DOCSLIB.ORG

The Hebrew Republic in Sixteenth-Century Political Debate: the Struggle for Jurisdiction

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Hebrew Republic in Sixteenth-Century Political Debate: the Struggle for Jurisdiction chapter 9 The Hebrew Republic in Sixteenth-Century Political Debate: The Struggle for Jurisdiction Guido Bartolucci “Moses was a leader; a labor leader; a leader of revolt; and a great one. And he was loyal to the people.”1 With these words the American journalist Lincoln Steffens began his political description of the episode of Exodus as a model for the Communist Revolution in Russia, in his book Moses in Red. The Revolt of Israel as a Typical Revolution published in 1926. For the first time in the twenti- eth century, the ancient history of the sons of Israel was used politically: after 1917, according to Steffens, all the old books and works had to be read under a new light, a red one, the colour of revolution. In his work Steffens reinterprets the story of the Hebrews in the desert and the events of their leader as an important revolutionary moment, in which each step of the story of Exodus’ has a correspondence with what had happened in Russia.2 Steffens’ book has played a key role in the development of political interpretation of the Bible in the twentieth century, laying the foundation for the work of recent authors such as Michael Walzer and Aaron Wildavsky. Yet the idea that the political institutions of the Jews could be interpreted according to political categories and absorbed into classical political thought was far from new. Scholarly interest in Hebrew political institutions seems to have originated in the second part of the sixteenth century, but thus far there is little clarity about the cultural background to this phenomenon and its further develop- ment.3 In the interpretation of Frank Manuel, “before the seventeenth century 1 Lincoln Steffens, Moses in Red. The Revolt of Israel as a Typical Revolution (Philadelphia, 1926), 51. 2 For an interpretation of Steffens’ work see Melanie J. Wright, Moses in America. The Cultural Uses of Biblical Narrative, (Oxford, 2003), 13–42. For the influence of his book see Michael Walzer, Exodus and Revolution (New York, 1985); Aaron Wildavsky, Moses as a Political Leader (Jerusalem and New York, 2005). 3 The recent scholarship includes François Laplanche, “L’érudition chrétienne aux xvie et xviie siècles et l’État des Hébreux,” in Groupe de Recherches Spinoziste, L’Écriture Sainte au temps de Spinoza e dans le système spinoziste (Paris, 1992), 133–147; C.R. Ligota, “Histoire à fondement théologique: la République des Hébreux,” in L’Écriture Sainte, 149–167; Bernard Roussel, “Connaissance et interprétation du Judaisme antique: des biblistes chrétien de la © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���8 | doi �0.��63/978900435�387_0�� <UN> The Hebrew Republic in Sixteenth-Century Political Debate 215 there was great reluctance to turn the narrative parts of the Old Testament into a consecutive secular story or to analyze the institutions of the patriarchal age, the period of Moses’ rule or the kingships of the first and second Common- wealths, as if they were states with histories similar to those of other nations.”4 Manuel argues that the conceptual instrumentation that authors subsequent- ly applied to the history of the Hebrews was based on the dominant interpre- tations of Greek and Roman history. In the seventeenth century, this develop- ment resulted in the eventual transformation of the narrative sections of the Old Testament into a story of secular and historical continuity, in which Jewish political structures followed a course similar to that of Greece and Rome. In this context, many scholars assume that the first treatises on the Hebrew Republic, in particular De politia iudaica by Corneille Bertram (1574), De seconde moitié du xvie siècle,” in La république des lettres et l’histoire du Judaisme antique, xvie–xviiie siècles, ed. Chantal Grell and François Laplanche (Paris, 1992), 21–50; Petrus Cu- naeus, De republica Hebraeorum, ed. Lea Campos Boralevi, (Florence, 1996), i-lv; Lea Cam- pos Boralevi, “Per una storia della Respublica Hebraeorum come modello politico,” in Dalle “repubbliche elzeviriane” alle ideologie del ‘900, ed. Vittor Ivo Comparato and Eluggero Pii (Florence, 1997), 17–33; Vittorio Conti, Consociatio Civitatum: Le repubbliche nei testi elzeviri- ani (1625–1649), (Florence, 1997); Jonathan Ziskind, “Cornelius Bertram and Carlo Sigonio: Christian Hebraism’s first Political Scientists,” in Journal of Ecumenical Studies 37 (2000): 381–400; Lea Campos Boralevi and Diego Quaglioni, ed., Politeia Biblica, in Il Pensiero Po- litico 35, 3 (2002); Y. Deutsch, “‘A View of the Jewish Religion.’ Conceptions of Jewish Practice and Ritual in Early Modern Europe,” Archiv für Religionsgeschichte, 3 (2001): 273–295; Fania Oz-Satzberger, “The Jewish Roots of Western Freedom,” Azure. Ideas for the Jewish Nation, 13 (2002): 88–132; Lea Campos Boralevi, “Classical Foundation Myths of European Republican- ism: The Jewish Commonwealth,” in Republicanism: A Shared European Heritage, ed. Martin van Gelderen and Quentin Skinner (Cambridge, 2002), 1: 247–261; Kalman Neuman, “Political Hebraism and the Early Modern ‘Respublica Hebraeorum’: On Defining the Field,” Hebraic Political Studies 1.1 (2005): 57–70; Guido Bartolucci, La repubblica ebraica di Carlo Sigonio. Modelli politici dell’età moderna (Florence, 2007); Guido Bartolucci, “Carlo Sigonio and the Respublica Hebraeorum: A Re-evaluation,” Hebraic Political Studies 3 (2008): 19–59; Gordon Schochet, Fania Oz-Salzberger and Meirav Jones, eds., Political Hebraism. Judaic Sources in Early Modern Political Thought (Jerusalem and New York, 2008); Eric Nelson, The Hebrew Re- public. Jewish Sources and the Transformation of European Political Thought, (Cambridge, ma, 2010). Along with this literature the debate on the existence of a Jewish political thought, interpreted through the categories of the classical tradition must be taken into account. On this issue Michael Walzer’s works are fundamental: Michael Walzer, In God’s Shadow. Poli- tics in the Hebrew Bible (New Haven and London, 2012); Michael Walzer, Menachem Lorber- baum and Noam J. Zohar, eds., The Jewish Political Tradition, 2 vols. (New Haven and London, 2000–2003). For a different position see Daniel J. Elazar, ed., Kinship and Consent. The Jewish Political Tradition and its Contemporary Uses (New Brunswick and London, 1997). 4 Frank E. Manuel, The Broken Staff: Judaism through Christian Eyes (Cambridge, 1992), 118. <UN>.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Communitarian Critique of Liberalism Author(S): Michael Walzer Reviewed Work(S): Source: Political Theory, Vol
    The Communitarian Critique of Liberalism Author(s): Michael Walzer Reviewed work(s): Source: Political Theory, Vol. 18, No. 1 (Feb., 1990), pp. 6-23 Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/191477 . Accessed: 24/08/2012 12:14 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Sage Publications, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Political Theory. http://www.jstor.org THE COMMUNITARIAN CRITIQUE OF LIBERALISM MICHAEL WALZER Institutefor A dvanced Study 1. Intellectualfashions are notoriously short-lived, very much like fashions in popularmusic, art, or dress.But thereare certainfashions that seem regularlyto reappear. Like pleated trousers or short skirts, they are inconstant featuresof a largerand more steadily prevailing phenomenon - in this case, a certainway of dressing. They have brief but recurrent lives; we knowtheir transienceand excepttheir return. Needless to say,there is no afterlifein whichtrousers will be permanentlypleated or skirtsforever short. Recur- renceis all. Althoughit operatesat a muchhigher level (an infinitelyhigher level?) of culturalsignificance, the communitarian critique of liberalismis likethe pleatingof trousers:transient but certainto return.It is a consistently intermittentfeature of liberalpolitics and social organization.No liberal successwill make it permanently unattractive.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Individualism/Communitarianism Debate: in Defense of Personism1 Nancy O. Myles
    Myles, N. O./ Legon Journal of the Humanities 29.2 (2018) DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4314/ljh.v29i2.9 ‘The individual’ in the individualism/communitarianism debate: In defense of personism1 Nancy O. Myles Assistant Lecturer Department of Philosophy and Classics University of Ghana, Legon, Ghana PhD Candidate, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands Email: [email protected]; [email protected] Submitted: April 16, 2018 / Accepted: October 20, 2018 / Published: December 3, 2018 Abstract Conceptually obfuscating the construct ‘the individual’ with the individuality of persons is the main underlying presupposition that generates the communitarianism/individualism debate and nourishes its tensions. Adopting chiefly an analytic approach, this paper brings some clarity to the substance of the debate focusing on Western ‘communitarian’ thought. It advocates making ‘the person’ the focus as ‘personism’ necessarily encompasses individuality and communality. Dispelling many quandaries of the debate, it is hoped, exposes to a greater degree, what should be one main, if not the main, concern of socio- political theory and practice. Keywords: ‘the individual’, individuality, community, communality, personism 1 The author wishes to acknowledge that substantive portions of this article appear in some form in her PhD dissertation. Legon Journal of the Humanities 29.2 (2018) Page | 241 Myles, N. O./ ‘The individual’ in the individualism/communitarianism debate Introduction The disagreement in the communitarianism/individualism debate: A recap A bone of contention between individualist and communitarian thought, regardless of the particular differentiation per author, is the idea of ‘the individual’. The question or concern that engaged the neo-Kantianism of Rawls’ A theory of justice (1971) as well as other individualist thinkers such as Robert Nozick, David Gauthier, Ronald Dworkin, and to some extent Kymlicka is ‘the individual’.
