Find counter arguments by entering NameVs… or …VsName.
The author or concept searched is found in the following 9 entries.
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Citizenship | Mouffe | Gaus I 283 Citizenship/identity/Mouffe/Mottier: Mouffe (1992)(1) (...) founds her conception of citizenship on a critique as well as a critical reappropriation of liberalism. However, Mouffe's project of 'plural democracy' also draws strongly on postmodern and poststructuralist arguments (...). >Democracy/Mouffe, cf. >Identity/Postmodernism, >Gender/Poststructuralism. MouffeVsEssentialism: Indeed, Mouffe adopts an antiessentialist position towards citizenship, emphasizing the social and political construction of gender identities. Certain feminists fear that anti-essentialist positions limit the possibilities for political action and mobilization around women's identity. For Mouffe, on the contrary, the critique of essentialist identities is in fact a precondition for a truly feminist politics. Sex difference: The most urgent task in her view is to recognize the process of social construction through which sex difference has acquired such importance as a structuring factor of social relations of subordination. According to Mouffe, it is precisely within Gaus I 284 these processes that the real power relations operate in society. Therefore, a perspective that focuses only on the consequences of sex difference - whether 'equality of treatment' means that women and men should be treated differently or the same - is meaningless in her eyes. MouffeVsPateman/MouffeVsElshtain: Mouffe's anti-essentialism leads her to criticize feminists who primarily promote the revalorization of female values, such as (although coming from different perspectives) Pateman or Elshtain. For Mouffe, as for Judith Butler (1990)(2), such a position is problematic, as it assumes the existence of homogeneous identities such as 'men' and 'women'. Citizenship: Contrary to Pateman and Young, Mouffe thinks that the solution is not to make gender or other group characteristics relevant to the concept of citizenship, but on the contrary, to decrease their importance. The project of radical and democratic citizenship that she proposes implies a conception of citizenship which is neither gendered nor gender-neutral, based on a real equality and liberty of all citizens. She proposes, on the contrary, to focus on political issues and claims and not on presumably fixed and essential gender identities. Accordingly, the distinction between the private and the public spheres needs to be redefined from case to case, according to the type of political demands, and not in a fixed and permanent way. 1. Mouffe, Chantal (1992) 'Feminism, citizenship and radical democratic politics'. In Judith Butler and Joan Scott, eds, Feminists Theorise the Political. New York: Routledge, 22-40. 2. Butler, Judith (1990) Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge. Véronique Mottier 2004. „Feminism and Gender Theory: The Return of the State“. In: Gaus, Gerald F. & Kukathas, Chandran 2004. Handbook of Political Theory. SAGE Publications |
Gaus I Gerald F. Gaus Chandran Kukathas Handbook of Political Theory London 2004 |
| Citizenship | Walby | Gaus I 281 Citizenship/Walby/Mottier: Tradition: Mainstream political theory (...) considers citizenship as a universal concept. Democratic rights of social and political participation apply to each citizen without regard for his or her race, religion or gender. FeminismVsTradition: Feminist authors have shown the central premises of universalistic conceptions of citizenship to be flawed due to gender bias. As the work of Vicky Randall (1998)(1), Ruth Lister (1997)(2) and Sylvia Walby (1994)(3) illustrates, women have been either excluded, or differentially included, in citizenship. WalbyVsTradition: Walby's historical analysis, for example, demonstrates the gendered nature of citizenship through a critical assessment of the work of T. H. Marshall (1950)(4), which is often taken to be the starting point for modern debates on the question (...). >Citizenship(Marshall. Citizenship/Marshall: According to Marshall, different types of citizenship developed successively, with civic rights in the eighteenth century, political rights in the nineteenth and