it stretch may That account? to officials public hold people unless viable is state democratic no that say to as far as go to need authors republican Do obligations? of set a to amount civility republican Does obligation? an have also they do but account to democratic officials their hold to right of a having societies members about adamant are authors Republican life. public in participate to opportunities have to need they that, achieve to order In account. to officials public hold to power the have citizens that require systems democratic viable that another, or way one reasonably a be up saying, allend at sofar wehavelooked thattherepublicanarguments accurate thingtosay may It systems. democratic of workings good the over constantly loom societies ofcomplex disagreement characteristic power andthe ofpeoplein The corruptibility societies. are participation justdemocratic necessary toensureagainstthearbitrarinessofgovernmenteveninreasonably civic of forms some that claim pragmatic and modest more follow the to through enough is it think I purposes, our For participation. public robust very requires more autonomy a individual that the idea starting from reasoning through line of unpromising convoluted and us take to have would that think I because argument, latter this on focus common.” in life their for rules the about understanding reaching of process the Habermas, ‘Postscript’ , Between Facts andNorms Between (Polity Press, 1996): 461 Press, 1996): (Polity 158 prima facie prima form of obligation that obligation of form 270 I will not will I CEU eTD Collection 273 272 271 will obligation political to comes it when emphasis republican The democracy. deliberative is compliance “legal that civility.” widespread being by reinforced it or occasioned behind thought the implementation, their and laws the of making the surrounding processes the with but it) of part be to has law to obedience (though law to obedience with concerned particularly not are general, in theories Republican material reasons. for same do the unable to who are assist those to mind, in publicreason with do so matters, to public on deliberate to obligation the more: much and this be would it though, republicans For called upon. when duty do jury to taxes, pay laws, to the obey to the obligation refer to to institutions. state support to or state the of laws the support and obey to unit political a of residents or citizens upon incumbent requirements moral to refer to taken are obligations political understanding, standard but general a In law. the obey to obligation the mean usually they obligation political about talk theorists When approach. up this against taking mind, to come that objections however, immediate There are, it specificallyentails. what possibly show and obligation republican political of the notion for plausible justification designed.” consensually are that laws have to than rather laws, the for selection of environment testing a create to is point “the Also, manner. deliberative critical, a in implemented and reached are they as long as autonomy moral individuals’ on impositions arbitrary not are laws out, points Obligations’, Political Studies Obligations’, Political Gilbert, ‘Reconsidering the “Actual Contract” Theory of Political Obligation’, Ethics ofPolitical Contract” Theory the“Actual Gilbert, ‘Reconsidering ‘Associative Political Obligations’, Ethics Obligations’, ‘Associative Political the country in question”: 236 the countryinquestion”: institutionsof the political (as bestonecan) touphold “obligations asthe politicalobligations 260 whorefersto For a reflection on the meaning of ‘political obligation’ see George Klosko, ‘Fixed Content ofPolitical ‘Fixed Content GeorgeKlosko, see of‘politicalobligation’ onthemeaning Forareflection Pettit, Republicanism, A Theory of Freedom andGovernment ofFreedom ATheory Pettit, Republicanism, andGovernment ofFreedom ATheory Pettit, Republicanism, 273 h rpbia ou i nt nmjrtra o cnesa dmcay bt on but democracy, consensual or majoritarian on not is focus republican The (1998), XLVI, 53-67 or the writings of A. John Simmons, for example forexample A. JohnSimmons, writings of orthe XLVI,53-67 (1998), , Vol.106, No.2 (Jan 1996), 247-273: esp.250; see also Margaret esp.250;seealso 247-273: No.2(Jan1996), , Vol.106, 159 271 Thus, political obligation is normally taken is obligation political Thus, 272 o rpbias a Pti emphatically Pettit as republicans, For : 280 : 247 109 (January 1999): 236- (January 1999): 109 CEU eTD Collection 274 of understanding wider a for argue certainly who however, those, are There premises. skepticism liberal the on built obligation route, political of narrow justification liberal a this of success of taking chances the by surrounding counter, to tries that of reading obligation legalistic political the with line in falls content determinate a have should political obligations that idea The weight. moral have not do they that say to want not would we yet, and have, parents opportunities or qualities relevant the on depending content in variable and indeterminate also are obligations Parental obligation. political republican exploring against argument limited an not it is that but features, way relevant of set the a the to according people in different to applies vary also to may it compared and laws, specific indeterminate obey to obligation be the of interpretation will obligation political republican that case the certainly is It everyone. for thing same the entail obligations these whether nor are, notion, the of no longerentirelyclearwhattheobligations It easily is indeterminacy andvariability creepin. interpretation legalistic stricter, the abandon we once obligation, political isthatwith this moregeneralapproachto Another potentialcriticismthatfollowsupfromthis the obey political institutionsinone’scountrybeyondmerelegalobligations. and support to obligation an as literature is relevant the obligation in political conceptualized of usually notion the since counter-intuitive, not is it obligation, of political talks in focus legalistic usual, the against goes this Though it. for need a is there when decisions government contest to ready be to general, in and way, open and reasoned a in so do to deliberations, public in participator a be to obligation an lines, republican along imply, to taken obligation political of interpretation thicker much a at here looking am I Thus, these. withlegalcompliancebeinganupshotof of lawsandoversightthepost-legislativeprocess, the making in of participation form on some such, but law as obedience to be on therefore not Simmons, “Moral Principles and Political Obligations”, Introduction: 5 Introduction: Political Obligations”, Principlesand Simmons, “Moral 160 274 CEU eTD Collection maybe or participation civic for conditions enabling as virtues discuss rather not we Should it obligation? political of terms in Is citizenship enhanced republican of appropriateness. think to all at appropriate notion’s the of question the from comes objections of set Another legally be cannot it if obligation an enforced. of less no is obligation an think I incoercible. and open-ended indefinite, is second the while content, definite a has and enforceable therefore is character, coercive a has obligation of kind first the because just different be to deemed be not should justifications respective their of force The for. argue to prepared are liberals what way than substantive more some in institutions just support to obligation an there is that say to arguments build can one as just law the obey to obligation general a is there that show or Laws to arguments character. build can One moral reasoning. moral by its up backed on be not may but or may regulations enforceable, being it on rest not an does of obligation relevance the Also, societies. liberal just reasonably of citizens upon incumbent it, calls he as civility’ of ‘duty the or responsibility moral of sense general the of understanding his exhaust not does law the obeying that however, clear, is It deliberation. of understanding formal limited, the to sticks Rawls chapter, previous the in out pointed as end, the in though even widely, more citizenry the of part the on involvement civic some require would tasks 276 275 institutions. democratic just reasonably reform and support promote, to them expects also He cooperation. of terms fair by abide and to agree to able being as citizens reasonable of speaking only not is example, for Rawls scope. broader a has beyond realm public the law. the obeying in responsibilities moral our includes that obligation political 41 (2):236-51 Political Studies, onPoliticalObligation’, ‘AMisconceivedDiscourse 1993, obligations, legal, civilandpolitical altogether, ofobligations threetypes who arguesfordifferentiating see alsoBhikuParekh, 2006:439; 427-443, John Rawls, Political Liberalism JohnRawls,Political Studies Political PartOne’, Obligations: ofAssociative Political ‘InDefence onthispointseeHorton, 275 And this, I think, should not be surprising, since liberal political morality political liberal since surprising, be not should think, I this, And : 204 161 276 rsmby tee difficult these Presumably, , vol 54, , vol54, CEU eTD Collection 277 of approvalanddisapproval onoffer.” pattern the by reinforcement from benefit may motivation their and virtuous, permanently or wholly are few spontaneously, norms the to conform people virtuous while (…) “ character: consistently of availability of of personaltraits onadiscussion the day end of ready embark, atthe and donot virtuous citizens, the regarding skepticism basic the liberals with share republicans I think arena, public the in agents moral acting as citizens of possibility the about optimistic more are they though Even space. public the in thing’ right the ‘do consistently to andenableher person’soutlook would definethe of characterthat entrenched personaltrait deeply a as life public in participating people of idea the treating virtue entail of would That view ethics. of point the from virtue civic discuss to effort an writings republicans’ in see Greece. Idonot ancient Romeor common with littlein societies, whichhavevery democratic contemporary for unfeasible not are they that anachronistic, not are theories such that insistence their vindicate it does nor theories, republican of claims normative or political the of breadth the match to appear not does citizens, active be to wanting for motivations and reasons their have they that character or of traits by personal action civic to are prompted individuals that Saying completeness. or clarity normative of lack is which of one criticisms, usual against way clearer a in it test to try and argument republican the sharpen could we political obligation notion of arepublican by tryingtoclarify isthat My foundationalintuition when takingpartinpubliclife. have may individuals that motivations and reasons various the of consideration limited a or ethics virtue from arguments as such arguments, of types ‘political other using than of rather obligation’ scale the on arguments republican weighing for reasons main my following the in sketch will I life? public in involved getting for have may individuals that reasons just Pettit,Republicanism : 244 277 162 CEU eTD Collection behavior, nor would he discuss the importance of identification with certain groups as a way a as groups civic certain with identification of foster importance the discuss that he would nor behavior, processes social law, of legitimacy the ensure to ways not length would at He discuss practices. citizenship good engender to how us show to trying time much so spending be not would example for Pettit Philip then theories, republican these of some of in framework conceptual real take the were that ethics to virtue were it if citizens fact, In contexts. political for action of courses right circumscribe arguments republican Thus, the membersorcitizensofanation-state. usually constituency, wide a to apply can that action for reasons identifying with is concerned which theory, political of point vantage the from but ethics, virtue of view of point the from arguments their in virtue’ ‘civic use not do authors Republican virtue’. of ‘modicum a democratic liberal existing only but account forwidespreadparticipation, the necessaryvirtuesthatcould of systems exhibit citizens that think not do they Also, virtue. of theories up clearthattheseauthorsdonotembark intheirworkonbuilding deliberations. Butitisequally tolerance, society civil of of practice the in necessary as virtues inquisitiveness open-mindedness, reasonableness, the as such character individual of traits various invoke matter that contemporary have to authors for liberal or some republican authors that no mistaking There is claims normative relevance. that theory political in ideas of family a on in light appropriate shedding is character of traits of terms in arguments republican of discussion a that think not do certainly I discuss, I that behavior civic republican of kind the for shorthand a as thesis the throughout virtue civic term the use do I While participate? to decide they when virtues by prompted are they that or citizens active be to reasons have people that say simply as can we understood when obligations political of loosely terms in matters, public participation, on deliberation in involvement civic republican of conceive we should why Still, 163 CEU eTD Collection 278 inclinations individual of irrespective discharged be should obligations Third, society. republican of character communitarian the with concern republicanism’s for better accounting thus polity, the within something or someone to owed are obligations political while self, ‘good the and of person the practice with concerned the mainly is thing: theory virtue Second, same citizenship’. the mean to obligation political and virtue civic use do republicans ahead, some see will as we First, categories. several falls into thus citizenship’ ‘good republican grounding in pertinence its and virtue of notion the of use the with quarrel My mind. to come naturally obligation and authority political of notions the nation-state, the and citizens between relationship the about something us telling in interested are authors republican Since sphere. public the to pertains which polity, the within something to or else someone to owed is something that implies which obligation, of notion the welcomes way certain a in act should citizens as individuals that idea the persons, as individuals to refers that notion a is virtue while Also, virtue. of arguments with with home than obligation, at