    [Show full text]
  • COURSE OUTLINE PHI/POL-220 Philosophy of Politics Course
    COURSE OUTLINE PHI/POL-220 Philosophy of Politics Course Number: PHI 220 or POL 220 Course Title: Philosophy of Politics / Modern Political Theory Required Materials: Text: Classics of Modern Political Theory, ed. by Steven M. Cahn (NY: Oxford University Press, 1997) Catalog Description: An introduction to modern political theory starting with Machiavelli and concluding with Mill. Highlights include readings from Hobbes, Spinoza, Locke, Rousseau, Kant, The Federalist Papers, Burke, Bentham, Hegel, and Marx and Engels. Critical analysis and selected issues in modern political theory are stressed. Students may opt to take this course either as a political science or philosophy elective. See course description number under each area. Course Coordinator: Saul Goldwasser I. THE ORGANIZATION OF THE COURSE (ORIGINAL READINGS) (Weekly Class Schedule by Topic) INTRODUCTION - Lecture on Modern Political Theory: Criteria for Evaluation and Application to Modern Issues 1. Machiavelli 2. Thomas Hobbes 3. Baruch Spinoza 4. John Locke 5. Montesquieu 6. Jean-Jacques Rousseau 7. David Hume 5-8 Page Joint Researched Position Paper Due 8. Adam Smith 9. Immanuel Kant 10. The Declaration of Independence The Constitution of the US the Federalist Papers 11. Edmund Burke and Alexis De Tocqueville 12. Georg Wilheim Friedrich Hegel 13. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels 14. Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill II. GENERAL OBJECTIVES A. Defining Political Theory (aka Political Philosophy and Political Thought) 1. History 2. Significance - The Proper Purposes of Government B. Introduce Criteria for Evaluation of Political Theories - Analysis and Assessment 1. Desirable Political Arrangements Involving Analysis of Moral Values 2. Possible Political Social Contractual Arrangements 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Editors' Interview with Michael Walzer
    [50] JOURNAL OF POLITICAL THOUGHT INTERVIEW [with Michael Walzer] Michael Walzer is a prominent American political theorist and public intel- lectual. A professor emeritus at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princ- eton, New Jersey, he is co-editor of Dissent, an intellectual magazine that he has been affiliated with since his years as an undergraduate at Brandeis University. He has written about a wide variety of topics in political theory and moral philosophy, including political obligation, just and unjust war, nationalism and ethnicity, economic justice, and the welfare state. He has played a critical role in the revival of a practical, issue-focused ethics and in the development of a pluralist approach to political and moral life. Wal- zer’s books include Just and Unjust Wars (1977), On Toleration (1997), and Spheres of Justice (1983). We sat down with him in May for a wide- ranging conversation on the interplay between personal identity and po- litical thought, the state of political theory today, and the overlapping chal- lenges posed by religion and ethnicity for the contemporary nation-state. I. Identity and the Political interested in left-issue politics. Theory License My teachers at Brandeis told me I should apply to graduate school JPT: What first drew you to the in political science, because it field of political theory? wasn’t really a field and you could do whatever you wanted. Whereas MW: When I was a history major in history you would be commit- at Brandeis, I was first interested ted to archival research, in politi- in studying the history of ideas.