social rights in the twentieth. WalbyVsMarshall: Analysing the history of citizenship in the United Kingdom and the US, Walby questions Marshall's thesis. For example, up to the 1920s, in contrast to men, British and American women had not yet acquired the majority of civic and political rights. In addition, the political rights were acquired by women before the civic rights, contradicting Marhall's sequential model. In other words, as Walby demonstrates, the three types of citizenship rights described by Marshall have followed different historical trajectories for different social groups. The conception of a unique model of citizenship therefore reveals a gender bias which is also present in the work of later authors who built on Marshall's work, such as Turner and Mann. As Walby points out, these authors similarly put the emphasis on the importance of social class in the history of citizenship and the formation of the nation-state, but neglect other factors such as gender or race. In this respect Walby joins other feminist critics of the concept of citizenship, such as Lister (1990)(5) and Pateman (1989)(6), for whom the fact that women have not been treated in any democracy as full and equal citizens means that 'democracy has never existed' (1989(6): 372). Gender roles/WalbyVsPateman/WalbyVsLister: However, Walby also points out an important contradiction in their work: on the one hand, authors such as Lister and Pateman question the gendered nature of the frontiers between the public and the private while insisting on the importance of female values and roles (Pateman, 1991)(7) and on the recognition by the public sphere of the work done by women in the private sphere (Lister, 1990)(5). 1. Randall, Vicky (1998) 'Gender and power: women engage the state'. In Vicky Randall and Georgina Waylen, eds, Gende'; Politics and the State. London: Routledge, 185-205. 2. Lister, Ruth (1997) Citizenship: Feminist Perspectives. Basingstoke: Macmillan. 3. Walby, Sylvia (1994) 'Is citizenship gendered?' Sociology, 28 (2): 379-95. 4. Marshall, T. H. (1950) Class, Citizenship and Social Development. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 5. Lister, Ruth (1990) 'VVomen, economic dependency and citizenship'. Journal of Social Policy, 19 (4): 445-67. 6. Pateman, Carole (1989) The Disorder of Women: Democracy, Feminism and Political Theory. Cambridge: Polity. 7. Pateman, Carole (1991) The Disorder of Women. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Véronique Mottier 2004. „Feminism and Gender Theory: The Return of the State“. In: Gaus, Gerald F. & Kukathas, Chandran 2004. Handbook of Political Theory. SAGE Publications |
Gaus I Gerald F. Gaus Chandran Kukathas Handbook of Political Theory London 2004 |
| Democracy | Mill | Höffe I 356 Democracy/Mill/Höffe: Mill fears that mere democracy, which he does not qualify in more detail, could lead to a terror of opinion, which he emphatically rejects(1). In contrast to a simple understanding of popular rule, which is reduced to factual majorities, this concept suggests the idea of a constitutional democracy based on the rule of law and the constitution. In every mere democracy, there is the threat of forced domination by society over the individual. In this case, what alone is desirable is not ruled by itself, but by all others, so that, which frightens the highly educated Mill, everyone is ruled by an uneducated mass. Individualism/Mill: Mill's rejection of any form of coercive domination over the individual merely allows the state to establish a framework within which everyone is free to make their own well-informed decisions. >Governance. HöffeVsMill: However, the uncompromising nature of this partisanship for freedom and impartiality contradicts Mill's theory of science and epistemology. Because it accepts contre cæur not only in utilitarianism(2), but also in the writing "On Liberty"(1), and that does not exist at all according to the system of logic: an a priori element. Cf. >a priori/Mill, >Freedom. In the writing "The Subjection of Women"(3) Mill himself will admit this contradiction. >State/Mill. 1. J.St. Mill. On Liberty, 1859 2. J.St. Mill, Utilitarianism 1861 3. J.St. Mill The Subjection of Women, 1869 (dt. Die Hörigkeit der Frau) Brocker I 508 