DOCSLIB.ORG

Isaiah Berlin on Political Theory and Hermeneutics. Paula Zoido Oses

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Isaiah Berlin on Political Theory and Hermeneutics. Paula Zoido Oses The London School of Economics and Political Science Between history and philosophy: Isaiah Berlin on political theory and hermeneutics. Paula Zoido Oses A thesis submitted to the European Institute of the London School of Economics, for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, London, July 2016. 1 Declaration I certify that the thesis I have presented for examination for the PhD degree of the London School of Economics and Political Science is solely my own work other than where I have clearly indicated that it is the work of others (in which case the extent of any work carried out jointly by me and any other person is clearly identified in it). The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. Quotation from it is permitted, provided that full acknowledgement is made. This thesis may not be reproduced without my prior written consent. I warrant that this authorisation does not, to the best of my belief, infringe the rights of any third party. I declare that my thesis consists of 84955 words. 2 Abstract This thesis offers a positive reinterpretation of the relevance of Isaiah Berlin’s political thought. It re-examines his work hermeneutically with the double aim of claiming its intrinsic relevance as a work of political theory beyond what most critics have acknowledged, first; and second, with the intention of using it to draw conclusions that will address some of the most pressing discussions found in contemporary liberal political theory, such as the conflicting link between value pluralism and liberalism, or the recent confrontation between political moralism and political realism. This is achieved by reading Berlin hermeneutically, and thus transcending the categorical differentiation between historical and philosophical methods in his work. The argument is presented in three sections. The first one is a biographical introduction that acts as a methodological statement. In it, the dilemma on the nature of values that sits at the heart of Berlin’s work is defined by reference to his biographical context. The second section of the thesis is formed by three chapters that look at the central philosophical aspects of Berlin’s political thought: value pluralism and a neo-Kantian normative ethical theory that emerges in relation to it. By claiming a relationship between Berlin and Kant, and by presenting value pluralism as a meta-ethical theory, the thesis offers an alternative reading of Berlin’s work that deviates substantively from most existing scholarship. The third section of the thesis compares Berlin’s political interpretation of value pluralism with that of Bernard Williams and John Rawls, in order to claim that liberal theory demands a hermeneutic method in its justification. This will show the enduring relevance of Berlin’s contribution to political theory as one that expands beyond his own historical moment, against what many commentators have argued. It also raises a strong claim on the crucial implications of method in political theory, calling for a more hermeneutic approach. 3 Acknowledgements. To compare the completion of a PhD with the process of bringing a baby to the world is an old analogy: they’re both difficult, full of stress and pain, but ultimately rewarding. While this is all true, giving birth seems to me too solitary and linear a task to convey my experience over the last years. If anything, the process of writing this thesis has been more like the organic and communitarian task of raising a child. If it was a child, this PhD would by now had made it to that fascinating, and at times irritating, phase in life in which they want to know the why of everything, quite a fitting one for a PhD philosophy, for ‘philosophers are adults who persist in asking childish questions’, as Berlin said. More importantly, if this PhD was a child, by now it would bear the mark of all of those that have been around during its development. I would like to acknowledge the contribution of some of them. In the first place, I would like to express my gratitude to my two supervisors, Paul Kelly and Simon Glendinning. If this PhD was a child who demanded to know every why, they would be the ones to blame for that. Simon has been a reassuring and reliable supervisor, a constant source of guidance and advice. His genuine interest in my work, and all the meticulous comments that he has patiently offered throughout the years have been really helpful. Paul has provided the perfect combination of challenging questions and encouraging words in every one of our conversations. His generosity, sense of humour, and