of more arguments are action of in requirements act The sphere. to public the requirements in ways moral particular face citizens that indicate however, authors, Republican and dispositions to sensibilities. refers it business; voluntary and solitary a is Virtue civility. foster to certain ways. in acting in have may citizens qua individuals reasons explore to want while authors individual, republican the in embedded dispositions are virtues between Finally, and state. citizens the among and relationship citizens the with but act, the out carrying agent the of qualities the with or participating, of act the of nature the with not is argument the of weight Themoral platformrepresent amorestableexplanatory fortherepublicanidealofcitizenship. on this point see Simmons, ‘Moral Principles and Political Obligations’: 7 andPoliticalObligations’: Principles ‘Moral on thispointseeSimmons, 164 278 ad thus and , CEU eTD Collection 280 279 institutional orlegaldesignarehelplessintheface ofalackwidespreadcivility: that out pointing also however, is, Pettit statement, anti-foundational adamant, his Despite foundational matters”: or metaphysical “more calls he what with than virtue, civic engendering of his that mechanisms social thinks and design institutional of issues with placed better he are efforts republican because obligation political discussing from away shies Pettit Philip political about say to have interest of obligation inordertogainabetterunderstandingofthis. authors our what point this at survey to helpful be might It life? public in part active take should citizens that assertion their of nature the other words thattheyhavepoliticalobligations?Ifdonotwanttomakethisclaim,thenwhatis in or citizens active be to required morally are citizens that say to want not authors republican Do way. that in act to required morally is not she does that way however, certain entail, necessarily a in act to motivated is or act to reason a has someone that Saying life. public in participate to reasons have individuals saying that to ourselves limit just should we to that however, argued, platform further be could a It make. authors as republican claims the us understand for suited more seems obligation’ ‘political reasons, broad these For Pettit, Republicanism Pettit, Republicanism as r btrse b sial nrs ol we lgl opine s caind or occasioned is compliance legal reinforced bywidespreadcivility.” when only norms, suitable by buttressed are laws the when only prospect, a as out hold laws such which non-domination as freedom the enjoy reliably will people and then, compliance, attract reliably will laws “Republican they haveonmundaneissuesofinstitutionaldesign.” obligation,than of political the basis or of justice, the nature or of consent, the meaning on reflecting time their of more spend to preferred have They matters. foundational or metaphysical more of favour in questions such neglected long have theorists “Political : 247 : 240 280 165 279 CEU eTD Collection 284 283 282 281 obligation. political of question the authority, traditionally raises turn, in which of notion the on emphasis the denotes laws of legitimacy the on emphasis The Pettit insiststhat Philip virtue, civic enhance to mechanisms legislative and social institutional, of mix wide legitimacy. political for condition necessary a is that democracy deliberative implies also Pettit point, this on explicit more rather contestatory is of Habermas forum While a democracy. be should state the hand, other the On promote. to designed are laws that good common the as represented be should non-domination as freedom of ideal the hand, one the On two-fold. is that do to way The law. of legitimacy the ensure to is Pettit, to according bring aboutcivility, statecantaketo important measuresthatthe Amongst themost associative notionofpoliticalobligation,whichderivesfromnationalidentity: an explicitly endorses actually citizenship, of form republican a supports who Miller, David achieve justthat. could obligation political republican of notion A civility. for justification moral the as such issues foundational neglect cannot he theory, institutional efforts in his investing in interested ‘Justification and Legitimacy’, Ethics 109, 739-771 (July 1999):746 739-771 (July Ethics109, Legitimacy’, ‘Justification and 2000: 70 2000: Mle,OnNationality Miller, On an argument for the correlativity of state legitimacy and political obligation see A. John Simmons, A. JohnSimmons, obligationsee andpolitical ofstatelegitimacy forthecorrelativity On anargument Pettit, Republicanism Pettit, Republicanism as n h pbi mn; n ti i cn et o y en a efcie contestatory effective, an being by do best can it democracy.” this and mind; public the in laws its of legitimacy republican the establish to is success widespread own the its for encouraging needs it of that way civility by do to state the for thing important most “The are somewhatindeterminateandlikelytobethe subject ofpoliticaldebate;” obligations these time, same the at But (…). far very extend may and felt strongly are obligations its that means identity personal of source a as nationality of potency “The 282 : 280 : 252-3 , Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995 or Citizenship and NationalIdentity orCitizenship and 1995 ClarendonPress, , Oxford: 166 283 Even if Pettit is more is Pettit if Even 281 Despite using a using Despite . Polity Press, . Polity 284 CEU eTD Collection content are an artifact of the public culture of that nation.” that of culture public the of particular artifact an are their content in obligations these are, A nation of members the of obligations the what roughly say to possible be may it time any at although “So, deliberation: rational of product the be to taken culture public shared a from particularly but tradition, from only not stem the specificnation-state,thoughthey contingent on envisions aresomewhatindeterminateand Miller that obligations The law. the obey to obligation simple the as obligation political of 287 286 285 culture.” political liberal a of associations freedom throughlaw;itisregeneratedfromtraditionsandpreservedinthe cannot becompelledsimply of institutions democratic “(…) population a of initiatives the without that disintegrate however, thinks, Habermas duty. and into community of bring moralistic views slide towards not one should or that morality issues of not politics should one that be may concern His implies. obligation political that kind requirements ofthe reason aremoral public useof public debatesorthe active participationin that say to reluctant be to seems self-government, of form a as democracy deliberative or discursive for pitch his in elements republican and liberal combines who Habermas, Finally, democratic societies. just reasonably in citizen of role the of commonalities the on light more cast way this in and specificities national beyond obligations political republican for argue could we generality, it.” that flowfrom obligations the rightsand about ask to come we when amorphous strangely “is nationality community: political certain a in time, certain a at dominant debate political the and culture public the to according vary and indeterminate are identities shared from flow that obligations these that out points He s n agmnaie tp ute ta Hbra sol mk. e il o sy ht civic that say not will He make. should Habermas that further step argumentative one is Habermas, Between Facts and Norms Factsand Habermas, Between Miller, OnNationality David Miller,OnNationality : 69 : 68 , Polity Press:130-1 , Polity 287 285 167 I think it becomes apparent, however, that there that however, apparent, becomes it think I He thus clearly goes beyond a legalistic notion beyond a clearlygoes Hethus accustomed 286 I think that at a higher level of level higher a at that think I to freedom. Their spontaneity Their freedom. to CEU eTD Collection citizenship and republican liberalism citizenship and 290 289 288 out that Mason. Andrew or Dagger Richard Honohan, as Iseult such interchangeably, obligation political and virtue civic use and obligation, for political argument explicit an make who authors republican those are there Also, justification. analytical and comprehensive more a provide but reasoning, his parallel extent some to will we which argument, Mason’s Andrew here our justification and promising, the most be to territory. chapter, appears previous a in highlighted virgin on not certainly are we claim republican the on light shed could obligation political republican of notion a that arguing In us whyindeedsuchcivicbehaviourismorallyrequired. would show that obligations effort republican political for justification building a into put more be should therefore, And it. on rests democracy of faith the indeed if required, morally be to perceived be however, should, and can It enforceable. legally be not should systems democratic of functioning good the for essential so finds Habermas that behaviour civic The liberal principles,andyethemaintainsthat basic violate would that because enforceable legally are communication and participation Obligations to Compatriots.” Ethics Obligations toCompatriots.” emphasis intheoriginal Honohan, Iseult. Civic Republicanism Honohan,Iseult.Civic Between Factsand Norms Identity’, andNational Appendix II,‘Citizenship Habermas, Sphere’:13 inthePublic Habermas, ‘Religion another reasons hrd rcie o dmcai oiin n wl frain hri they wherein formation will the and in opinion participants legally equal democratic be and of cannot free practices which as shared solidarity, themselves civic perceive not a do of citizens bond enforced, uniting the of absence the “In active self-determinationmakesofthem.” population worth that constitutionallyprotectedinstitutionsoffreedomare us reminds citizenship of model republican The good. common the towards oriented citizenry consonant backgroundoflegallynoncoerciblemotivesandattitudesa the on depends citizen of status constituted legally the “Thus accustomed fortheirpoliticalstatementsandattitudes.” , 107, no. 3, Apr. 1997: 427-447; Dagger, Richard. Civic virtues, rights, Civic virtues,rights, Dagger,Richard. Apr. 1997:427-447; no.3, , 107, . New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press,1997 Oxford University Oxford: . NewYork, o oiia fedm n stld n h w’ esetv of perspective ‘we’ the in settled and freedom political to , London & New York: Routledge, 2002; Mason, Andrew. “Special Mason,Andrew. Routledge,2002; &NewYork: , London 168 289 290 Thus, Honohan, for example, points example, for Honohan, Thus, 288 supportive spirit supportive , Polity Press: 499, Press:499, , Polity only only what w one owe of a of a CEU eTD Collection 292 291 a at however, with is, He society. civil of settings deliberative is endowed participating by self-government citizens of associations of form a collectively exercise who and of reasons’ other each ‘owe who power, communicative that is communities of understanding political His democratic argument. republican a defending in promising most deliberation conformist a J found We citizenship, society. political republican of theory Miller’s of case a the case in Pettit’s and in polity divisive be, easily could was strategies which motivational such plausible, of were results the deliberations disputable, and contestation in participating for reasons the that convinced be to were we if even cases, both in that found We concern. common of matters on deliberations in participation citizens’ for springboard motivation solid a represent taken to identity is National belonging. community of their national recognize with to are said individuals that identity personal of sense the on relies squarely it that in straightforward is strategy Miller’s David promote. and defend to whose want may and embraces individual causes the understood generically group ascriptive of form some to individuals of affiliation informal the by generated be can contestation for resources motivational the Pettit, Philip For understood. broadly more politics, in involved get to have may citizens that reasons with up coming by participation civic enhanced for call their justify to tried all have virtue’ ‘civic civility.” widespread by reinforced or occasioned is compliance legal when only norms, by suitable buttressed are laws the when only (…) compliance attract reliably will laws “republican that insist authors Republican Anoutlineofassociativeobligations 4.4 Honohan, Iseult. Civic Republicanism Honohan,Iseult.Civic Pettit, Republicanism citizens ratherthantoany central authority.” authority to public active more simply mean to not does self-restraint It resistance. to passive even and more service from forms, various takes virtue “civic than in a liberal system. It should be noted that it is an obligation between an obligation is it noted that be should It system. a liberal in than : 247 űrgen Habermas’ űrgen , London & New York: Routledge, 2002: 166 Routledge,2002: &NewYork: , London 292 eulcn uhr epnig n hi srtge for strategies their on expanding authors Republican 169 theory of democratic self-government through self-government democratic of theory 291 obedience or deference or obedience CEU eTD Collection 293 than tothosewhomwe arenotconnectedatall. more relationship relevant some via connected are we whom to people of categories these our from absent is we oweto think that us thus Mostof other countries. citizens of that or interactions withstrangers, way relevant some in identification that and on friends act families, and our countrymen with identify us of Most morality. commonsense or intuitions immediate our with line in most be to seems account obligations associative an that is outset the note from The thingto position. role or ofa the fulfillment attached to is or which a group in membership relevant the on based is that obligation an obligation, associative of form a be thus manner, would republican thicker, the in understood citizen’ good ‘a be to obligation An political of outline obligation thatweshouldlookintowhendevelopingarepublicanunderstanding. associative an is it and analyzed we theories three the of denominator not though relationship. voluntary special, necessarily a on based are requirements where class the to belong to likely most obligation is political of republican justification Instead, a duty account). natural required (the is that act the of nature very the of because humans all on moral incumbent are which requirements of that in nor act, voluntary some by generated was that requirement a of class the in neither fall to likely is theory republican a there, out theories obligation political