Democracy/learning/skills/personality/Mill: The process of improving human abilities (in cognitive, moral and emotional perspectives) requires individual courage and - as Mill very critically states in On Liberty - is undermined by democracy and majority decisions. Democracy has an inherent tendency towards mediocrity, which restricts freedom. SchaalVsPateman: Carole Pateman(1) shortens Mill inadmissibly by referring significantly to Mill's On Representative Government and largely ignores the connection between freedom and the holistic training of human abilities that Mill carries out in On Liberty (in reference to Wilhelm von Humboldt). >Abilities, cf. >W. v. Humboldt. 1. Carole Pateman, Participation and Democratic Theory, Cambridge 1970, S. 34f Gary S. Schaal, “Carole Pateman, Participation and Democratic Theory” in: Manfred Brocker (Hg.) Geschichte des politischen Denkens. Das 20. Jahrhundert. Frankfurt/M. 2018 |
Mill I John St. Mill A System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive, London 1843 German Edition: Von Namen, aus: A System of Logic, London 1843 In Eigennamen, Ursula Wolf Frankfurt/M. 1993 Mill II J. St. Mill Utilitarianism: 1st (First) Edition Oxford 1998 Höffe I Otfried Höffe Geschichte des politischen Denkens München 2016 Brocker I Manfred Brocker Geschichte des politischen Denkens. Das 20. Jahrhundert Frankfurt/M. 2018 |
| Democratic Theory | Pateman | Brocker I 505 Democratic Theory/Pateman: PatemanVsSchumpeter/PatemanVsSartori: Thesis: The formation of positive attitudes towards democracy is not a question of cognitive competence, but of democratizing a previously undemocratic institutional structure that systematically generates undemocratic attitudes and feelings of individual incompetence: the production of capitalist goods. >Democratic Theory/Schumpeter, Democratic Theory/Sartori. Democracy/Tradition: However, the sphere of goods production must remain undemocratic to ensure productivity and efficiency. There is therefore no alternative to the democratic status quo that would not endanger democracy itself. Brocker I 506 PatemanVsTradition: 1 VsSchumpeter: the normative evaluation scale is incorrectly constructed: the concept of a "classical democracy theory" is a myth. (1) The sources are more heterogeneous than traditionally claimed. History of ideas/Pateman: must not be reduced to pure normativity. Labour/Democratization: 2. PatemanVsSchumpeter: Democratic participation and productivity are not contradictory. VsPateman: Schumpeter does not reconstruct this in the dynamic aspects of his work. Taking into account Schumpeter's analysis of the importance of leadership, creativity and innovation for capitalism Brocker I 507 would have improved the persuasiveness of her argument. 1. Carole Pateman, Participation and Democratic Theory, Cambridge 1970, S. 17. Gary S. Schaal, “Carole Pateman, Participation and Democratic Theory” in: Manfred Brocker (Hg.) Geschichte des politischen Denkens. Das 20. Jahrhundert. Frankfurt/M. 2018 |
PolPate I Carole Pateman Political Culture, Political Structure and Political Change 1971 Brocker I Manfred Brocker Geschichte des politischen Denkens. Das 20. Jahrhundert Frankfurt/M. 2018 |
| Identity | Mouffe | Gaus I 283 Citizenship/identity/Mouffe/Mottier: Mouffe (1992)(1) (...) founds her conception of citizenship on a critique as well as a critical reappropriation of liberalism. However, Mouffe's project of 'plural democracy' also draws strongly on postmodern and poststructuralist arguments (...). >Democracy/Mouffe, cf. >Identity/Postmodernism, >Gender/Poststructuralism. MouffeVsEssentialism: Indeed, Mouffe adopts an antiessentialist position towards citizenship, emphasizing the social and political construction of gender identities. Certain feminists fear that anti-essentialist positions limit the possibilities for political action and mobilization around women's identity. For Mouffe, on the contrary, the critique of essentialist identities is in fact a precondition for a truly feminist politics. Sex difference: The most urgent task in her view is to recognize the process of social construction through which sex difference has acquired such importance as a structuring factor of social relations of subordination. According to Mouffe, it is precisely within Gaus I 284 these