impressive wealth of knowledge have been truly inspiring. I feel fortunate to have had him as my supervisor. The LSE and the European Institute have been a fantastic nursery for this PhD to grow under the care of a very committed team of experts. Thanks to all the administrative staff at the EI, in particular Loukia Vassiliou and Jenny Robottom, for their life-saving skills and their utter friendliness; and to the rest of the EI faculty, especially to Waltraud Schelke for her warm dedication to all the PhD students without exception. The colourful inhabitants the PhD room – Angelo, Abel, Margarita, Moritz, Tim, Chrisa, Sarah, and Ranj, our adoptive student – have 4 provided a vital source of company and laughter. Some of them have become friends too: Madalina Dobrescu with her sweetness and patience, Roch Dunin-Wasowic with his sharpness, Julian Hoerner with his wit, and Mireia Borrell Porta, with her inspiring curiosity and her stern loyalty, have been the best antidote to the unavoidable hours of stress, tiredness and at times, boredom (why deny it!) of the PhD. Henry Hardy, Berlin’s editor, and his assistant Mark Pottle deserve a special mention too for their invaluable help in sourcing all sorts of bibliographical sources. The same goes to the LSE library staff and their technical assistance; in particular I would like to thank Paul Horsler for making sure all the references in this thesis were consistently accurate. There are also those who have looked after me over the last years while I looked after the PhD. A very special thank you goes to the wonderfully generous George Crowder and his partner Sue. If this PhD was a child, it would cherish the memories from the time spent in Adelaide for life. Tom Heyden and Tim Denman voluntarily put themselves through the excruciating pain of proofreading some of the chapters of this thesis, something I cannot but judge as a heartfelt statement of their friendship. Tim’s efforts to keep me fed, watered and musically satisfied throughout these years deserve a mention of its own. Sara Marquez’s warmth has always found its way to me at crucial times. I would not had made it to the finishing line without Adam Joseph Bartlett’s unconditional support these last months either. This thesis owes a great deal to all of them. And of course, family: my brother Enrique, whom despite all of his best efforts, cannot conceal that he loves me in that way in which only older brothers can; my late mother Maria Dolores, who unfortunately left us years before this PhD was even a possibility, and yet the memory of her strong convictions made her the perfect imaginary interlocutor to many of the moral dilemmas addressed in it; and finally my father, the first Enrique, for whom my words seem just too small: this thesis is all his. 5 Contents Introduction 11 1. Aims of the thesis. 11 2. Isaiah Berlin’s political thought: an overview. 16 2.1. Berlin as the ‘bad historian’. 19 2.2. Berlin as a political theorist. 29 3. Thesis structure. 37 Part one: Context and Method 41 Chapter One: Getting the context right 42 1. Introduction. 42 1.1. A shift in perspective. 44 1.2. The writer who hated writing. 46 2. “The three strands of my life”. 50 3. The Russian Side 53 3.1. Berlin and Akhmatova. 56 4. Britain is the best country in the world’. 60 4.1. Berlin and Oxford. 61 4.2. Oxford Positivism 63 4.3. Berlin and Collingwood. 71 Part two: Ethics and Meta-Ethics 87 Chapter two: What is value pluralism? 88 1. Introduction. 88 2. What is value? 91 2.1. The objectivity of value. 92 6 2.2. Systems of value. 97 3. Value pluralism as a meta-ethical theory. 101 4. The meta-ethical character: ethics as a special kind of knowledge. 106 5. Conclusions. 111 Chapter three: Value Pluralism and Systems of Value 113 1. Introduction. 113 2. Pluralism of values and the problem of relativism. 114 3. Incompatibility of values. 120 4. Incommensurability of values. 124 5. Conclusions. 129 Chapter four: Berlin’s Humanistic Ethics 130 1. Introduction 130 2. Morality and autonomy. 134 2.1. Value is a human product. 136 2.2. Human beings are essentially autonomous. 138 3. Defining Berlin’s ethical approach. 142 3.1. Ruling out natural law. 142 3.2.The Kantian roots. 145 3.3. The epistemology of Berlinean ethics. 150 4. Conclusions. 156 Part Three: Value Pluralism and Political Theory 159 7 Chapter five :Value Pluralism and Political Theory I: Rawlsian moralism 160 1. Introduction. 160 2. A Theory of Justice 163 2.1. Motivations and relationship with Berlin. 163 2.2. Overcoming pluralism in ‘A Theory of Justice’. 168 2.3. Berlin’s criticism of ‘A Theory of Justice’. 174 3. Political liberalism. 178 4. Conclusion 185 Chapter six: Value Pluralism and Political Theory: Bernard Williams’ Political Realism 189 1. Introduction. 189 2. Bernard Williams’ political realism. 193 3.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Acknowledgments