the of range of overview good pretty a us give that requirements moral of classes three the of Out dependent onthecivicinvolvementofcitizensforitsstrengthandendurance. is democracy that remains authors these of claim republican central, the yet, And institutions. democratic upholding for necessary so the be to in sees society, he that civil deliberations formal in and informal involved get should people why us telling to comes it when loss Cambridge University Press, 2001: 45 Press,2001: Cambridge University On this typology see A. John Simmons, Justification and Legitimacy Justificationand A. JohnSimmons, On thistypologysee 293 A distinct sense of political association is one common one is association political of sense distinct A 170 , Essays on Rights and Obligations, andObligations, onRights , Essays CEU eTD Collection 298 297 296 295 294 simply can people that is criticism The appear. first might it as criticism particular one to open as not is it condition, further necessary, a is polity the with identification that adding then and membership, mere from flow obligations that saying first by steps, two constructed in is obligations associative from argument Because the ground forpoliticalobligations. membership oroccupancy ofaroleasthe membership mere of top on conditions necessary as add also account obligations associative an of proponents other terms, explicit that state.” generating obligationsto grounds for serveas formal membershipcannot his he despises, a state in citizenship birth, acquires, by “If someone argument, this version of explicit the in it, puts Tamir Yael As perspective. ground associative to an enough from obligation not political is membership not mere do others, as who explicitly theorists as quite those it for acknowledge even mere However, from community. flow political to role a taken in is certain membership obligation by political simply, characterized more are it put which To lives, specifications. every-day their in roles institutional duties certain by characterized certain roles fulfill which they practice within a social by groups defined part of are they because obligations incur people account, obligation role general the to According does obligations political certain have they think they that fact mere the thus and obligations, acceptability polity Obligation’ see M. Hardimon, RoleObligations seeM.Hardimon, Obligation Political seeJohnHorton, LiberalNationalism YaelTamir, See M. Hardimon, RoleObligations See M.Hardimon, Empire Law’s See RonaldDworkin, n rcgiin f h olgtos y individuals by obligations the of recognition and , in Political Studies f oe obligations. role of 294 r acrig o mr idvdaie account individualized more a to according or, , 2000, vol.4:109 , 2000, : 135, quoted in Richard Dagger, ‘Membership, Fair-Play andPolitical ‘Membership, Fair-Play Dagger, quotedinRichard : 135, , The JournalofPhilosophy , The , The JournalofPhilosophy , The , FontanaPress,1986 , Humanities Press Intern., 1992: 154 1992: PressIntern., , Humanities 298 hs atos hwvr ly h epai o mere on emphasis the lay however, authors, These mr o ls cncos dniiain ih one’s with identification conscious less or more a 171 , vol xcl no.7, July1994 , volxclno.7, , vol xcl no.7, July1994 , volxclno.7, misidentify 297 r the or r e rn aot their about wrong be or 295 rnil o reflective of principle bcue hy fulfill they because , 296 Inless CEU eTD Collection 300 justification. normative ongoing an 299 to subject are which and principles, moral general to similar principles by also but rules, conventional by only not characterized is community the that Miller like maintain, does He obligations. political justify we when practice social from start should we that argues and morality, general on grounded be should theory political that not think asMiller, Dworkindoes an anti-voluntarist, acquiredobligationaccount.Just This is other membersofthepoliticalcommunity. the of well-being the for concern equal an personalize they Also, institutions). to not persons, to owed are (they personal are they and non-members, to not and members to owed are they that in special, are obligations that fact the reciprocity, further like fulfilled be requirements normative to need There practices. social existing grounding its of as virtue in considered just be obligation political can community’ ‘bare or political community thicker any ground Not which obligations. ties, special share state particular a of Citizens practice. a social pertaining tothepoliticalcommunityoneismemberof,andwhichcharacterizedby norms and rules existing of expression an as justified be can obligation political that argues who Dworkin Ronald with identified prominently most is theory obligations associative The moral importance. higher or equal of be might that else anything overshadow to seem identity and socialization of contexts where theory communitarian a to close too republicanism though bring would identification on based argument An belonging. of polity one’s with identification on only rest to were argument the if would it as force much as with apply not does criticism above such, the as from membership obligations flow that also stipulate obligations from associative normatively. them ground really not for this criticism, see for example Richard Dagger, Membership, Fair Play, andPolitical Obligation FairPlay, Membership, Dagger, seeforexample Richard forthiscriticism, e wri,Law’sEmpire see Dworkin, , Fontana Press, 1986 FontanaPress, , 299 Because some of the main supporters of the argument the of supporters main the of some Because 300 172 : 109 CEU eTD Collection have in mind but one who is a member of a reasonably just democratic society. Republican society. democratic just reasonably a of member a is who one but mind in have we that citizen of kind of any not is way this that by add then could much We requirements. moral saying justifying not is itself by citizen of role the invoking since feasible sound not does That invoke? usually republicans ones the as participation civic of obligations thick of think then we Can obligations. ground beingattachedtotheroleofcitizenandcouldthey obligations ofcitizenshipassimply political republican ground maybe could role that For usitwouldbemorepromisingtolookattheroleofcitizen,andhowanexplanation should startourargumentfrom. we association of type relevant morally of kind the is community democratic just reasonably does, Dworkin than a that other words, in I think, law. association to than obedience more justify try to to we are especially if of character the into stock normative more put to need we that however, think, I the obligations. those grounding of in important character crucially is relevant community morally The of obligations. kind political any ground in can membership that mere community not is it on: obligation political of notion republican our build to point important an is This obligations. political grounding in associations the of associations relevantcharacter morally valuableand bythe practices isbuttressed certainsocial existing defined by in membership Instead, obligation. the for basis the not is of part is she community the with identification individual’s an argument, obligation associative the of versions communitarian straightforwardly more other, the unlike However, relevant practices. the social of stifling reinterpretation civic towards for space obligations enough create justify not do well which can communities, it that charge the specifically criticisms, similar to open is obligation political for strategy this think I community, that of value the recognize we as long as community, the govern to happen that rules conventional the follow to bound are we community, the of members as that insists theory the because Nevertheless, 173 CEU eTD Collection and obligationsdefinethestatusofmembers. view community, political a a in membership in inherent are obligations political which from according to starts Horton community. political the with associated obligations the political recognizing implicitly is she that way a such in community political the to pertaining rules and norms of practice political a in being engulfed avoid cannot one absent, are feelings these when even goes, argument the As actions. government’s one’s shame, at pride guilt, or disapproval of feelings example for as it, with associated attitudes and feelings the and political by bound fact in life political of the unavoidability because of it, explicitly refuse might are if they obligation even individuals most that claims effect in that theory a is His obligations. about brings that identification unreflective not is it that claims He another. one to have might citizens that those with another one to have members family that obligations of JohnHorton, whobuildshisargumentaroundtheanalogy republican viewisthatproposedby with a first look which resonatesat associativelines, obligationalong One accountofpolitical republican lines? along obligations political ground can association of kind any that say maybe not we Could though? necessary obligations republican ground can that association of kind oftherelevant generated. Issuchademandingnormativedescription for roleobligationstobe order in condition background a as functions society democratic liberal a of association the in embodied value or justice the to appeal An society. democratic liberal a in citizen a of role political of justification the is This question. role-based in role the of character valuable modest the on clearly rests that one more obligation, a admittedly is this Thus, societies. democratic just reasonably to limited only is application its that recognize thus should theory 174 CEU eTD Collection 304 303 302 301 stability. and security maintenance of the to mostly related are to bound be to seen be could he obligations the and unclear remains role member’s The stability? and order security, on: authority its base to said is association the values the very undermine to seen be a challenge such would not association, but political the and of structures existing authority the challenge to to free are claims members that the claims Horton obligation? however, out, cancel association political the of members all or some against perpetrated injustice grave of instances Do have. may individuals concern any other beyond and ranked above be to appears for security concern primary problems. The conflict-related coordination and to solution a association as political the of the understanding political the reform to so. do to fit see they should organization seeking their of values or structure from association political the of members the preclude argument’. ‘Hobessian this to according obligation, political ground to enough valuable is association political a stability, and security order, achieving By entails. community political a that security’ and order of good generic community. political of type any to to apply construed is but communities, political democratic liberal to limited not is ours unlike obligation, political of account Horton’s that fact the with do to have may lack This such. as citizen of role the of explanation robust more a is argument this in lacking find I What person. the of conception complex more a with now theory works political given that and War), Civil English the of background the on writing was (he orders political of stability basic the with Hobessian concerns of time the long past have we given that unjustified, I think association is 19, 2; I would like to thank David Miller for pointing out these articles to me. articles to outthese Millerforpointing Iwould thankDavid 19, 2; liketo Horton, ‘In Defence of Associative Political Obligations: Part Two’: 14 Part PoliticalObligations: ofAssociative Horton,‘InDefence Two’: 9 Part PoliticalObligations: ofAssociative Horton,‘InDefence Two’: 8 Part PoliticalObligations: ofAssociative Horton,‘InDefence Studies Political PartTwo’, Obligations: Associative Political ‘InDefenceof JohnHorton, 304 Such a limited understanding of the value of political political value of the understanding of limited a Such 302 301 otn lo lis ht hs ruet os not does argument this that claims also Horton 175 Political obligation is seen to derive form ‘the form derive to seen is obligation Political 303 The argument rests on rests argument The : 2007 Vol55,1- : 2007 CEU eTD Collection disadvantages that characterize different individuals, it is in their role as citizens of reasonably disadvantages thatcharacterize differentindividuals,itisintheirroleas citizens ofreasonably or endowments different Despite equality. moral inherent of that is role that of feature main The holds. society a of such citizen a role a valuable the and society democratic reasonably just of character valuable the of view of point the from sense makes life public and politics of course the on checking into effort civic more investing that argue to on go I Then, voting. when decisions correct the make to able be to as so agents, their as information of kind same the to access have not may the citizens ordinary to which subject to according is problem’ power ‘principle-agent in are who those over accountability of channel sole a as voting given that go wrong can safeguards,politics system. Despiteinstitutional over anydemocratic thedangerofcorruption andarbitrarinessthatlooms in safeguardingdemocraticinstitutionsis necessary is participation civic why explains that condition background the that argue I First, argument. the of installment final this in make I steps the over go briefly I will following, the In obligation. political republican for justification the up build to need we Now perspective. republican a from obligations political for conceive could we justification of type general the be would what and tool conceptual useful a is obligation political why into looked have we now Until chapter. final our of pillar structural second the of area the entered now have We Republicanpoliticalobligationasaroleobligation:justification 4.5 obligation: acommunitarianone. political of notion different a grant would think, I which identification on based obligations associative to approach conservative more a to them contrast and obligations role separate to try to useful is it think I justification, of line associative general a of part are obligations role that case the indeed is it though and literature, relevant the in synonyms as taken generally slightly are to These two account. obligations associative the from account role obligation useful differentiate a be may It in obligations. take political can republican we for