    [Show full text]
  • Jus Post Bellum Proportionality and the Fog of War
    The European Journal of International Law Vol. 24 no. 1 © The Author, 2013. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of EJIL Ltd. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: [email protected] Jus Post Bellum Proportionality and the Fog of War Larry May* Downloaded from Abstract http://ejil.oxfordjournals.org/ This article begins by briefly discussing the general idea of jus post bellum norms before turning to discuss some of Michael Walzer’s ideas about jus post bellum, particularly what he says, or could be construed to infer, about post-war proportionality. It also re-examines Walzer’s discussion of the problems of post-war retribution and reconciliation. The article seeks to formulate and defend a post-war principle of proportionality, discussing how it relates to other proportionality principles, as well as to other jus post bellum principles. This leads to an examination of the fog of war, especially concerning Robert McNamara’s at New York University School of Law on April 30, 2013 calculations about the application of the principle of proportionality to the firebombing of Tokyo. I outline a general account of contingent pacifism that seems to me to follow from careful consideration of the jus post bellum principle of proportionality. The article closes by initiating a discussion of the prospects for the end of war in light of considerations about the justice of how particular wars should end. For the last 2,000 years, a philosophical and theological tradition has dominated dis- cussions about war, the Just War tradition. Augustine of Hippo is often credited with starting that tradition as he argued against the early Church Fathers who were largely pacifists.
    [Show full text]
  • The Royalist Revolution: Monarchy and the American Founding by Eric Nelson
    2017-019 3 Mar. 2017 The Royalist Revolution: Monarchy and the American Founding by Eric Nelson. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 2014. Pp. 390. ISBN 978–0–674–73534–7. Review by Asaf Almog, The University of Virginia ([email protected]). The Federal Constitution of the United States gives significant powers to the executive branch, headed by the president. Since the 1950s, scholars have viewed the Constitution as “a new political science” 1 or “a revolution in favor of government,” 2 claiming that, before the 1780s, virtually all Patriots champi- oned the Whig theory of government and opposed the “executive privilege” that the Stuart monarchs had held in seventeenth-century England. Hence, the American Revolution constituted a Whig rebel- lion against the “wicked” monarchy up to the Declaration of Independence. The failures of the Articles of Confederation in the 1780s caused some Patriots to abandon the republican principles that the Rev- olutionaries had fought for, in favor of the Federalists’ argument in support of a strong executive branch. In The Royalist Revolution , political scientist Eric Nelson 3 (Harvard Univ.) challenges this interpre- tation. Many of the colonists who had overwhelmingly supported the Whig theory of government be- fore the mid-1760s abandoned it thereafter. Patriot leaders like Benjamin Franklin and James Wilson now stressed that the colonies had been established as dependencies of the Stuart monarchs. They attacked the Parliament and appealed to King George III to veto its acts. Historians have seen this as a purely tactical maneuver, but Nelson contends that “a great many of [the Patriots] self-consciously and momentously ceased to be Whigs” (7), seeing themselves as “the last Atlantic defenders of the Stuart monarchy” (31).
    [Show full text]
  • CURRICULUM VITAE Eric Nelson Harvard University Department Of
    CURRICULUM VITAE Eric Nelson Harvard University Department of Government 1737 Cambridge Street Cambridge, MA 02138 ACADEMIC POSITION 2014- Robert M. Beren Professor of Government Harvard University PREVIOUS POSITIONS 2009-2014 Professor of Government Harvard University 2009 Frederick S. Danziger Associate Professor of Government Harvard University 2005-2009 Assistant Professor of Government Harvard University 2003-2007 Junior Fellow, Harvard Society of Fellows 2001-2003 Research Fellow, Trinity College, Cambridge HIGHER EDUCATION 2002 Ph.D., Trinity College, Cambridge, England Faculty of History Thesis: The Greek Tradition in Early-Modern Republican Thought 2000 M.Phil., Trinity College, Cambridge, England Faculty of History Committee on Political Thought and Intellectual History Honors: Distinction Thesis: The Greek Tradition in English Republican Thought 1999 A.B., Harvard University Honors: summa cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa (inducted as a junior) Concentration: History PUBLICATIONS Books The Theology of Liberalism: Political Philosophy and the Justice of God (Harvard/Belknap, 2019); Chinese edition, forthcoming in 2021. The Royalist Revolution: Monarchy and the American Founding (Harvard/Belknap, Hardcover 2014; Paper 2017; Chinese edition, 2019). -Society of the Cincinnati History Prize (2015) -a Choice outstanding academic title; “Top 25 Books for 2015” selection -Finalist, George Washington Book Prize (2015) The Hebrew Republic: Jewish Sources and the Transformation of European Political Thought (Harvard/Belknap, Hardcover 2010; Paper 2011; Chinese edition forthcoming, 2022). -Erwin Stein Preis, awarded by the Erwin-Stein-Stiftung, Germany (2015). -Laura Shannon Prize in Contemporary European Studies, awarded by the Nanovic Center for European Studies at the University of Notre Dame (2012). -a Choice outstanding academic title of 2010. The Greek Tradition in Republican Thought (Cambridge University Press, Hardcover 2004; Paper 2006).