    Acknowledgments Several chapters of this book were initially presented as lectures at various institutions or conferences, and many were subsequently published in ear- lier versions in different journals or collections. They all benefited enor- mously from the conversations that followed these lectures and the suggestions received from various editors and copyeditors. All but the Conclusion were significantly rewritten for this volume. Parts of the Introduction were presented at a special session at the Modern Language Association (MLA) in December 2005 at the invita- tion of Claudia Brodsky. Chapter 1 was first presented in January 2005 at the Alliance Franc¸aise in Chicago at the invitation of Norah Delaney and published in SubStance ࠻106, 34, no. 1 (2005): 6–17. Parts of Chap- ter 2 were presented at a conference organized by Tanja Sta¨hler in June 2005 at the University of Sussex. Chapter 3, first presented at the Society for Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy (SPEP) in October 2006, and then in April 2007 at Marquette University at the invitation of Pol Vandervelde, and then again in October 2007 at Northern Arizona Uni- versity at the invitation of Julie Piering, was published in The New Cen- tennial Review 7, no. 2 (Fall 2007): 21–42. Chapter 4 was first presented at Slippery Rock College at the invitation of Bernie Freydberg and Rich- ard Findler and was published in Theory & Event 8, no. 1 (2005): 1–19. Chapter 5, first presented in February 2005 at the Tate Museum in Lon- don at the invitation of Simon Glendinning and then at the Midwest meeting of the American Philosophical Association (APA) in Chicago in xi April 2005, at a session organized by Penelope Deutscher, was published in Derrida’s Legacies, ed.
    [Show full text]
  • Moral Relativism and Chinese Philosophy
    1 Introduction Yong Huang and Yang Xiao It is only quite recently that moral relativism has become a central topic among moral philosophers. About thirty years ago, in 1979, Philippa Foot had the following to say: Because moral relativism is “one of those natural philosophical thoughts . one might therefore expect that mor- al relativism would be a central topic among those discussed in classes and in the journals. Surprisingly, however, the truth has for long been quite otherwise. Many recent books on moral philosophy ignore the problem or give it perfunctory treatment, and it is only in the last two or three years that strong, interesting articles have begun to appear in print” (Foot 2002, 20). In 1984, David Wong’s Moral Relativity, the first book-length study of moral relativism appeared (Wong 1984). Since then, there have been many books and journal articles on the topic.1 It is a significant fact that, in contrast to most of the people who have aimed at establishing its falsity, Wong is among a handful of contemporary philosophers in the English-speaking world who are willing to defend certain forms of relativism.2 In his second book on moral relativism, Natural Moralities: A Defense of Pluralistic Relativism (Wong 2006), which is the focus of this edited volume, Wong gives new arguments for an ambitious, sophisti- cated, and original version of moral relativism, which was first sketched out in his 1984 book. As one of the reviewers remarks, Wong’s new book is “the most systematic and persuasive defense of moral relativism that has yet been written” (Gowans 2007).
    [Show full text]
  • 'History, Method and Pluralism: a Re-Interpretation of Isaiah Berlin's
    HISTORY, METHOD, AND PLURALISM A Re-interpretation of Isaiah Berlin’s Political Thought Thesis submitted to the University of London for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy by HAOYEH London School of Economics and Political Science 2005 UMI Number: U205195 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI U205195 Published by ProQuest LLC 2014. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 S 510 Abstract of the Thesis In the literature on Berlin to date, two broad approaches to study his political thought can be detected. The first is the piecemeal approach, which tends to single out an element of Berlin’s thought (for example, his distinction between negative liberty and positive liberty) for exposition or criticism, leaving other elements unaccounted. And the second is the holistic approach, which pays attention to the overall structure of Berlin’s thought as a whole, in particular the relation between his defence for negative liberty and pluralism. This thesis is to defend the holistic approach against the piecemeal approach, but its interpretation will differ from the two representative readings, offered by Claude J.