processes that the real power relations operate in society. Therefore, a perspective that focuses only on the consequences of sex difference - whether 'equality of treatment' means that women and men should be treated differently or the same - is meaningless in her eyes. MouffeVsPateman/MouffeVsElshtain: Mouffe's anti-essentialism leads her to criticize feminists who primarily promote the revalorization of female values, such as (although coming from different perspectives) Pateman or Elshtain. For Mouffe, as for Judith Butler (1990)(2), such a position is problematic, as it assumes the existence of homogeneous identities such as 'men' and 'women'. Citizenship: Contrary to Pateman and Young, Mouffe thinks that the solution is not to make gender or other group characteristics relevant to the concept of citizenship, but on the contrary, to decrease their importance. The project of radical and democratic citizenship that she proposes implies a conception of citizenship which is neither gendered nor gender-neutral, based on a real equality and liberty of all citizens. She proposes, on the contrary, to focus on political issues and claims and not on presumably fixed and essential gender identities. Accordingly, the distinction between the private and the public spheres needs to be redefined from case to case, according to the type of political demands, and not in a fixed and permanent way. 1. Mouffe, Chantal (1992) 'Feminism, citizenship and radical democratic politics'. In Judith Butler and Joan Scott, eds, Feminists Theorise the Political. New York: Routledge, 22-40. 2. Butler, Judith (1990) Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge. Véronique Mottier 2004. „Feminism and Gender Theory: The Return of the State“. In: Gaus, Gerald F. & Kukathas, Chandran 2004. Handbook of Political Theory. SAGE Publications |
Gaus I Gerald F. Gaus Chandran Kukathas Handbook of Political Theory London 2004 |
| Participation | Pateman | Brocker I 510 Participation/Pateman: "The existence of a democratic community therefore requires the existence of a participatory society, a society in which all political systems have been democratized and socialization through participation can take place in all areas. The most important area is industry" (1). In doing so, Pateman opposes traditional approaches of democracy theory that reduce the questions of democracy to the political. PatemanVsSchumpeter, PatemanVsSartori: see Democratic Theory/Sartori, Democratic Theory/Schumpeter. Schaal: Pateman does not argue from a socialist perspective, but rather her demand for the extension of democratic mechanisms to non-political areas such as industrial work is based on the systematic explication of the normative ideals of liberalism. VsPateman: her approach of "quasi-empiracy" is criticized by later authors as not convincing enough. Cf., Schonfeld, 1975, (2), Moon 1972 (3). Brocker I 514 Pateman/Schaal: Pateman's Participation and Democratic Theory belongs to the canon of modern (english) classics of participatory democracy theory (Held 1987, 254-264 (4)) and was only replaced as a standard work of participatory democracy theory by Benjamin Barbers Strong Democracy in 1984. 1. Carole Pateman, Participation and Democratic Theory, Cambridge 1970, S. 43 2. Schonfeld, William R., »The Meaning of Democratic Participation«, in: World Politics 28/1, 1975, 134-158. 3. Moon, J. Donald, »Participation and Democracy. A Review Essay«, in: Midwest Journal of Political Science 16/3, 1972, 473-485. 4. David Held, David, Models of Democracy, Cambridge 1987. Gary S. Schaal, “Carole Pateman, Participation and Democratic Theory” in: Manfred Brocker (Hg.) Geschichte des politischen Denkens. Das 20. Jahrhundert. Frankfurt/M. 2018 |
PolPate I Carole Pateman Political Culture, Political Structure and Political Change 1971 Brocker I Manfred Brocker Geschichte des politischen Denkens. Das 20. Jahrhundert Frankfurt/M. 2018 |