    [Show full text]
  • On Michael Walzer's Theory of Distributive Justice
    On Michael Walzer's Theory of Distributive Justice WONG Fan A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Philosophy in Philosophy © The Chinese University of Hong Kong July 2000 The Chinese University of Hong Kong holds the copyright of this thesis. Any person(s) intending to use a part or whole of the materials in the thesis in a proposed publication must seek copyright release from the Dean of the Graduate School. I I [i i I H i II ^^iMSTTY I SYSTEaixW i I Ij 1 Contents Abstracts i Preface iii Acknowledgements viii 1. Walzer's Theory of Distributive Justice 1 Walzer's philosophical Approach 1 Distribution and Social Meanings of Goods 2 Monopoly, Domination, and Complex Equality 9 Relativist Theory of Justice and Democratic Socialism 19 2. On Equality 23 I Ameson on Walzer's Criticism of Simple Equality 23 Cohen's "Voluntary Equality" — A Defense Of Literal Equality 26 Ameson's Criticism on Walzer's Complex Equality 33 Further Problems on Walzer's Complex Equality 41 f:!i 1： 3. Social Meanings of Goods 45 Is Walzer's Theory Unnecessarily Restrictive? 45 : Social Meanings of Goods and Moral Considerations 51 The Conflicting Social Meanings of A Good 54 Other Problems 61 j 4. Shared Understandings And Moral Relativism 65 Is Walzer A Conventionalist? 65 Equal Citizenship And Democracy 72 Walzer's Benign Relativism 76 ：！ ！1 J ！ 5. Interpretation 86 Walzer's Thesis of Interpretation 86 Walzer and Marx. 93 j: Conclusion 98 ij BIBLIOGRAPHY 102 j Abstract of thesis entitled: In this thesis, I focus on Walzer's ideas about distributive justice.
    [Show full text]
  • Michael Walzer Spheres of Justice: a Defense of Pluralism and Equality
    Michael Walzer Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality Chapter 2 Membership Members and Strangers The idea of distributive justice presupposes a bounded world within which distributions takes place: a group o f people committed to dividing, exchanging, and sharing social goods, first of all among themselves. That world, as I have already argued, is the political community, whose members distribute power to one another and avoid, if they possibly can, sharing it with anyone else. When we think about distributive justice, we think about independent cities or countries capable of arranging their own patterns of division and exchange, justly or unjustly. We assume an established group and a fixed population, and so we miss the first and most important distributive question: How is that group constituted? I don't mean, how was it constituted? I am concerned here not with the historical origins of the different groups, but with the decisions they make in the present about their present and future populations. The primary good that we distribute to one another is membership in some human community. And what we do with regard to membership structures all our other distributive choices: it determines with whom we make those choices, from whom we require obedience and collect taxes, to whom we allocate goods and services. Men and women without membership anywhere are stateless persons. That condition doesn't preclude every sort of distributive relation: markets, for example, are commonly open to all comers. But non- members are vulnerable and unprotected in the marketplace, although they participate freely in the exchange of goods, they have no part in those goods that are shared; they are cut off from the communal provision of security and welfare.
    [Show full text]
  • Dissertation Final Draft
    UC Berkeley UC Berkeley Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title Political Thought and Political Action: Michael Walzer's Engagement with American Radicalism Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4x10110b Author Reiner, Jason Toby David Publication Date 2011 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Political Thought and Political Action: Michael Walzer’s Engagement with American Radicalism By Jason Toby David Reiner A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Mark Bevir, Chair Professor Shannon Stimson Professor Sarah Song Professor David Hollinger Spring 2011 Abstract Political Thought and Political Action: Michael Walzer’s Engagement with American Radicalism by Jason Toby David Reiner Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science University of California, Berkeley Professor Mark Bevir, Chair This dissertation provides an account of the historical development of the political thought of Michael Walzer from the 1950s to the present day. It situates Walzer within an American tradition of social democratic thought and argues that only when he is so situated can his thought be understood fully. Walzer’s engagement with that tradition, most notably through his work on Dissent magazine, has structured how he has responded to many of the major developments in political life over the course of his career, including the decline of movement politics, the rise of neoliberalism, the recent waves of immigration to the USA, and the increased salience of civil society following the demise of the Soviet Union.