    [Show full text]
  • Religious Freedom and Public Argument: John Courtney Murray on “The American Proposition”
    Loyola University Chicago Law Journal Volume 50 Issue 1 Fall 2018 Article 6 2018 Religious Freedom and Public Argument: John Courtney Murray on “The American Proposition” Robin W. Lovin Follow this and additional works at: https://lawecommons.luc.edu/luclj Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Robin W. Lovin, Religious Freedom and Public Argument: John Courtney Murray on “The American Proposition”, 50 Loy. U. Chi. L. J. 25 (). Available at: https://lawecommons.luc.edu/luclj/vol50/iss1/6 This Symposium Article is brought to you for free and open access by LAW eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola University Chicago Law Journal by an authorized editor of LAW eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Religious Freedom and Public Argument: John Courtney Murray on “The American Proposition” Robin W. Lovin* In his classic essays in We Hold These Truths, John Courtney Murray developed an understanding of “the American proposition” that integrated a theological account of human good with the search for public consensus in a constitutional democracy. While this understanding of the relationship between religious freedom and political life was incorporated into Catholic social teaching at the Second Vatican Council, subsequent developments in both political theory and theology call Murray’s understanding of public discourse into question. This essay examines these challenges and argues that Murray’s reconciliation of moral truth and political choice is still an important resource for discussion of religious freedom and other moral issues in today’s polarized politics. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 25 I. MURRAY’S LEGACY .................................................................... 26 II. THE PUBLIC ARGUMENT ...........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Lawyers, Justice and the Challenge of Moral Pluralism
    Scholarly Commons @ UNLV Boyd Law Scholarly Works Faculty Scholarship 2005 Lawyers, Justice and the Challenge of Moral Pluralism Katherine R. Kruse University of Nevada, Las Vegas -- William S. Boyd School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/facpub Part of the Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility Commons Recommended Citation Kruse, Katherine R., "Lawyers, Justice and the Challenge of Moral Pluralism" (2005). Scholarly Works. 36. https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/facpub/36 This Article is brought to you by the Scholarly Commons @ UNLV Boyd Law, an institutional repository administered by the Wiener-Rogers Law Library at the William S. Boyd School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Article Lawyers, Justice, and the Challenge of Moral Pluralism Katherine R. Kruset Some of the most compelling questions of legal ethics de- fine the lawyer's professional role in the gap between what is legally permitted and what is just.' Perhaps for that reason, professional responsibility hypotheticals are replete with cli- ents who want to use the law for arguably immoral purposes- from criminal defendants who want to avoid punishment to corporate executives who want to avoid government regula- tion. 2 Because these clients do not want to break the law out- right, ethical standards do not clearly indicate whether lawyers should be professionally obligated to represent them or ethi- cally restrained from doing so. Instead, questions about the lawyer's role rest in larger issues of justice. t Associate Professor, William S. Boyd School of Law, University of Ne- vada Las Vegas.
    [Show full text]
  • On Berlin's Liberal Pluralism
    On Berlin’s Liberal Pluralism An examination of the political theories of Sir Isaiah Berlin, concentrated around the problem of combining value pluralism and liberalism. Dag Einar Thorsen Cand. Polit. Thesis Department of Political Science, University of Oslo April 2004 2 Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 4 1.1 Isaiah Berlin’s thought and the ensuing debate..................................................................................... 4 1.2 About this study...................................................................................................................................... 9 1.2.1 Questions – and the reasons for asking them.............................................................................. 9 1.2.2 Theory and method ................................................................................................................... 11 1.2.3 Outline ...................................................................................................................................... 13 2. ISAIAH BERLIN IN POLITICAL THEORY...................................................................... 15 2.1 Introduction: La théorie politique, existe-t-elle? ................................................................................. 15 2.2 Elusive concepts and categories .......................................................................................................... 17 2.2.1 Pluralism .................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • TIME, PHILOSOPHY, and CHRONOPATHOLOGIES Jack Reynolds
    PARRHESIA NUMBER 15 • 2012 • 64-80 TIME, PHILOSOPHY, AND CHRONOPATHOLOGIES Jack Reynolds This essay is an elaboration on some central themes and arguments from my recent book, Chronopathologies: Time and Politics in Deleuze, Derrida, Phenomenology and Analytic Philosophy (Rowman and Littlefield 2012). There is hence an element of generality to this essay that the book itself is better able to justify. But a short programmatic piece has its own virtues, especially for those of us who are time poor (which is pretty much everyone in contemporary academia). Moreover, it adds a dimension to the above book by more explicitly situating it in relation to what is an emerging view in some recent scholarship (such as John McCumber, Len Lawlor, David Hoy, and before this Liz Grosz) that time is central to the identity of continental philosophy, as well as considering some of the work that in different ways contests this kind of interpretation of the identity of continental philosophy (e.g. Simon Glendinning, and, tacitly, Paul Redding). In continuing to side with the former over the latter, I will also develop my argument that time is one of the most significant factors in the divided house that I think contemporary philosophy remains, and I conclude by offering a series of negative prescriptions regarding how we might better avoid particular chronopathologies, or time-sicknesses, that are endemic to these philosophical trajectories, and that are also present (to greater and lesser degrees) in the majority of individual philosophers standardly labeled analytic and continental. To the extent that such sicknesses are at least partly inevitable, akin to a transcendental illusion, this paper consists in a call to be more attentive to this tendency, and to the methodological, metaphilosophical, and ethico-political consequences that follow from them.