route argument hopeful an most developing the is obligation role a that suggested have I far So 176 CEU eTD Collection it, andthatthesemotivationsmaycomeintoconflict. put would Rawls as ‘reasonable’ and ‘rational’ both are they that reasons, public and private both by motivated are individuals that is general in theory political of much motion into sets political that concern of central The security. stability of concerns Hobbesian basic long-term more much unlike the structures with concern republican traditional a to voice gives empirical andmoral the case?Theclaimis Whyshouldthatbe our backgroundcondition. as serves that and over, watched not is it if point some at fail to bound is systems democratic of best the even that is authors republican of concern core classical The obligations? political trigger can that society democratic just reasonably a in citizen of role the about it is what So reasonably justdemocraticsocietiesanddefinestheirroleascitizens. particular of members the among shared is obligation or responsibility political of sense This of. part is she community political the for responsibility of sense a is which of part motives, of mix by a but interest by strict-self not driven is she being, human a as Also, that. course of the in justifications provide and to policies of public justification in lapses react to required to morally also is she but institutions, just and only law by abide to not and others harm political to not is obligated individual the an society, democratic of just reasonably character a of non-arbitrary citizen As justificatory, association. the of upholding collective the responsible for is and the association members of the other to owes reasons’ community ‘who a of citizen of role the in member ofajustificatory a societyis entailed Thecitizenofsuch reasonably justdemocraticsociety. civic morally is Enhanced but equality. sense, makes moral only their not participation manifest persons that societies democratic just from the republican perspective the primary political problem is problem political primary the perspective republican the from citizens, other with share they those as well as interests private have humans “Since injections of energy to sustain them. People will always tend to be torn between their continuous between torn be to tend require always will People them. and sustain to energy of injections fragile are solutions political All broadly. quite understood 177 corruption . This is This . CEU eTD Collection 307 306 305 problem. ‘principle-agent’ the as literature the in to referred usually is what with dealing in imperfect are, however, devices institutional These institution. one inside corruption checks-and- of occurrence the minimize as can that government mixed such a and balances devices institutional promote to course of is corruption of problem the to answer republican classical One view. of points and interests group’s some represent properly to fail sometimes community, single political a in exist that world-views diversity of constituency. their of interests best the serve not may sometimes that action strategic up take therefore and power to stay in in acompetition arecaughtup of easygainorthey corruptible attheprospect downward are officials public Some ways. two in representation that with officials public entrusted who have of those interests the can misrepresent systems Representative democratic esnbyjs dmcai scey Odnr ctzn cn e ory nomd eas they because informed poorly be can citizens Ordinary society. democratic just reasonably any afflicts that danger a is corruptibility rather or corruption that argued have we far, So asymmetry, information elections shouldthennotbetheonlychannelofaccountability. the of Because decisions. right the make to means the lack may they asymmetry, information the of because but elections, regular to recourse have citizens orordinary information onpoliticalmatters.Inkeepingitsagentsaccountable,the‘principles’ officials haveinside informed, whilepublic arenotverywell commonly assumedthatcitizens is It process. political the regarding information of kinds different to access have citizens Honohan and Jeremy Jennings, Republicanism in Theory andPractice inTheory Republicanism Jennings, Honohan andJeremy Iseult tradition’, andthe republican trust,democracy Vázquez, ‘Political Herreros republicanism, Francisco over the state.” see János Kis, Politics as a Moral Problem PoliticsasaMoral Kis, over thestate.”seeJános for thecontrol struggle true,andpoliticsasanongoing to come overthestate requirecontrol collective aimsthat 14 for an insightful discussion of the “two faces of politics: politics as the identification and realization of realization identificationand politics: politicsasthe the“twofacesof discussionof foraninsightful Civic Republicanism IseultHonohan, see on this point and on a more general discussion of the principle-agent problem with regards to withregards problem oftheprinciple-agent generaldiscussion andonamore see onthispoint private interests and the common good. Institutions too will tend to drift from their from drift original purposes.” to tend will too Institutions good. common the and interests private 306 Also public officials get caught up in complex party machineries or given the or party machineries complex in up get caught officials public Also 305 : 5-6 178 (Budapest: Central European University Press, 2008): Press,2008): University CentralEuropean (Budapest: (Routledge, 2006), 97-108: 101 97-108: (Routledge,2006), 307 Representatives and ordinary and Representatives CEU eTD Collection 308 institutions.” just under acquired kind appropriate the of motivation sufficient by secured is Stability time. over justice another one give to as so willingly act “citizens society: just a of rules the with compliance mere of matter a simply basic the not is stability in political him For system. political embodied unstable an to lead may society justice of structure of principles the and good in the steeped of view, notions of comprehensive points individual between convergence of lack a that work later his in worried is example for Rawls theories. normative their in envisage they systems political democratic the of endurance the about worry who equality. theorists political of range broad a moral There is of quality inherent its and society democratic just reasonably a in citizen the of role the is obligation the of ground actual The valuable. is democracy just reasonably a in a citizen of therole and why about how be said needs to trouble. More worth the polity is democratic just reasonably a that argument: this in assumption big one however, is, There between relation the characterize ordinary citizensandtheirrepresentativesinoffice. to said is that accountability of sense diminished this to solutions republican the are vigilance civic and Contestation required. morally context this in be may decision-making political of agenda the set that debate public of forums diffused the in involved getting and elections, after and before matters, political about informed well be to Trying action. of courses desired initial, from stray that a or interests reflect of balance not proper do that policies endorse can representatives well-intentioned most the even but that, only Not office. for agents right the determining in insufficient be simply may such as elections conditions, these Under their agents. about information access to special that lack od ht rv lbrl hoit lk Rws r eulcn uhr t ty o oe p with up come to try to authors republican or Rawls like theorists liberal drive that good common the for concern a by motivated also are but self-interest, by motivated solely not ‘John Rawls and the Search for Stability’,Ethics the Searchfor ‘John Rawlsand John Rawls, Political liberalism JohnRawls,Political (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993): 142-3, quoted in Brian Barry, inBrianBarry, 142-3,quoted Press,1993): York:ColumbiaUniversity (New 105, July 1995, 874-915:882-3 July1995, 105, 179 308 It is the basic idea that individuals are individuals that idea basic the is It CEU eTD Collection 314 313 Affairs 312 311 310 309 be.” to want much very they person of kind the express they which by referenceto aims cherished basic most citizens’ among justice may be political attitudes. such support to ethos individual the an of in absence possible be not would citizens equal among fraternity and respect mutual displays structure. basic the to pertaining as justice of notion Rawls’ to complement necessary a as justice of ethos individual an emphasize to propose who revisionists liberal those are there Thus, justice. of understanding institutional mere a beyond step may that action for reasons individuals’ with normative concern of justiceindicate,thereishoweverawider,anditseemstome,unrealized principles convergence andthe betweenprivatemotivations concern withthe societies andhis society. of structure basic the outside conduct individual not but institutions, governing theory, liberal Rawlsian classical the in justice of principles the with institutions, and individuals between interests. private towards orientation an of that than lower is good common the towards orientation an of strength the self-centered.” the of society a nor saints of society a neither is society reasonable “This hold: may individual an that motivations public and private the both for ways appropriate in account that justifications normative revised atcptr o dlbrtv fr o itrcin ewe ctzn i Rwss itr of picture Rawls’s in citizens between interaction of form deliberative or participatory more a of endorsement no is there Also, work. Rawls’ in discern to difficult remains system liberal just a of stability the for individuals on incumbent requirements moral the regarding Titelbaum, ‘What Would a Rawlsian Ethos of Justice Look Like?’: 299 Look Like?’: EthosofJustice ‘WhatWouldaRawlsian Titelbaum, 321-355 (Autumn 2003): 325; I would like to thank János Kis for drawing my attentiontothisdebate. fordrawing would thankJános Kis liketo 325; I (Autumn2003): 321-355 Fort these arguments, see G.A. Cohen, Rescuing Justice and Equality Justiceand Cohen, Rescuing seeG.A. Fortthesearguments, Philosophy &Public Look Like?’, EthosofJustice Would aRawlsian ‘What SeeMichaelG.Titelbaum, andPublicAffairs Philosophy Equality’, andtheValueof ‘BasicStructure SeeA.J.Julius, Moral Problem Kis,Politicsasa discussionJános Seeforabroader Liberalism JohnRawls,Political Rawls, PoliticalLiberalism 36, no.3: 289-322 289-322 36,no.3: 311 s al’ eouig n Pltcl ieaim o te oin f tblt o just of stability of notion the on Liberalism’ ‘Political in refocusing Rawls’ As 312 The argument for that is that the kind of society Rawls envisions, which envisions, Rawls society of kind the that is that for argument The : 202 310 Contemporary liberals mostly rely on ‘a moral division of labor’ of division moral ‘a on rely mostly liberals Contemporary : 54 309 180 The general liberal thought, however, is that is however, thought, liberal general The 313 314 (Harvard University Press, 2008) and 2008) University Press, (Harvard Rawls suggests that “the end of end “the that suggests Rawls The importance of these claims these of importance The , Vol.31, No.4, , Vol.31, CEU eTD Collection 315 cooperation. of societies’ ‘reasonable words Rawls’ in be, to understood communities political to value attach stripes all of thinkers political liberal contemporary since of, part are we communities political the of value and nature the regarding assumptions misleading evidently such to respond to as unnecessary plausibly seem may more It enterprises. them cooperative view and communities political to ties or membership relevant their recognize do individuals that assumption starting our as admitted have we and birth, indifferent are of of accidents individuals the result as of indifference, a degree with they view, states which members of that assumption the implausible as discarded far so have We integration oftheideasweexploredinPettit,Millerand Habermas. and up summing the represents but argument, of line or author republican single a on not based is role this of description The role. citizen’s the of features all are deliberation public in part take to means modest more of co-citizens enable to endorsing order in and measures redistributive concern, public of issues discussing and voting when reason public using understood, widely more society civil or debates public in part taking as such mind, in have we that obligations republican the that way a such in works argument obligation role The the individualasamoralagentinbroader,politicalcontexts. of role the with concern underlying the of meaning the explain and theory, political broader equivocation. same the in expressed see we afford that ideas half-articulated these on cannot build to need arguments Republican argued, have I arguments, Republican could accept. others that principles from act and justify propose, to ready are citizens reasonable which to according society, just that of picture justificatory a paint does he though society, at justifying surrounding attempts skepticism of the of much the basis are at very assumptions Rawls,PoliticalLiberalism : 50-4 181 315 n yt these yet, And CEU eTD Collection no obvious reason why that should be thecase. be why thatshould no obviousreason society, thereis democratic just ofcitizenshipinareasonably partofthenotion obligationas conception ofrole 317 Obligations 316 self-confidence anddignitythatgowithit. of sense the and recognition interpersonal achieve to also but needs, and interests immediate our achieve to only not want We powers. moral our affirm to want and equals as treated be to want however, us, of All others. than disadvantaged more are or others, as talented as not are us of Many birth. of accidents by indeed marked are however, lives, Individual protected. are rights human basic our whereby law of rule the of framework legal a of context political inthe resiliently only canbeachieved our status.Moralequality andfreedom and confidentin secure feel we societies, human democratic just reasonably of citizens equal as role our of Because and beings. free as status moral our of security the ensures society democratic just a reasonably in Citizenship human beings. between of equality relationship moral basic of the and differences the beyond and above promotion and equals, ensures thesafeguarding citizens that role as Itis our life. inequalities insocial of role the bear we that citizens as is It another.” over interference arbitrary of power a you has of none that awareness shared a in