    [Show full text]
  • A Communitarian Critique of Liberalism∗
    Analyse & Kritik 27/2005 ( c Lucius & Lucius, Stuttgart) p. 215{238 Daniel A. Bell A Communitarian Critique of Liberalism∗ Abstract: Communitarian thinkers have argued that liberalism devalues community in modern societies. This essay assesses the three main strands of the contemporary debate betweeen communitarianism and liberalism: (1) the communitarian critique of the liberal universalism, (2) the communitarian critique of liberal individualism, and (3) the communitarian critique of liberal politics. In each case, it is argued that the debate has moved from fairly abstract philosophical controversies to more concrete engagement with political disputes in Western as well as East Asian societies. 0. Introduction A major critique of contemporary Anglo-American liberalism|certainly the cri- tique that resonates most in East Asia|has been termed `communitarianism'.1 The basic themes of the communitarian critique have a long history, but modern- day communitarianism began in the upper reaches of Anglo-American academia in the form of a critical reaction to John Rawls' landmark 1971 book A Theory of Justice. Drawing primarily upon the insights of Aristotle and Hegel, polit- ical philosophers such as Alasdair MacIntyre, Michael Sandel, Charles Taylor and Michael Walzer disputed Rawls' assumption that the principal task of gov- ernment is to secure and distribute fairly the liberties and economic resources individuals need to lead freely chosen lives. These critics of liberal theory never did identify themselves with the `communitarian movement' (the `communitar- ian' label was pinned on them by others, usually critics),2 much less offer a grand communitarian theory as a systematic alternative to liberalism. Nonethe- ∗ What may seem like an idiosyncratic choice of topics in this essay|from Rawlsian theory to East Asian politics|has been, it should be stated, partly influenced by my own life experi- ence.
    [Show full text]
  • Ethics As Response: a Critical Analysis of Michael Walzer's Just War Theory in the Context of Iraq
    Ethics as Response: A Critical Analysis of Michael Walzer’s Just War Theory in the Context of Iraq A Thesis submitted to the University of Manchester for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy In the Faculty of Humanities 2013 Ronan O’ Callaghan School of Social Sciences Contents LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 4 ABSTRACT 5 DECLARATION 6 COPYRIGHT STATEMENT 7 DEDICATION 8 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 9 INTRODUCTION: ENGAGING WITH WAR 11 PRELUDE 11 SITUATING THE ARGUMENT 12 A DECONSTRUCTIVE APPROACH TO THE JUST WAR TRADITION 15 HISTORY AND THE PROBLEM OF REPRESENTATION 19 HISTORY AND REVOLUTION 22 STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS 25 CONCLUSION 27 1 MICHAEL WALZER'S MORALITY 29 INTRODUCTION 29 THERE IS A THIN MAN INSIDE EVERY FAT MAN 31 SELF-DETERMINATION AND MEMBERSHIP 35 DECLARATION AND THE BIRTH OF COMMUNITY 41 MEMBERSHIP AND ALTERITY 46 WAR AND MAXIMAL MORALITY 50 TEMPORAL REVELATION AND BEING 57 DIFFÉRANCE AND SECULAR THEOLOGY 60 CONCLUSION 63 2 DERRIDA AND ETHICS 66 INTRODUCTION 66 ETHICS AS FIRST PHILOSOPHY 68 COMMUNITY AS THE POSSIBILITY OF JUSTICE 77 ETHICAL ACTION AS SACRIFICE 86 UNDECIDABILITY AS JUSTICE FOR THE OTHER 94 CONCLUSION 101 3 NONCOMBATANT IMMUNITY 104 INTRODUCTION 104 IDENTIFYING THE TARGET 107 COMBATANT RIGHTS 109 2 JUSTIFYING THE LOSS OF RIGHTS 116 SIMPLY BY FIGHTING 117 DANGER AND THREAT 122 FREEDOM AND SACRIFICE 130 CONCLUSION 134 4 DOUBLE EFFECT AND ITS PARASITES 136 INTRODUCTION 136 THE DOCTRINE OF DOUBLE EFFECT 137 PARDON ME FOR NOT MEANING TO … 140 IN ALL GOOD FAITH 146 POLICING WITH DUE CARE 151 DEEPENING DOUBLE EFFECT 157 SIEGE WARFARE: AN
    [Show full text]