| Privacy | Elshtain | Gaus I 280 Privacy/Elshtain/Mottier: Whereas feminists agree on the necessity of democratizing the private sphere, they disagree as to the political solutions. Pateman(1), for example, argues for the abandoning of the distinction between public and private spheres in favour of more politicization of the private sphere. Other authors think that it is essential to maintain clear boundaries between the two spheres. ElshtainVsPateman: Jean Bethke Elshtain (1981(2)), in particular, vehemently rejects Pateman's position. She considers the assimilation of both spheres to be 'totalitarian' since it would not leave any areas of life outside of politics. Political sphere/privicy/Elshtain: [Elshtain] considers the assimilation of both spheres to be 'totalitarian' since it would not leave any areas of life outside of politics. According to Elshtain, the liberalist rigid separation of the spheres leads to the removal from the political sphere of family values, solidarity and care. The public sphere becomes a space regulated only by the principle of individualistic, rational pursuit of egoistic self-interests. Consequently, the political sphere becomes emptied of its more central values. Elshtain thus argues that the application of principles of the public sphere to the private sphere let loose the most negative tendencies of the modern world. Family/Elshtain: The family, she argues, should be protected against the destructive effects of politicization by rigorous maintenance of clear boundaries between the two spheres. 1. Pateman, Carole (1989) The Disorder of Women: Democracy, Feminism and Political Theory. Cambridge: Polity. 2. Elshtain, Jean Bethke (1981) Public Man, Private Women: Women in Social and Political Thought. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Véronique Mottier 2004. „Feminism and Gender Theory: The Return of the State“. In: Gaus, Gerald F. & Kukathas, Chandran 2004. Handbook of Political Theory. SAGE Publications |
Gaus I Gerald F. Gaus Chandran Kukathas Handbook of Political Theory London 2004 |
| Privacy | Pateman | Gaus I 280 Privacy/Pateman/Mottier: Whereas feminists agree on the necessity of democratizing the private sphere, they disagree as to the political solutions. Pateman(1), for example, argues for the abandoning of the distinction between public and private spheres in favour of more politicization of the private sphere. Other authors think that it is essential to maintain clear boundaries between the two spheres. ElshtainVsPateman: Jean Bethke Elshtain (1981(2)), in particular, vehemently rejects Pateman's position. She considers the assimilation of both spheres to be 'totalitarian' since it would not leave any areas of life outside of politics. >Privay/Elshtain. 1. Pateman, Carole (1989) The Disorder of Women: Democracy, Feminism and Political Theory. Cambridge: Polity. 2. Elshtain, Jean Bethke (1981) Public Man, Private Women: Women in Social and Political Thought. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Véronique Mottier 2004. „Feminism and Gender Theory: The Return of the State“. In: Gaus, Gerald F. & Kukathas, Chandran 2004. Handbook of Political Theory. SAGE Publications |
PolPate I Carole Pateman Political Culture, Political Structure and Political Change 1971 Gaus I Gerald F. Gaus Chandran Kukathas Handbook of Political Theory London 2004 |
| Rousseau | Pateman | Brocker I 507 Rousseau/Pateman: Thesis: Rousseau is a theoretician of participatory democracy theory par excellence. 1. There is a (causal) connection between the power structures in institutions and the attitudes and dispositions of the people who work or act within these institutions. (1) 2. Participation/Rousseau/Pateman: Thesis: For Rousseau (and thus for Pateman), participation has above all an educational function. SchaalVsPateman: the conclusions Pateman draws from her reading of Rousseau are not covered by recent Rousseau research: a) Rousseau's "The Social Contract" does not run an election campaign, b) Whether Rousseau's decision-making is internal or public is controversial. >Participation, >C. Pateman. 1. Carole Pateman, Participation and Democratic Theory, Cambridge 1970, p. 26 2. Ibid. p. 27 Gary S. Schaal, “Carole Pateman, Participation and Democratic Theory” in: Manfred Brocker (Hg.) Geschichte des politischen Denkens. Das 20. Jahrhundert. Frankfurt/M. 2018 |
PolPate I Carole Pateman Political Culture, Political Structure and Political Change 1971 Brocker I Manfred Brocker Geschichte des politischen Denkens. Das 20. Jahrhundert Frankfurt/M. 2018 |
| |||
No results. Please choose an author or concept or try a different keyword-search.