citizens, your fellow with eye to eye stand capacity to requires the “it point: the to much very is republican polity envisioned his in citizen a of role the enunciation of Pettit’s Philip I think friendship, thepracticeofcitizenshipistakentobeinthisargumentintrinsicallyvaluable. neutral. not relevant, morally is this it to valuable, according intrinsically is, argument, role The societies. democratic just reasonably in citizen the of role for the ingeneral,but citizen the roleof for anormativeargument looking intodeveloping not am I out, pointed already I As argument. of type consent a outside obligation political relationships be useful or morally unobjectionable, see A. John Simmons, Moral Principles and Political andPolitical Principles Simmons, Moral seeA.John morally unobjectionable, useful or relationships be Pettit, Republicanism, A Theory of Freedom andGovernment ofFreedom ATheory Pettit,Republicanism, Simmons argues that positional duties or role obligations do not require that the scheme thatdefinesthe thatthescheme donotrequire orroleobligations positionalduties Simmons arguesthat (Princeton University Press, 1981): 17; I argue, however, that once we establish a more limited we establisha however,thatonce 17;Iargue, Press, 1981): University (Princeton 182 : 5 316 s n h cs of case the in As 317 CEU eTD Collection 318 interference. the distinguishing non- in as freedom of to notion liberal the down from non-domination as comes freedom of notion it republican what ultimately is this that admits and status” discursive of ideal “the of talks he when to refers Pettit what is This views. their oppose or share and concerns their share to happen who strangers and family friends, with that do They others. to ideas and reasons actions, their justifying and communicating by rationality their express who creatures communicative are beings human that is feature relevant second The public affairsthanthroughthelimitedactofvoting. in implication amoreactive servedby isbetter ascitizens wefulfil the roles gets expressedin equality that of moral our status indicates that this of action, courses adopting right stray from an with may officials Combined public whereby power, of hallways the expression. of nature competitive the of awareness political of instrument individual negligible practically speaking and imperfect uninformed, an however, be, can equality political individuals’ affirms that medium central the as seen usually vote, The of. members are we community specific political the of the future shaping of the in equal say have an as we polities, members of but with, out start we that endowments different the given life in successful becoming of are chances our equal how clear so be not may It status. and dignity moral individuals’ ensuring in essential is society democratic just reasonably a in citizen and of freedom role The of equality. status their with concern more moral a a by defined of also desires are but immediate sort, pragmatic with creatures self-interested only not are beings human that is Pettit reading when identified first have we which highlight, to point first the Thus, omtv mdl f icrie eorc: () l pltcl oe drvs rm the from derives power political all “(…) democracy: discursive of model normative punch line,thatitcan.” comefinallytothe Ithink,to and non-domination. respectively non-interference freedomas the conceptionsof between onthedifference can helpustorule whether thatideal questionis the discursive status, to anidealof Pettit, ‘Discourse Theory and Republican Freedom’: 91: “Given that the discourse-theoretic imagedirectsus 91:“Given thatthediscourse-theoretic andRepublicanFreedom’: Theory Pettit, ‘Discourse 318 h ie o ‘omnctv pwr i as a te oe f Habermas’ of core the at also is power’ ‘communicative of idea The 183 CEU eTD Collection citizenship requires 320 319 other words, in be ready they must status, equal others’ respect for same show the prepared to be must they share, individuals that equality moral for concern common the of measure a As status. equal own his reaffirming or honouring way this in state, particular that of laws the under comes who everyone for standing equal that preserve to obligated is He positions. his for a justifications of provide to citizens citizen fellow his to theobligated is society democratic equal, just reasonably an As politics. formal in addressed properly not are or neglected are that issues publicly support or view of points their for argue to prompted be will they capacity that In states. authoritarian of citizens the not equality, moral secure that societies democratic just reasonably of citizens the is It deliberation. through justification on of grounds accept, can all terms on others with cooperate to propensity a by defined status moral equal and free a have not do they but Yes, share? equally nevertheless they which subjects, the that back, subservient of role the argued in expressed status, equal be an have also could state totalitarian a of it members case, the not it Is status. equal an acquire individuals societies, democratic just reasonably of members not as that by rather rights is equal claim their The participating. loose thus they that or others than equal less are affairs public in participate not do who individuals that not is claim The status. discursive equal, an attain they positions, and actions their for reasons good give to effort the making by interactions, andthatintheir thatindividualsareconversable The underlyingrepublicanassumptionisthus citizens.” of power communicative Miller, Citizenship and National Identit andNational Miller, Citizenship Norms Factsand Habermas, Between “that it should be part of each person’s good to be engaged be to good person’s each of part be should it “that been party.” has or she which he agreement to reasonable of a the outcome but as alien impositions as simply her or him to appear not do state the of policies and laws the that debate, so 320 , Polity Press:170 , Polity 319 y : 58 Also, according to Miller, the republican conception of conception republican the Miller, to according Also, 184 at some level some at in political in CEU eTD Collection 322 321 in theformofalegalobligation. vote to obligation political general a grounding about sceptical am I protest, political of form voting. from electors of minority a of absenteeism persistent the as such concerns specific answer to cases, some in needed be may that policy specific a of form the in only but voting, compulsory endorses republican of act an as citizenship. register should voting regular though perspective, the from republican established be can obligation general no think I but mind, in good common the with vote to place in obligation an be however, would, There attitude. public of expressions legitimate be could boycotting public of act an as voting not or disobedience civil situations, extreme in that conceivable is it participation, of channels diffused and different are there that emphasize republicans Because argument. of line republican preferred the to according vote to general obligation a ground could we believe not do I that say I should Finally, two first the fulfil to able be to obligations. them for disadvantaged too not are co-citizens one’s ensure that redistribution thatwould economic anobligationto when deliberating;andfinally, reason public to heed paying of obligation an and concern; common understood of widelymatters on affairs deliberating are public These in or triggered. forums public are in participating obligations of obligations political republican then endangered, are status equal others’ or status equal one’s when community, political the for right is thinks one what with line in not are actions those When government. the of actions the for responsible is political one a of member collective, that of is member a as one government, democratic a by Because represented is that others. community to opinions and actions their justify to Social Philosophy andPolicy Social Philosophy Pettit,Republicanism for a discussion on the duty to vote see Loren E. Lomaski & Geoffrey Brennan, ‘Is there a duty to vote?’, adutytovote?’, Brennan,‘Isthere &Geoffrey voteseeLorenE.Lomaski dutyto for adiscussiononthe 321 It is true, however, that Pettit, as pointed out in the first chapter of the thesis the of chapter first the in out pointed as Pettit, that however, true, is It : 191 322 , Because of the potentially expressive nature of the act of voting as a as voting of act the of nature expressive potentially the of Because o.7 r ,Wne 00 62-86 Nr,1, Winter 2000: Vol.17, 185 per se per CEU eTD Collection their how example for as such concerns interest private specific, very on based not decisions stances,peoplemake general, intheirpolitical over anythingelse.In interest takesprecedence be material where person the to of conception a on premised have is equality strict on based would necessarily community justificatory a a of that notion idea the meaningful but a community’ with ‘justificatory compatible be not would inequalities Grave with. start their with concerned to community’ a ‘justificatory of ethos the underlying follow from primarily would not economic status are people that here, work at assumption the that think I an incentive-basedpolicy. totheirpoorcompatriots ‘talented rich’wouldnotbeabletojustify the since society, radically-egalitarian a only promote to us entitle would respect, mutual and fraternity by governed society a on insistence Rawls’ with consonant be to sees he which community, justificatory a of principle this that conclusions his endorse not do I Cohen, G.A. from term this borrow I Though polity. the of members all to justifiable be must all of name the in enacted are that policies which to according principle a on based is society democratic 323 community’. ‘justificatory a in agent is moral a member as each recognized that well as ensures and law by protected are rights basic whose citizen equal and free a as recognized is member every and the each that ensures community ensures political nature democratic a of democratic liberal themselves. A choose for members that the communitymoral standards introduction of political A beings. human between relationship the in laws of form the in ensures standards moral some state of introduction the a and security of form the in community political A society? that of nature justificatory the of preservation the entail essentially role the does or society democratic just a in citizen a of role the defines what rules institutionalized by abiding Is society? non-democratic a in citizen a that of from differ society a democratic in citizen a role of the does how Once again, I borrow the term from Cohen, Rescuing Justice and Equality Justiceand fromCohen, Rescuing I borrow theterm 186 : 43 323 hs ugss ht liberal a that suggests This CEU eTD Collection Political Science 324 only likelyto is a polity but of the citizens all does apply to obligation that modest a more but mind, in have we that debates public all in times all at participate to obligation constant a not is This discussion. public in part take to obligation an has person specific that then agenda, public the on being raised is individuals of group or specific individual a to of particular interest something When obligation. of instance the trigger that ones the usually are being discussed are that issues The debates. formal more in participation to magazine political a of forum online an in participation from anything mean can It groups. action civic by organized discussions various in pressure part taking to protests street semi-formal in participation from facebook, on to groups movements social in participation from range can participation of context scope. The general in is common deliberations in taking part obligation of The first as equalpartiesinajustificatoryproject. enable otherstoact are alsoboundbyaconsiderationtowardsredistributivemeasuresthatcan They those. of light in own one’s justify/moderate and view of points other serious to consideration give to obligation an by is that sphere, public the in involved when reason public to obligation an by bound are They lacking. found is officials public by justification when debates public in actively involved get to need they that, do to order In association. that of nature justificatory the preserve to obligation the by project, political common a of makings the in say equal an with agents moral free and equal of role their in bound be to themselves Theysee of thingswhenactingcollectively. the powertochangecourse moral agentswith as themselves who see around individuals built is mind in I have community The justificatory based onmoregeneralconcernsregardingthestateofeconomy. but prospects, economic personal their impact will party candidate or particular a for decision for evidence to that extent see Geoffrey Brennan and Philip Pettit, ‘Unveiling the Vote’, British Journal of BritishJournalof ‘UnveilingtheVote’, Pettit, BrennanandPhilip seeGeoffrey for evidencetothatextent , Vol 20, No.3, 311-333 (Jul., 1990): 325 (Jul.,1990): No.3,311-333 , Vol20, 187 324 CEU eTD Collection can reinforce an individual sense of moral equality. Furthermore, citizenship can be exercised be can Furthermore, citizenship equality. moral of sense individual reinforce an can and government, arbitrary potentially a of domination the from safe one keep can citizenship of form active an only because citizenship with tradition, republican the in equated, be to turns freedom This position. self-interested their and status dignified a attaining in interested individuals as position their both strengthen will collectively citizens concern that affairs the deliberation in and by participation control provided discursive that the Republicans argue be equalparticipantsandenablethemtodischargethefirsttwoobligationsoutlinedabove. to to means material lower ready of co-citizens empower be to designed measures should redistributive support citizens that stipulates obligation third the Finally, groups. different its with body political the of interest common the in is what of terms in think ultimately and view, of points other for tolerance and empathy respect, show to is do to are required citizens what palatable: more reason public of version Habermas’ found We community. political specific the of principles shared to reference making involved him for which responsibility, public of sense a with matters public discussing meant this Miller, David For deliberators. co- their of concerns common limited the with beliefs their balance try to very but view, of point factional a from not