Comments on: Best political philosophy/theory papers

By: artclone

artclone — Tue, 25 May 2004 06:07:26 +0000

For anyone looking: G. A. Cohen’s “Taking People . . .” article mentioned above is in the Fall Philosophy and Public Affairs, not 2003. The article does not derail Josh Cohen’s “project”, in fact the only real departures are the belief that institutions can change an ethos and that people need to be able to connect their identity to their relative social postion to be free. I’m not convinced.

By: artclone

artclone — Tue, 25 May 2004 06:06:46 +0000

By: DJW

DJW — Wed, 19 May 2004 19:11:26 +0000

That Beitz paper is very good, and helpful, although a touch outdated given the rate at which that field is advancing. Here's a review essay I'd strongly recommend--Ellis Goldberg's "Regarding the Imperial State" in Political Theory April 2004. It's not long enough to really make substantial arguments, but I think it covers a really important set of issues for liberal theorists. It reviews James Scott's most recent book, Seeing Like a State, Sen's Development as Freedom (he gets a nice dig in here--what's wrong with Political Scientists such that they pay more attention to Douglass North on political economy than they do Sen?), and Mehta's excellent Liberalism and Empire. He uses these three books to begin the process of making the case that liberal theorists (and comparativists) have seriously undertheorized and the concept of 'state capacity,' and Burke (who looms behind all three of these books) could certainly help them. I'm pretty convinced he's on to something.

By: Alex Fradera

Alex Fradera — Wed, 19 May 2004 11:42:21 +0000

Thanks Vivian. I’ll check the paper out; moreover I second your suggestion for a review thread. Oh that this were a real committee! Actually, maybe not.

By: vivian

vivian — Wed, 19 May 2004 01:04:39 +0000

Alex, Although Jacob is generally right about the book/article distinction, what you might find most useful would be a list of the best Review Articles. (They probably have these in neuropsych journals too. In case you use the words differently, I refer to articles that summarize recent developments (10/30 yrs) a particular debate, or subfield, for people in other subspecialties. For example, Beitz summarized three approaches to international justice in World Politics in 2000, a journal for the international relations community.) Perhaps we could start a new thread recommending the best political theory/philosophy/something else review articles. These would be useful for people in other fields, for teaching, and heck, for the dedicated professional.

By: Alex Fradera

Alex Fradera — Tue, 18 May 2004 17:10:19 +0000

… but I think there’s already some good pointers on this thread I will take up. Thanks for that.

By: Alex Fradera

Alex Fradera — Tue, 18 May 2004 17:07:24 +0000

Fair enough. The book point I readily take – I would be totally unequipped had I not read up on Rawls recently, thanks to Crooked Timber no less (Jon Mandle’s ‘WLOL?’), so I suppose the next step would be to find related and complimentary tomes. Had I the time, I would, but philosophy and politics are my guilty ‘pleasures’ and I have other realms of knowledge competing to get inside my head: neuropsychology thesis to write up in 12-14 months and closing. So articles are an ideal way to go about it; moverover, they’re something I’m accustomed to reading anyway. And certainly in my field there are cases of important work being achieved within the boundaries of an accessible, well-written article that assumes little and explains as it goes. I was just looking for any exemplars of those. Of course, the intersect between ‘accessible’ and ‘important’ probably varies from academic domain, due to the epistemological tools brought to bear, the formal approach of the area, and the temperament of the community members…

By: DJW

DJW — Tue, 18 May 2004 16:30:16 +0000

I’ve taught Anderson’s essay to students with little background in philosophy and political theory and they did pretty well with it. Ditto what Jacob said about having to follow at least the broad contours of Rawls debates, and the value of substantive reviews in the publications he mentions.

By: Jacob T. Levy

Jacob T. Levy — Tue, 18 May 2004 16:07:39 +0000

“accessible to non-specialists” Hm. Unfortunately it’s kind of in the nature of the thread [“significant journal papers in the field “] that there won’t be many of those. We’ve tended to list articles that made some real progress in some existing debate, refined old issues in a particularly important way, etc. Most of the articles are in some way dependent on having followed the Rawls literature since Political Liberalism (or, for some, the even-more-recent Law of Peoples). There are good overview/ review essays as well (I really like Charles Larmore’s New Republic review essay of Law of Peoples/ Collected Papers), but they’re different from these. It’s typically the case that books do more than peer-reviewed articles do to set the broader picture, connect the particular argument in the literature with the bigger problems in the world, and introduce the reader to the topic. Articles often depend on the thought that you’ve at least read some of the books under discussion, or have a working familiarity with what they say. I think non-specialists interested in a field (this field, at least) are better off with a couple of books than with a pile of journal articles. Review essays in places like LRB, NYRoB, and TNR can also be very valuable.

By: Alex Fradera

Alex Fradera — Tue, 18 May 2004 15:50:12 +0000

If this was to be compiled, I vote for a subcategory of good, important papers that are particularly accessible for non-specialists. This could include particularly good reviews of issues, or theoretical problems that are given a strong grounding in real-world examples so the non-philosopher can get through it if they persevere.

By: TheLastDJ

TheLastDJ — Tue, 18 May 2004 13:50:29 +0000

Anderson’s article is certainly amusing. It’s a shame it has no arguments.

By: vivian

vivian — Tue, 18 May 2004 01:55:46 +0000

Jacob: I wouldn’t call you a Luddite, but perhaps you (and I and many others) have not yet optimized our “keeping up” strategies for the evolving online libraries. I subscribe to a couple of journal notification email lists (yes, the Uncover ones used to be better, but they still work), even for journals that I don’t subscribe to, including a couple way out of my fields. I’m not sure if APSR has notification for non-subscribers, but it might. It’s pretty easy to wander into the Political Science department waiting room and browse the table of contents while waiting for a coffee or a friend though. I suspect that you find it easier to skip these steps because you’re more productive and less prone to waste time; adding that to your blog and the case for Luddism is blown completely.

By: vivian

vivian — Tue, 18 May 2004 01:42:34 +0000

Crain writes: “I’m not, however, aware of any further defenses of “democratic equality” as such since Anderson’s article. Any advice?” Well, there’s Samuel Scheffler’s “What Is Egalitarianism?” from PAPA Jan 2003. The reasoning is similar, but more of a positive explanation of the value of equality than a rollicking critique of a spectrum of thought (which made the Anderson article so much fun, as well as interesting). also “Fairness, Respect and the Egalitarian Ethos” by Jo Wolff (who commented in another post very recently) PAPA Spring 1998 (so technically it precedes Anderson, but they read as if independently derived). I Second Tano’s suggestion, namely, that someone else compile all the recommendations into a convenient list for folks like me to peruse as needed. (then again, you CTers do lots of other things to make readers’ lives easier, so perhaps it isn’t a greedy thing to request.)

By: Matt

Matt — Mon, 17 May 2004 23:16:49 +0000

On “Democratic Equality”, that’s how Norman Daniels characterizes Rawls’s position in his (very good, I think) article “Rawls’s Complex Egalitarianism” in the Cambridge Companion to Rawls. I can’t say for sure what it’s relationship to Anderson’s view is, but both oppose luck egalitarianism. (Rightfully so, I think.)

By: Tano

Tano — Mon, 17 May 2004 21:56:42 +0000

May I suggest compiling this list on a page and linking to it from the main page?