    [Show full text]
  • Value Pluralism and Liberal Democracy
    Value Pluralism and Liberal Democracy Yao Lin Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 2016 © 2016 Yao Lin All rights reserved ABSTRACT Value Pluralism and Liberal Democracy Yao Lin As the title indicates, this three-essay dissertation explores the relations between value pluralism and liberal democracy. The first essay, “Negative versus Positive Freedom: Making Sense of the Dichotomy,” starts with the puzzling appeal of the negative-versus-positive-freedom dichotomy. Why has this distinction, despite forceful criticisms against it, continued to dominate mainstream discourses on freedom in contemporary political theory? Does it grasp something fundamental about the phenomenology of freedom? In this essay I examine four main approaches to making sense of the appeal of this dichotomy, and the challenges they each face. Both the conventional, naive contrast between “freedom from” and “freedom to,” and the revisionist strategy to distinguish between the “opportunity-concept” and the “exercise-concept” of freedom, upon close scrutiny, fail to survive MacCallum’s triadic argument against all dichotomous views on the concept of freedom. The third account, which reduce the negative/positive dichotomy of freedom to the divide between “phenomenal” and “nounemal” conceptions of the self, or of the range of preventing conditions, is both interpretively misleading and conceptually uninformative, as I illustrate by using Berlin’s discussion on self-abnegation as an example. In the fourth place, I analyze why both the historical bifurcation account that take the negative/positive dichotomy of freedom as merely genealogical, on the one hand, and the republican critique of it based on the presumably sublating conception of non-domination, on the other hand, are unsatisfying.
    [Show full text]
  • Sir Isaiah Berlin, Oral History Interview – 4/12/1965 Administrative Information
    Sir Isaiah Berlin, Oral History Interview – 4/12/1965 Administrative Information Creator: Sir Isaiah Berlin Interviewer: Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. Date of Interview: April 12, 1965 Place of Interview: Washington, D.C. Length: 23 pages Biographical Note Berlin, a professor of social and political theory at Oxford University from 1957 to 1967, discusses conversations he had with John F. Kennedy (JFK) about political theory and Russian politics, and compares JFK to other political leaders throughout history, among other issues. Access Open. Usage Restrictions According to the deed of gift signed June 29, 1971, copyright of these materials has been assigned to the United States Government. Users of these materials are advised to determine the copyright status of any document from which they wish to publish. Copyright The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other reproduction. One of these specified conditions is that the photocopy or reproduction is not to be “used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research.” If a user makes a request for, or later uses, a photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excesses of “fair use,” that user may be liable for copyright infringement. This institution reserves the right to refuse to accept a copying order if, in its judgment, fulfillment of the order would involve violation of copyright law. The copyright law extends its protection to unpublished works from the moment of creation in a tangible form.