argue and restraint exercise should citizens context, deliberative a in once that, entails reason public to obligation an as to I refer which obligation second The have adiffusedcharacter. applies, still discretion of realm debatesin general the performancebecausepublic manner andtimeof however, regardingthe wider A obligation. her fulfill to failed has individual the that say do we involved, get to fails she and to, contribution solid a make could citizen particular a that arise issues When discharged. is obligation this agent’s how the and when at discretion is it Thus, circumstances. certain in citizens individual by instantiated get 188 CEU eTD Collection 325 play. fair- from argument an justification: the to dimension second a introduce we lightly, taken not is obligations the performance of the ensure that order to in Thus, stage. later some at due their perform can they that impression wrong the get may citizens individual, particular the the discretionof is at oftheobligation becausetheperformance character oftheseobligations, its indeterminate somewhat of the of face because that, the said be in may it daunting Also, impact. quite small potentially seem can deliberation of act individual an of task the Still, debates. public in individual an of impact the measure to it difficult more much be course, would Of sways. opinion how in difference bigger a public make through conceivably way could debates his arguing individual one election, an of outcome the on influence nil or marginal a only has vote individual one that clearer much is Individual it While deliberations? address. to need we that public in take part bother to individuals why should so general negligible, objection are in contributions one is there societies, democratic just reasonably in weight moral have do obligations political republican that argued have I While self-government. citizenship republican in participate Through to enabled are and recognition, respect. conferred are status, equal gain and can individuals concern equal with treated be and equals moral as taken be should individuals that content very its in stipulates citizenship, republican from springs that obligation political of notion The laws. non-arbitrary under only effectively special obligations based of valuable relationships see Andrew Mason, ‘Special Obligations to Compatriots’, Compatriots’, to Obligations ‘Special Mason, Ethics Andrew see relationships valuable of based obligations special For a similar account of republican citizenship as a valuable relationship, in the context of an argument for argument an of context the in relationship, valuable a as citizenship republican of account similar a For , 107, no. 3 (Apr. 1997): 427-447 1997): no.3(Apr. , 107, 325 189 CEU eTD Collection 326 level thus a There is public agenda. on the raised are being to her particular interest matters of when especially powers, own her to according obligation of form republican this exercise will individual an that is expectation My to contexts. deliberative expected all in are times all citizens at participate all that sense the in obligation general a is this that case the not is It obligation. the perform will she how and when of terms in discretion agent’s the entail public life participate in to obligations because republican first look at think we might high as as not participation are associated with costs the think I all, of First capacities. private their in responsibilities complex other people have when context the in especially way out, easy as an itself commend can free-riding course, Of polity. democratic robust a in citizen a of role the of part-and-parcel necessary task, and important an be to taken is this when become arbitrary, not government does ensuring that or representatives, checking onpolitical of bear theburden others let to unfair is it that idea the of use make would justification of route republican A play, anindividualhastheobligationtoobeylaw. fair of principle moral general the given and met, are conditions two these if Then, bring. of scheme cooperation social of scheme the the and constitution the in that benefits the part accept to have take cooperation who Those contributes. everyone nearly if secured be only can community political the of practice social the from spring that advantages the Also, beneficial. mutually and just be to has cooperation social of scheme the characterizes that constitution The place. in be to need conditions further obligation, political justify and communities political to apply to principle this for order In equally. participants by shared be play. fair should scheme cooperative a with of associated advantages and burdens principle the that states principle moral general more the of case special a is law the obey to obligation the that states classically fair-play from obligation political of justification The Harvard University Press, 1999): 117-129 Press,1999): Harvard University see John Rawls, ‘Legal Obligation and the Duty of Fair Play’, Rawls, CollectedPapers Play’, Rawls, ofFair andtheDuty ‘Legal Obligation seeJohnRawls, 190 (Cambridge,Mass.: 326 This CEU eTD Collection hn ulc utfctos rvdd y ii atoiis r prevd s nufcet or insufficient as perceived misplaced. are authorities civil by provided justifications public when life civic in involvement of obligations grounds association their of nature justificatory this and words, Habermas’ use to reasons, other each owe societies democratic just reasonably of Citizens obligation. political of meaning the exhaust cannot institutions just by abiding or law the obeying merely that argue can we that think I community, justificatory a of members as societies democratic of citizens of capacity their in themselves see they that admit also we if and societies, political organized democratically of citizens as discharge best can they which disposition, discursive a with coupled equality, and freedom for concern moral a have individuals that admit also we if and policies, flawed or arbitrary promote can governments deviatefromtheir originalpurposesandthat her equalstatus.Ifweadmitthatinstitutionsmay affirms that association that of nature justificatory the preserve to obligation general, political a with charged is individual the handicaps, or advantages personal beyond and above dignity equal of status a with citizen as role her in endowed agent moral a As authorities. civil by forwarded and represented collectively be to said are interests whose polity the of members not other is the with together She but though, name. own her on her policies and in decisions those for out responsible carries government the that decisions and policies the for responsible ultimately is and endorses citizen the community, justificatory a in agent moral a As community’. ‘justificatory a in agent moral a of that is citizen democratic a of role The polity. democratic just civic reasonably a of in citizen of forms role the enhanced from derived to be can participation obligations republican-type that argued have I up, sum To consistent their against play not performance, weaddedanotherfeatureoffair-playtothejustification. do obligations the of indeterminacy and variability of character this that sure make to order In obligations. these of indeterminacy and variability of 191 CEU eTD Collection 327 of? member is she state specific the to citizen the bind should obligations political which to according requirement’ ‘particularity the ensure to fail they that generally, more obligation political at of leveled arguments criticism basic the to respond obligation political for justification a such Does iuig h mrl oc o pltcl biain n eea. tik h non-enforceable the think I general. in obligation political of force moral are the we diluting enforceable, legally not are that obligations political towards obligation political of understanding legalistic limited, a from away moving by that argued be may it Finally, of equalmoralagentforoneselfandone’sco-citizens. status the preserving of that is obligation the underlying interest moral basic The community. general a not is a justificatory in and freecitizen obligation ofequal therole derives insteadfrom concern forjustice,but the of source the life, collective of conduct just to the is promote obligations political republican of upshot an that case the be may it Though justice. promote to duty general a to down boil end the in may it that institutions just promoting with entangled much so is it that seem may it society, democratic just reasonably a of confines the a in fact, in not conceivedwithin is is Becauseourjustification to promotejustice. obligation disguised form,an obligation an such whether is mind to comes that objection Another particularity requirement’holds. ‘the that think I Therefore, citizenship. active for factor enabling important an is residence the inside only citizenships, assured specific nation-stateoneiscitizenof.Inthecaseofanindividualhavingmultiple is citizen free and equal of status The nature. this of community long-term thatcharacterizesa specific‘politicallanguage’ also inthe specific nation-state,but the of language common the in carried only not is justification Political history. and culture Regarding the ‘particularity requirement’ see Simmons, Moral Principles and Political Obligations Principlesand Moral requirement’seeSimmons, Regardingthe‘particularity 327 A justificatory community is here infused with a sense of political of sense a with infused here is community justificatory A 192 : 31 CEU eTD Collection obligations 328 which donotexacttoohighcostsonindividuals. obligations, plausible with us provides it Finally, virtue. of sense specific a lack they when democratic even liberal obligations political republican of their discharge to obligated citizens morally be should all societies why us tell can obligation political from argument an Thus, societies. democratic reasonably just in citizen a of role the around obligations political republican for justification a build to trying by democracy and republicanism contemporary between link inextricable the to think, I justice does argument of line this Also, obligations. role at looking of way alternative an propose to able also are we currently process, the is In available. than republicanism contemporary of justification normative fuller a provide the to able into are we perspective delving republican a from By obligation political of content and about. justification all are arguments republican what and general in obligation political” certain waysinmatters toactin “a moralrequirement why citizenscomeunder to explain are able role obligation,we a of lines the along obligation political of notion republican specific a constructing by that think I individuals. to apply to comes way certain a in act to requirement moral the how also, and ways particular those in act would they why do, to expected are citizens what of lines the along arguments republican of understanding fuller a gain us republican helps obligation of political theory a that argued have I value? added of a obligation for political construct to republican tried have we argument this words, other in is, How law. by sanctioned being without obligations political their exercise not to end the in free still are individuals particular if approach virtue’ ‘civic a to preferable argument an such then is why though, asked be could It nature. this of behavior civic encourages that culture political a on strain more put however, does, It force. moral their diminish not does obligations these of character Simmons’ most basic explanation of what political obligation is about, Moral Principles and political and Moral Principles isabout, whatpoliticalobligation most basicexplanationof Simmons’ : 3 328 , which is at once the most basicunderstandingofpolitical at oncethemost , whichis 193 CEU eTD Collection democratic society. just a reasonably in citizen role of the around obligation republican political for a justification in use to concept better a build to on went I virtue, from arguments to was opposed as arguments, republican understanding obligation political why explained I political After republican obligation. of justification a by provided be could grounding normative needed a such that argued I chapter, final the In concern. common of matters over deliberate and life public in involved get should citizens why of justification normative clear a lacked it that grounded, normatively not was republicanism of form discursive this exemplifying thought Habermasian the that argued but promising, most republicanism of form deliberative a we found Finally, deliberation. for scope the narrowing and freedoms individual entailing on thought restrictions of strands communitarian to close too republicanism bring likely most would this that found and identity national on based argument republican a into looked we chapter second the In elsewhere. lie should distinctiveness to claim republicanism’ thus that non- as freedom of notion and the non-interference as freedom of notion liberal a from different that that all not was domination established we chapter first the In society. civil of fora deliberative the in participation widespread advocates that theory a finally to up identity, mostly is national defining participation principles normative the civic of individuals by where internalization the in unity, expressed ethical of theory a through contestation, of form the in required is participation civic and interests, individuals’ track to expected is state the where theory a from range arguments republican surveyed The perspective. republican republican of salience a from obligation normative political for justification moral the general a construct to establish be would arguments to way palpable most also the have we that diversity, learned arguments’ republican of extent the appreciate to learned having from apart that say can we thought, republican contemporary in excursus our of end the At Conclusion 194 CEU eTD Collection society as the reinstatement of a majority’s point of view. We also found that the arguments the that found also of We view. of point view majority’s a of reinstatement constrictive the as society ethically an to amount could that conclusions communitarian to us lead route would normative this concluded that identity, we on national republican citizenship discursive exchangeswithothers. in be reinforced of esteem sense that their also but be protected rights their basic only that not need individuals that idea the on recognition, discursive of idea the on rests that notion a as conceptualized if counterpart liberal its face to equipped better is non-domination as freedom of notion the that admits himself Pettit element. discursive its emphasize to is interference non- as freedom of notion liberal limited more a from also notion this differentiate it to way only but non-interference, as freedom for orstructural sourcesofdomination.The disappointingly avoidsissuesofeconomicinequality, justification liberal the to similar only not is it fact, In freedom. of conceptualization different specifically a as us impress not does conflicting specific, with groups of constructs it PhilipPettit in theway non-domination, of freedomas notion boundaries concerns. Also,the the within from exercised is it as long as matter divisive potentially a remains life public in engagement civic or contestation but shaming, public like mechanisms traditionalist are behavior civic active, motivating to aides Further interests. different their with groups, different the between synergy or dialogue of idea the supports normatively that place in mechanism apparent no however, is, There heard. voice his an make to that hope can government, belonging by tracked of been not have group rights whose ascriptive individual, an within from is it obligation. argument, sporadic this a to best at According is it citizens, private of business the become does it when and politics, of mechanisms professional formal, the of part is chapter first the in explored republican theory the instrumental of the cornerstone which is contestation, part, most For the n h scn catr f h dsetto, fe epoig h agmns o grounding for arguments the exploring after dissertation, the of chapter second the In 195 CEU eTD Collection as r bdn b js isiuin. hv age i ti fnl hpe ta dvlpn a developing justification moral general a that outlining thus and obligation political republican for chapter justification final this in argued have I institutions. just by abiding or laws obeying beyond go would that obligation political of notion a constructing by participation enhanced republican, for justification moral general a give to helpful is it that argued I There, I havetriedtodointhefinalchapterofdissertation. effectwhat obligations. Thisisin and normativelyappealingargumentforrepublicanpolitical constructaclear try to who wanttopromoterepublicanism should republican values,theorists of narrative a on focusing than Rather obligation. political republican of justification clear fora I argued, aneed, argument tohold,however,therewas In forhis order the publicdebate. viewpoints in fromcomprehensive society andinvolvingideas of civil pertaining tothewhole as participation civic of understanding wider a take would thought Habermas’ by inspired as justification of route republican a that highlighted understanding Rawls’ to reason’ ‘public on comparison ofHabermas’ ideas compared toliberalargumentswithcivicovertones.Thus,my as viewed be meaningfully when be different might thought how his reflect on to I went arguments, proposing republican can Habermas that claim our justified having After theory. republicanism discursive a of instantiation an as thought Habermas’ explore to us led This public as practice’, aroundthenotionthatrepublicancitizenshipisagoodinitself. citizenship ‘republican called I what around built obligation political of notion specific a uncovered we that writings his in was it since obligation, political to leading route the us for up the opened thought for his Also, argument ideal. republican basic the for deliberation more of importance a thought Miller’s David in discover did We citizenship. republican for platform necessary a not was identity national that concluded We parallel. for republicancitizenshipandthatthecentralityofnationalidentitycouldbeseentorunin 196 CEU eTD Collection variable characterofrepublicanobligations. and indeterminate the by particular in elicited be may that free-ride to temptation the against ensure to order in argument the to added then be can fair-play of feature have additional an that argued I way. republican thick, the in understood obligation political for justification role a of conceive can we that proposed and society democratic just reasonably a of in role citizen the of value central this around argument an built then have I society. democratic just reasonably a in citizen a of role the of feature valuable intrinsically core, the as equality moral of value the identified and justification of type obligation role a for settled I Finally, obligations. two first the would fulfill to that them enable policies thus redistributive and co-citizens endorse well-off less to empower and reason public from so do to debates, public in part take to obligation the as such obligations, political republican for justification a for avenues various into looking by continued I Then safeguards. institutional rich beyond and above societies, democratic buttressing in necessary is participation public of form some insufficient imperfect, an into vote republican argument, to why, according out spelled I have Thus, of accountability. instrument the renders representatives political ordinary and between citizens asymmetry information the which to according issue ‘the agent-principle’ with together government, arbitrary of danger the thus and societies, democratic just reasonably in representatives of corruptibility potential of problem the identified further have I virtue. from arguments say, to compared citizenship republican ground to way superior a is this that shown have I obligation, political justifying In participation. civic ground morally civic of can we form how and societies, democratic some just reasonably safeguarding in needed why is participation better understand contemporary us make of words, relevance other normative in can the republicanism, on light shed can arguments republican for 197 CEU eTD Collection 329 test wecanputmoralityto. stringent isthemost of moralityandpublicjustification isthebasis moral equals.Justification as status their secure societies democratic just reasonably of citizens justification, public of process the In society. justificatory democratic, a of part as grounds moral deliberated rather or shared but for looking be should we that grounds moral independent not is It others. with grounds.” on moral independent act to best how decide should “we that anarchism philosophical with however, agree, political not do republican Republicans that. of salience for normative the establishing in justification way some goes obligation a and spirit, deliberative a with actions legislative and government of background the in always are that practices society civil rich informal the politics, and politics formal both infuse to want Republicans states;” decent within even status, moral conduct’s that to irrelevant is law by forbidden or required is conduct that fact simple “the that anarchist philosophical the with way, a in agree to have would Republicans contexts. political in agent moral a as citizen the of role the with concern underlying the on expand and theory, political broader in expressed see we that ideas half-articulated these on build to need argued, have I just arguments, Republican relevant. reasonably morally be in may societies democratic citizens as role our how consider to opportunity an sense that in offer arguments republican participation, civic enhanced on focus their With systems. democratic of stability and endurance the in interest underlying an of context the in societies, democratic just of understanding institutional mere a beyond spaces public-political in roles individuals’ with theory, political wider in concern normative unrealized an up picked has thesis This Essays on Rights and Obligations and Essays onRights for this outline of the philosophical anarchist argument see A. John Simmons, Justification and Legitimacy Justificationand Simmons, seeA.John anarchistargument thephilosophical for thisoutlineof : 117-8 329 oa jdeet gtatcltd n eieaie exchanges deliberative in articulated get judgements Moral 198 , CEU eTD Collection Berlin, Isaiah.Liberty-Incorporating'FourEssays onLiberty'. Berlin, Isaiah.“TwoConceptsofLiberty.”TheProper StudyofMankind Benner, Erica.“TheLiberalLimitsofRepublicanNationality.”FormsJustice,Critical Barry, Brian.“JohnRawlsandtheSearchforStability.”Ethics Bacelli, Luca.“ItalianCitizenshipandtheRepublicanTradition.”Lineages ofEuropean Arendt, Hannah.“PhilosophyandPolitics”SocialResearch Arendt, Hannah.“OnHannahArendt.”Arendt:TheRecoveryofthePublicWorld Arendt, Hannah.TheHumanCondition Arendt, Hannah.“ReflectionsonLittleRock.”ThePortableHannahArendt Arendt, Hannah.OnRevolution Arendt, Hannah.“IntroductionintoPolitics.”ThePromiseofPolitics Abdel-Nour, Farid.“FarewelltoJustification:Habermas,humanrights,anduniversalist Bibliography Bean, Clive.“Testingthepreceptsofrepublicanpoliticaltheoryagainstcitizenattitudes, Barabas, Jason.“HowDeliberationAffectsPolicyOpinions.”AmericanPoliticalScience Pimplico, 1998. Publishers, 2003,205-226. Lanham, Boulder,NewYork,Oxford,:Rowman&Littlefield Avner de-Shalit. Philosophy Political Miller’s David on Perspectives Review Citizenship: Rights,BelongingandParticipationinElevenNation-States. accessed onlineonEBSCOhost28.02.2004. Edited byMelvynA.Hill.NewYork:St.Martin’sPress,1979. Penguin Books,2000. Baehr. Kohn. NewYork:SchockenBooks,2005,93-200. morality.” PhilosophyandSocialCriticism < OxfordUniversityPress,3April2008 Oxford: OxfordUniversityPress,2002consulted onOxfordScholarshipOnline 113-129. Richard Bellamy,DarioCastiglione,EmilioSantoro.Palgrave-Macmillan,2004: beliefs andpractices.”JournalofSociology http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/019924989X.001.0001 98,no.4(November2004):687-701. . PenguinBooks,1990,firstpublishedin1963. . TheUniversityofChicagoPress,1958. 199 , 30,no.1,2004:73-96. , 2001,volume37,no.2:141-155 > , 57,Issue1(Spring1990) Eie b Dne A Bl and Bell A. Daniel by Edited . 105(July1995):874-915 edited by Henry Hardy HenryHardy editedby , Editedby Jerome . London: , Edited byPeter Edited by . , CEU eTD Collection Dagger, Richard.“Neo-Republicanism andtheCivicEconomy.”Politics, Philosophy& Review Political Science TheAmerican Political Obligation?”, is Dagger, Richard“What Social Cook, Deborah.“LegitimacyandPoliticalViolence: AHabermasianPerspective.” moderns.” the of that with compared ancients the of liberty “The Benjamin. Constant, Cohen, Joshua.‘ReflectionsonHabermasDemocracy.’RatioJuris Cohen, G.A.RescuingJusticeandEquality Quarterly Philosophical in Dilemma”¸ Pettit’s of Out Way “A Timothy. Chappell, Limited and Patriotism Nationhood, Cupboard: the in Skeleton “The Margaret. Canovan, International Rights, National Obligations.” and Nations “Individuals, Simon. Caney, Brennan, GeoffreyandLomasky,Loren.“AgainstRevivingRepublicanism.”Politics, Kyklos ennoble?” office can but corrupts, “Power Philip. Pettit, and Geoffrey Brennan, ofPoliticalPhilosophy Bohman, James.“RepublicanCosmopolitanism.”TheJournal Criticism Social and Philosophy reasonableness?”. is ‘What W. James Boettcher, agr Rcad “ebrhp Fi Pa, n Pltcl biain”Pltcl Studies Political Obligation.” Political and Play, Fair “Membership, Richard. Dagger, Democracy Deliberative Liberty.” and “Democracy Joshua. Cohen, Coady, C.A.J.“CriticalNoticeofRepublicanismByPhilipPettit.”AustralianJournal Thought Political her of Reinterpretation A Arendt, Hannah Margaret. Canovan, (2000): 104-117. Justice University Press,1988. Writings Political Cambridge UniversityPress,1998:185-231. Philosophy University Press,1995,firstprinted1992. Obligations International Rights, National Loyalties.” (1996): 119-138 Obligations Philosophy &Economics fasc 2,(2002):157-178 3 (2004):336-352 (2004): 597-621 Economics no.1 (Mar.1977):86-94. Vol.51, Issue202 George andPeterJones,WestviewPress,1996. , Vol.30,No.3,2003:108-126 , 5,no.2,(2006):151-173. , 79,no.1(March2001):119-124. , Edited by Simon Caney, David George, and Peter Jones. WestviewPress Jones. Peter and George, David Caney, Simon by Edited , tasae ad dtd y inaai Fnaa Cambridge Fontana, Biancamaria by edited and translated , , 5(2)(2006):221-252 , Harvard University Press,, HarvardUniversity 2008. 200 , Edited by Simon Caney, David Caney, by Simon Edited , , 12,no.4(Dec 1999) Eie b Jn Elster, Jon by Edited , , 30, no. 5-6 no. 30, , , Cambridge , , Jan.2001, , , 12,no. , 55, , , 71, , 71, 48 CEU eTD Collection Ferrara, Alessandro. “Public Reason and the Normativity of the Reasonable.” Philosophy and Philosophy Reasonable.” the of Normativity the and Reason “Public Alessandro. Ferrara, Theory Political Democracy.” Deliberative in Economy and “Legitimacy S. John Dryzek, Goodin, RobertE.“FolieRépublicaine.”Annual ReviewofPoliticalScience Obligation”, Political of Theory Contract” “Actual the “Reconsidering Margaret. Gilbert, F Gerald Gaus, Experience.” Communicative Finlayson, JamesGordon.“Habermas’sMoralCognitivismandtheFrege-Geach and Challenge.” Judgment Cosmopolitanism.” Kant; and of “Habermas Theory R.S. le Habermas’s Stå Finke, “Jurgen Will. Smith, & Robert Fine, Fearon, JamesD.“DeliberationasDiscussion”,DeliberativeDemocracy Dworkin, Ronald,Law’sEmpire of Formation the and Argument, Equality, Deliberation: of Character “The David. Dutwin, D’Amico, Robert.“HolisticRepublicanism.”Telos Dagger, Richard.“Membership,FairPlay,andPoliticalObligation.”Studies Dagger, Richard.Civicvirtues,rights,citizenshipandrepublicanliberalism Goodin RobertE.&Niemeyer SimonJ.“ReflectionversusPublicDiscussion inDeliberative and Philosophy Comment.” Sympathetic A Democracy: “Deliberative Samuel. Freeman, Elster, CambridgeUniversityPress,1998:44-68. Ethics market society.”,SocialPhilosophyandPolicy Public Affairs European JournalofPhilosophy Philosophy andSocialCriticism Constellations Social Criticism 239-264. Research Opinion Public of Journal International Opinion.” Public Vol.29, No.5,Oct.2001:651-669. 2000. Oxford: OxfordUniversityPress,1997. Democracy.” PoliticalStudies 109(January1999):236-260. . “ . Backwards into the Future: Neorepublicanism as a postsocialist critique of critique postsocialist a as Neorepublicanism Future: the into Backwards , vol.29,no.4,Autumn2000:371-418. , 10,no.4(2003):469-487. , 30,no.5-6,(2004):579-96. FontanaPress,1986. , , 51(2003):627-49. 1,no.3(December2005):319-344. 13, , vol.26,no.6,2000:21-45. 201 , Winter2000,Issue118. , volume20,nr.1,winter2003. , EditedbyJon . NewYork, , 15, no.3 (2003): no.3 15, , 6(2003):55-76. , 48, , CEU eTD Collection rdik Sehn “eicvrn Rdcl eorc i Hbra’ ‘ewe at and Facts ‘Between Habermas’s in Democracy Radical “Rediscovering Stephen. Grodnick, Hendriks, CarolynM.