    [Show full text]
  • A Forum on Jacques Derrida's Specters of Marx After 25 Years
    Contexto Internacional vol. 41(3) Sep/Dec 2019 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0102-8529.2019410300007 The Political Import of Deconstruction—Derrida’s Limits?: Zehfuss, Vázquez-Arroyo, Bulley & Sokhi- A Forum on Jacques Derrida’s -Bulley Specters of Marx after 25 Years, Part I Maja Zehfuss* Antonio Y. Vázquez-Arroyo** Dan Bulley*** Bal Sokhi-Bulley**** Abstract: Jacques Derrida delivered the basis of The Specters of Marx: The State of the Debt, the Work of Mourning, & the New International as a plenary address at the conference ‘Whither Marxism?’ hosted by the University of California, Riverside, in 1993. The longer book version was published in French the same year and appeared in English and Portuguese the following year. In the decade after the publication of Specters, Derrida’s analyses provoked a large critical literature and invited both consternation and celebration by figures such as Antonio Negri, Wendy Brown and Frederic Jame- son. This forum seeks to stimulate new reflections on Derrida, deconstruction and Specters of Marx by considering how the futures past announced by the book have fared after an eventful quarter century. Maja Zehfuss, Antonio Vázquez-Arroyo and Dan Bulley and Bal Sokhi-Bulley offer sharp, occasionally exasperated, meditations on the political import of deconstruction and the limits of Derrida’s diagnoses in Specters of Marx but also identify possible paths forward for a global politics taking inspiration in Derrida’s work of the 1990s. Keywords: Derrida, Jacques; deconstruction; global politics; immigration; citizenship; ethics; friendship. * University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; [email protected]. ORCID iD 0000-0003-4651-4229.
    [Show full text]
  • Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy,  (), – at – )
    Offprint from OXFORDSTUDIES INANCIENT PHILOSOPHY EDITOR:BRADINWOOD VOLUMEXLIX 3 MAKINGSENSEOF STOICINDIFFERENTS JACOBKLEIN . Introduction A to the older Stoics, virtue is the only good and the sole constituent of happiness, but certain ordinary objects of desire, such as health and wealth, possess a kind of value that makes them fitting objects of pursuit. These items are indifferent, the Stoics say, but nonetheless promoted. Though health and wealth make no con- tribution to the human good, the Stoics argue that we are to pursue them whenever circumstances allow. Indeed, a failure to maintain one’s health and wealth in ordinary circumstances is a failure of ra- tionality and an impediment to virtue, in their view. This doctrine has provoked criticism in ancient commentators and puzzlement in modern ones. An ancient line of criticism— prominent in Plutarch and Alexander of Aphrodisias—can be © Jacob Klein For help with this paper, I especially thank Terry Irwin and Tad Brennan. Terry patiently read, commented on, and discussed early drafts, helping me formulate and sharpen my claims. Though I have ventured to disagree with him, I am grateful for the skill and patience with which he pressed me to clarify my views. Tad Brennan provided input and guidance at a later stage. I owe much to his work on Stoicism and to our conversations over the years. I am especially grateful for feedback re- ceived from students in his graduate course on Stoic ethics, offered at Cornell Uni- versity in the Spring of . Brad Inwood provided extensive comments on later drafts, correcting mistakes and suggesting improvements.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is Jewish (If Anything) About Isaiah Berlin’S Philosophy?
    Religions 2012, 3, 289–319; doi:10.3390/rel3020289 OPEN ACCESS religions ISSN 2077-1444 www.mdpi.com/journal/religions Article What is Jewish (If Anything) about Isaiah Berlin’s Philosophy? Arie M. Dubnov Department of History, Stanford University, 450 Serra Mall, Building 200, Stanford CA 94305, USA; E-Mail: [email protected] Received: 23 March 2012; in revised form: 28 March 2012 / Accepted: 31 March 2012 / Published: 13 April 2012 Abstract: This paper has two central aims: First, to reappraise Isaiah Berlin‘s political thought in a historically contextualized way, and in particular: to pay attention to a central conceptual tensions which animates it between, on the one hand, his famous definition of liberalism as resting on a negative concept of liberty and, on the other, his defense of cultural nationalism in general and Zionism in particular. Second, to see what do we gain and what do we lose by dubbing his philosophy Jewish. The discussion will proceed as follows: after describing the conceptual tension (Section 1), I will examine Berlin‘s discussion of nationalism and explain why comparisons between him and Hans Kohn as well as communitarian interpretations of him are incomplete and have limited merit. I will continue with a brief discussion of Berlin‘s Jewishness and Zionism (Section 3) and explain why I define this position ―Diaspora Zionism‖. The two concluding sections will discuss Berlin‘s place within a larger Cold War liberal discourse (Section 5) and why I find it problematic to see his political writings as part of a Jewish political tradition (Section 6).
    [Show full text]