“Integrated Deliberation:ReconcilingCivilSociety’s DualRolein Heath Wellman,Christopher.“Friends,Compatriots, AndSpecialPoliticalObligations.” of Critique Democrats’ Deliberative Leftist More? be Less “Can Emily. Hauptmann, Habermas, Jűrgen.“ThreeNor Habermas, Treat “Equal Jűrgen. Habermas, toS Habermas, Jűrgen.“Reply Habermas, Jűrgen.“ReconciliationthroughthePublicUseofReason:RemarksonJohn Jűrgen. Habermas, Habermas, Jűrgen. Juris Ratio Cosmopolitanism.” and Nationalism on “Habermas Pablo. Greiff, de Heath Wellman,Christopher.“AssociativeObligations andPoliticalObligations.”Social Hauptmann, Emily.“Deliberation=Legitimacy=Democracy”, PoliticalTheory Harrington, Austin.“SomeProblemswithGadamer’sandHabermas’DialogicalModelof Hardimon, M.‘RoleObligations’,TheJournalofPhilosophy Norms’”, Constellations (December 2002):418-38. Deliberative Democracy”, PoliticalStudies Political Theory Theory andPractice Participatory Democracy.”Polity no.4, 1999:371-384. The JournalofPoliticalPhilosophy 452. 381- 1998: London, Angeles, Los Berkeley, Press, exchanges California of Univ. Arato. Andrew critical Democracy- and Law on Habermas Rawls’s PoliticalLiberalism.”TheJournalofPhilosophy Democracy and Democracy (Dec.1999): 857-872. edited bySeylaBenhabib,Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress,1996. (2006): 1-25. 1999 Sociological Understanding.”JournalfortheTheoryofSocialBehaviour Jűrgen. “ReligioninthePublicSphere”,EuropeanJournalofPhilosophy , trans.WilliamRehg,PolityPress,1996. Between facts and norms, Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and aDiscourseTheoryof Contributionsto Between factsandnorms, Between Facts and Norms, Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law of Theory Discourse a to Contributions Norms, and Facts Between , trans. William Rehg, Cambridge and Massachusetts: The MIT Press, MIT The Massachusetts: and Cambridge Rehg, William trans. , , Vol.29.No.2,April2001: 217-236. , 23,no.2(Summer1997) mative ModelsofDemocracy”inDemocracyandDifference ymposium Participants, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law”, School of Cardozo ymposium Participants,BenjaminN. 12,no.4(2005):392-408. ment of Cultures and the Limits of Postmodern Liberalism.” Postmodern of Limits the and Cultures of ment , 33, no.3(2001):397-421. 13,no.1(2005):1-28. 202 54(2006):486-508. , XCL,no.7(July1994) , 92,no.3(Mar.1995) d. ihl oefl and Rosenfeld Michel eds. , 27,no.6 , Vol.29, 1, no.4 15, , 14,no.1 , CEU eTD Collection Klosko, George. “Fixed Content of Political Obligations.” Political Studies Political Obligations.” Political of Content “Fixed George. Klosko, Affairs Public & Philosophy Patriotism.” “Kantian Pauline. Kleingeld, Argumentation f Limits The Speechlessness’: of Rift ‘the and Ethics “Discourse Ute. Kelly, Kateb, George.“Politicalaction:itsnatureandadvantages.”TheCambridgeCompanionto Affairs Public and Philosophy Equality.” of Value the and Structure “Basic A.J. Julius, Deliberative Considerations.” Skeptical Some Deliberation: for “Arguing James. Johnson, History ofPolitical Hobbes toRawls.” ofPublicReason: History Ivison, Duncan.“TheSecret Horton, John.“InDefenceofAssociativePoliticalObligations:PartTwo”,Studies PoliticalStudies Horton, John.“InDefenceofAssociativePoliticalObligations:PartOne.’ as Citizens between Horton, John.PoliticalObligation Ties The Countrymen? or Strangers ‘Friends, Iseult. Honohan, Iseult.CivicRepublicanism Honohan, Klosko, George.“Samaritanism andPoliticalObligation:AResponseto Christopher Klosko, George.“PoliticalObligationsandtheNatural DutiesofJustice.”Philosophyand Klosko, George.“PresumptiveBenefit,Fairness and PoliticalObligation”,Philosophy Kis, János.PoliticsasaMoralProblem Post-Modern the and Habermas Legacies: Enlightenment and “Romantic Pauline. Johnson, Public Affairs Public Affairs University Press,2000:313-341. and PossibleFutureDirections”,PoliticalStudiesReview Hannah Arendt Vol.31, No.4(Autumn2003):321-355 Democracy Thought Vol 55(2007):1-19 vol 54(2006):427-443 Colleagues.’ PoliticalStudies 67. ela’ LbrlTer fPltclOlgto. Ethics Wellman’s “LiberalTheory ofPoliticalObligation.” Critics.” ContemporaryPoliticalTheory , XVIII,no.1,Spring1997. , editedbyJonElster:161-18 , Vol.23,No.3,Summer1994:251-270. 16,1987:241-259. , EditedbyDanaVilla,CambridgeUniversityPress,2000. . HumanitiesPressInternational,1992. , 49,no.1(2001):51-69. , London&NewYork:Routledge,2002. , Budapest:CentralEuropeanUniversityPress,2008. 203 , 5,no.1(February2006):68-90. , 2006,4:3-15 , July 2003:835-840 9 n., Princeton no.4, 29, XLVI, 1998: 53- 1998: XLVI, , , , CEU eTD Collection McCarthy, Thomas. “Kantian Constructivism and Reconstructivism: Rawls and Habermas in Habermas and Rawls Reconstructivism: and Constructivism “Kantian Thomas. McCarthy, Ethics Compatriots.” to Obligations “Special Andrew. Mason, Patriotism.” Constitutional On Democracy?: for Safe Affect “Making Patchen. Markell, Mahony, Jon.“RightswithoutDignity?SomeCriticalReflectionsonHabermas’sProcedural Macedo, Stephen.LiberalVirtues,Citizenship,VirtueandCommunityin of Ideal Rawls’ for Problem a Restraint: for Reasons and Reasons on “Restraint Micah. Lott, Issues Philosophical Republicanism.” Pettit’s Philip of Critique “A for Charles. Larmore, debate Rawls-Habermas the of Implications justice? “Procedural Cristina. Lafont, Public and Philosophy Law.” of Conception Hobbesian a of Defense “In Robert. Ladenson, Political of Journal British Patriotism.” Civic to Constitutional “From Cecile. Laborde, Miller. David.Citizenship andNationalIdentity Michelman, FrankI.“ConstitutionalAuthorship.” editedbyLarry Alexander Michelman, FrankI.BrennanandDemocracy McDermott, Daniel.“Fair-PlayObligations.”Political Studies RepublicanismintheModernWorld Maynor, John. MacIntyre, Alasdair.AfterVirtue, Klosko, George.“ThePrincipleofFairnessandPoliticalObligation.”Ethics Dialogue.” Ethics 447. Political Theory model oflawanddemocracy” Constitutionalism Public Reason”,PacificPhilosophicalQuarterly Social, Political,andLegalPhilosophy,2001:229-243 discourse ethics.”PhilosophyandSocialCriticism Affairs Science Jan.1987: 353-362. 64-98. Press, 1999. 40. Constitutionalism: PhilosophicalFoundations 9,no.2,Winter,1980:134-159. , 32,2002:591-612. , 28,no.1,Feb.2000:38-63. , 105,no.1,Oct.1994:44-63 , Oxford: ClarendonPress,1990. London:Duckworth,1985. , Philosophy andSocialCriticism 204 , Princeton,NewJersey:PrincetonUniversity . Polity Press,2000. . Polity , Polity,2003. , CambridgeUniversityPress,1998: 87, 2006:79-95. , vol.29,no.2,2003:163-181. , vol.52,2004:216-232 , 107, no. 3, Apr. 1997, 427- 1997, Apr. 3, no. 107, , , 27,no3,2001:21- , Vol.97,No.2, 11, , CEU eTD Collection Moore, Margaret.TheEthicsofNationalism Justice Social of Principles David. Miller, Miller, David.“Introduction.”Liberty Patchen, Markell.“Making AffectSafeforDemocracy?: Patriotism.” On “Constitutional Mulhall, StephenandSwift,Adam.Liberalscommunitarians RobertPutnam, ItalyMouritsen, Per.“What’stheCivilinSociety? andtheRepublican Mouritsen, Per.“Fourmodelsofrepublicanlibertyandself-government.”Republicanismin Mouffe, Chantal.DimensionsofRadicalDemocracy:pluralism,citizenship,community Moore, Margaret.FoundationsofLiberalism David. Miller, Miller, David.“Twowaystothinkaboutjustice”,Politics,PhilosophyandEconomics Miller, David.OnNationality Miller, David.“AResponse”,FormsofJustice,CriticalPerspectivesonDavidMiller’s Parekh, Bhikhu.HannahArendtandtheSearchfor aNewPoliticalPhilosophy Olson, Kevin.“DemocraticInequalities:TheProblem ofEqualCitizenshipinHabermas’s Nadeau, Christian.“Non-dominationasaMoral Ideal”, CriticalReviewofInternational Nathanson, Stephen.“InDefenseofModeratePatriotism”,Ethics,99,no.3,Apr.1989:535- 1, 2002:5-28 Political Theory Macmillan PressLTD,1981. Social &PoliticalPhilosophy PoliticalStudies Tradition.” New York:Routledge,2006,17-38. Theory andPractice ChantalMouffe Edited by 647-662. 2001. 1991. New York,Oxford:Rowman&LittlefieldPublishers,2003,349-372 Political Philosophy, 1992. Democratic theory”,Constellations 552. “ h Ehcl infcne f ainlt. Ethics Nationality.” of Significance Ethical The , vol.28,no.1,Feb.200:38-63. , Edited by Iseult Honohan and Jeremy Jennings,London and , EditedbyIseultHonohanandJeremy Eie yDne .Bl n ve eSai,Lanham, Boulder, EditedbyDanielA.BellandAvnerde-Shalit, , Oxford:ClarendonPress,1995. , London :Verso,1992. , Vol.51,No.4,2003:650-668. 6,no.1,2003:120-134. , , EditedbyDavidMiller,OxfordUniversityPress, , 5,no.2,1998. Cmrde Lno: avr Uiest Press, University Harvard London: Cambridge, , , Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1993. , Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2001. 205 Oxford, UK:Blackwell, Vl9, o4 Jl 1988: Jul. No.4, Vol.98, , , The , 1,no. , CEU eTD Collection Powell FredandGeoghegan,Martin.“Beyondpolitical zoology:communitydevelopment, Pocock, J.G.A.TheMachiavellianMoment Pettit, Philip. Agency of Politics the to Psychology the From Freedom, of Theory A Philip. Pettit, Pettit, Philip.“FreedomasAntipower”,Ethics Institutions Democratic Designing Contestatory.” and Electoral “Democracy, Philip. Pettit, International of Review Critical Freedom.” Republican and Theory “Discourse Philip. Pettit, Government and Freedom of Theory A Republicanism, Philip. Pettit, Pettit, Philip.TheCommonMind:AnEssayonPsychology,Society,andPolitics Patten, Alan.“TheRepublicanCritiqueofLiberalism.”BritishJournalPoliticalScience, Young, IrisMarion.“Activist ChallengestoDeliberativeDemocracy.”Political Theory Plamenatz, John.Consent,FreedomandPolitical Obligation Quentin with Difference a On Simple: Freedom Republican “Keeping Philip. Pettit, Pettit, Philip.“FreedomintheMarket.”Politics,PhilosophyandEconomics Issues Philosophical Dilemma.” Discursive the and Democracy “Deliberative Philip. Pettit, civil society,andstrongdemocracy.”Community DevelopmentJournal Press, 1975. Press, 1968. of Sen.”,EconomicsandPhilosophy 131-149. Social andPoliticalPhilosophy Press, 1999. 11, Social,Political,andLegalPhilosophy,2001 Vol.26, No.1,Jan1996:25-44. no.5, Oct.2001:670-690. April 2006:128-142. 2001. Press, 2000 NOMOS XLII,editedbyIanShapiroandStephenMacedo,NewYork Oxford UniversityPress,1996. Skinner.”, PoliticalTheory “ Symposium onAmartyaSen’sPhilosophy/CapabilityandFreedom:ADefence , volume30,no..3,June2002:339-357. , 6,no,1,2003:72-95. , PrincetonandOxford:University , 17,2001. 206 106,April1996:576-604. , London: Oxford University , London:OxfordUniversity Ofr University Oxford . , 5, no.2,2006: , 41, no.2, , NewYork: University , Polity, , , 29, , , CEU eTD Collection Rawls, John.PoliticalLiberalism Rawls, John.“PublicReasonRevisited”,TheLawofPeoples CollectedPapers Rawls, John.“LegalObligationandtheDutyofFairPlay.” Shklar, JuditN.“Obligation,Loyalty,Exile.”PoliticalTheory Scholz, Sally J.“DyadicDeliberationversusDiscursiveDemocracy”,PoliticalTheory Sandel, MichaelJ.Democracy’sDiscontent Richardson, HenryS.“Republicanismanddemocraticinjustice.”Politics,Philosophy Rawls, John.“PoliticalLiberalism:ReplytoHabermas.”TheJournalofPhilosophy Raz, Joseph.“TheObligationtoObey:Revision&Tradition”,NotreDameJournalofLaw, Raz, Joseph.TheMorality ofFreedom Steinberger, PeterJ.“Political ObligationsandDerivativeDuties.”TheJournal ofPolitics Stears, Marc.“ThePoliticalConditionsofSocial Justice.”inFormsofJustice,Critical Simmons, A.John.MoralPrinciplesandPolitical Obligations Ethics Simmons, A.John.“AssociativePoliticalObligations.” Simmons, A.John.JustificationandLegitimacy Skinner, Quentin.“Theideaofnegativeliberty:philosophicalandhistoricalperspectives.” Liberty BeforeLiberalism Skinner, Quentin. University Press,1999. (March 1995):132-180. Perspectives onDavidMiller’sPoliticalPhilosophy no.5, October2002,746-750. University Press,1996. Economics Mass.: HarvardUniversityPress,1999,117-129. Ethics &PublicPolicy vol.64, no.2,May2002: 449-465. Publishers, 2003:29-50. Avner de-Shalit,Lanham,Boulder,NewYork,Oxford: Rowman&Littlefield 1981. Cambridge UniversityPress,2001. Rorty, J.B.Schneewind&Q.Skinner,CambridgeUniversityPress,1984:193-220 197. Philosophy inHistory:EssaysontheHistoriographyof , 5, 2006:175-200. 1,1984:139-55. , ColumbiaUniversityPress,1993. , Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress,1988. , Oxford:Oxford , Cambridge,Mass:BelknapPressofHarvard Cambridge UniversityPress,1998. 207 , EssaysonRightsandObligations: , edited by DanielA.Belland , editedby , Cambridge/London:Harvard : PrincetonUniversityPress, , Vol.21,No.2,May1993:181- , 106,no.2,Jan1996:247-273. , edited by R. , editedby , Cambridge, , 92,no.3, , 30, , CEU eTD Collection White, Stuart. “Republicanism, Patriotism, and Global Justice”, in Forms of Justice, Critical Justice, of Forms in Justice”, Global and Patriotism, “Republicanism, Stuart. White, Waldron, Jeremy.“Arendt’sConstitutionalPolitics.”TheCambridgeCompaniontoHannah Republicanism Viroli, Maurizio. Utz, Stephen.“AssociativeObligationandLaw’sAuthority.”Ratio Juris Tully, James.“TheChallengeofReimaginingCitizenshipandBelonginginMulticultural PhilosophyMichael G.Titelbaum,“WhatWouldaRawlsianEthosofJusticeLook Like?”, & Charles. Reconcilingthesolitudes Taylor, Taylor, Charles.“CrossPurposes:TheLiberal-CommunitarianDebate.”Liberalismandthe of Forms in Think?”, People the What Matter It Does Why Justice: “Social Adam. Swift, Stokes, Susan.“PathologiesofDeliberation.”DeliberativeDemocracy, Wolff, RobertPaul.“TheConflictBetweenAuthority andAutonom.”InDefenseof Viroli, Maurizio.FromPoliticstoReasonofState Viroli, Maurizio.Forloveofcountry:anessayonpatriotismandnationalism Anarchism Philosophy Political Miller’s David on Perspectives Arendt 2002. Mckinnon andIainHamsher-Monk,LondonNewYork:Continuum,2000. Multinational Societies”,inTheDemandsofCitizenship, Public Affairs36,No.3,2008:289-322. edited byGuyLaforest,Montréal:McGill-Queen'sUniversityPress,1993. Press, 1991,c.1989:159-182. moral life Philosophy Publishers, 2003:251-268. Rowman &Littlefield Political Miller’s David Daniel A.Belland on Perspectives Critical Justice, 123-139. ve d-hlt Lna, ole, e Yr, xod Rwa &Littlefield Rowman Oxford: York, New Boulder, Publishers, 2003:251-268. Lanham, de-Shalit, Avner Clarendon Press,1995. September 2004:285-314. , editedbyDanaVilla,CambridgeUniversityPress,2000. , editedbyNancyL.Rosenblum,Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversity , NewYork:Harper&Row,c1976. ve d-hlt Lna, ole, e Yr, Oxford: York, New Boulder, Lanham, de-Shalit, Avner translatedbyAntonyShugaar,NewYork:HillandWang, , : essays onCanadianfederalismandnationalism 208 , CambridgeUniversityPress:1992. eie b Dne A Bl and Bell A. Daniel by edited , edited byCatriona editedbyJonElster: , Vol.17,No.3, , New York: eie by edited , ,