Pluralism and Civic Virtue Galston, William A.
Social theory and practice,
10/2007, Letnik:
33, Številka:
4
Journal Article
Recenzirano
This essay in a special journal issue, "Virtue & Social Diversity," contends that human virtue is desirable for individuals & its content varies little across time, place, & circumstances. The main ...purpose of civic virtue, however, is to sustain a political community; thus its content varies between communities. The tension between the two virtues will be obvious, & under varying circumstances, it will not be clear which should be given priority. Two opposed strategies for dissolving this tension are discussed. One, argued by Hobbes, is that the only defensible conception of virtue is as instrumental. Civic virtue is instrumental in serving the important public good of maintaining peace. The other strategy is to deny the moral force of the instrumental conception -- to view patriotism as a moral mistake because, in exalting a collective form of self-love, it opposes the only justified morality, which is universalist human virtue. However, this conception does not mean that civic virtue has no value. The objects & occasions of civic virtue are explored, particularly in politically pluralistic societies. Pluralist citizens live morally complex lives, & each citizen must learn how to integrate these two spheres of moral activities. S. Stanton
Voter turnout was unusually high in the 2004 U.S. presidential election. At first glance, that level of participation -largely spurred by war in Iraq and a burgeoning culture war at home -might look ...like vindication of democracy. If the recent past is any indication, however, too many Americans will soon return to apathy and inactivity. Clearly, all is not well in our civic life. Citizens are participating in public affairs too infrequently, too unequally, and in too few venues to develop and sustain a robust democracy. This important new book explores the problem of America's decreasing involvement in its own affairs. Democracy at Riskreveals the dangers of civic disengagement for the future of representative democracy. The authors, all eminent scholars, undertake three main tasks: documenting recent trends in civic engagement, exploring the influence that the design of political institutions and public policies have had on those trends, and recommending steps that will increase the amount and quality of civic engagement in America. The authors focus their attention on three key areas: the electoral process, including elections and the way people get involved; the impact of location, including demographic shifts and changing development patterns; and the critical role of nonprofit organizations and voluntary associations, including the philanthropy that help keep them going.
This important project, initially sponsored by the American Political Science Association, tests the proposition that social science has useful insights on the state of our democratic life. Most importantly, it charts a course for reinvigorating civic participation in the world's oldest democracy.
The authors: Stephen Macedo (Princeton University), Yvette Alex-Assensoh (Indiana University), Jeffrey M. Berry (Tufts), Michael Brintnall (American Political Science Association), David E. Campbell (Notre Dame), Luis Ricardo Fraga (Stanford), Archon Fung (Harvard), William A. Galston (University of Maryland), Christopher F. Karpowitz (Princeton), Margaret Levi (University of Washington), Meira Levinson (Radcliffe Institute), Keena Lipsitz (California-Berkeley), Richard G. Niemi (University of Rochester), Robert D. Putnam (Harvard), Wendy M. Rahn (University of Minnesota), Keith Reeves (Swarthmore), Rob Reich (Stanford), Robert R. Rodgers (Princeton), Todd Swanstrom (Saint Louis University), and Katherine Cramer Walsh (University of Wisconsin).
America's polarized politics are largely disconnected from mainstream public preferences. This disconnect poses fundamental dangers for the representativeness and accountability of government, as ...well as the already withering public trust in it. As the 2008 presidential race kicks into gear, the political climate certainly will not become less polarized. With important issues to address -including immigration policy, health care, and the funding of the Iraq war -it is critical that essential policies not be hostage to partisan political battles. Building upon the findings of the first volume of Red and Blue Nation? (Brookings, 2006), which explored the extent of political polarization and its potential causes, this new volume delves into the consequences of the gulf between "red states" and "blue states." The authors examine the impact of these political divisions on voter behavior, Congressional law-making, judicial selection, and foreign policy formation. They shed light on hotly debated institutional reform proposals -including changes to the electoral system and the congressional rules of engagement -and ultimately present research-supported policies and reforms for alleviating the underlying causes of political polarization. While most discussion of polarization takes place in separate spheres of journalism and academia, Red and Blue Nation? brings together a unique set of voices with a wide variety of perspectives to enrich our understanding of the issue. Written in a broad, accessible style, it is a resource for anyone interested in the future of electoral politics in America. Contributors include Marc Hetherington and John G. Geer (Vanderbilt University), Deborah Jordan Brooks (Dartmouth College), Martin P. Wattenberg (University of California, Irvine), Barbara Sinclair and Joel D. Aberbach (UCLA), Christopher H. Foreman (University of Maryland), Keith Krehbiel (Stanford University), Sarah A. Binder, Benjamin Wittes, Jonathan Rauch, and William A. Galston (Brookings), Martin Shapiro (University of California-Berkeley), Peter Beinart (Council on Foreign Relations), James Q. Wilson (Pepperdine University), John Ferejohn and Larry Diamond (Hoover Institution), Laurel Harbridge (Stanford University), Andrea L. Campbell (MIT), and Eric M. Patashnik (University of Virginia).
Is political theory political enough? Or does a tendency toward abstraction, idealization, moralism, and utopianism leave contemporary political theory out of touch with real politics as it actually ...takes place, and hence unable to speak meaningfully to or about our world? Realist political thought, which has enjoyed a significant revival of interest in recent years, seeks to avoid such pitfalls by remaining attentive to the distinctiveness of politics and the ways its realities ought to shape how we think and act in the political realm.Politics Recoveredbrings together prominent scholars to develop what it might mean to theorize politics "realistically." Intervening in philosophical debates such as the relationship between politics and morality and the role that facts and emotions should play in the theorization of political values, the volume addresses how a realist approach aids our understanding of pressing issues such as global justice, inequality, poverty, political corruption, the value of democracy, governmental secrecy, and demands for transparency. Contributors open up fruitful dialogues with a variety of other realist approaches, such as feminist theory, democratic theory, and international relations. By exploring the nature and prospects of realist thought,Politics Recoveredshows how political theory can affirm reality in order to provide meaningful and compelling answers to the fundamental questions of political life.
During the past decade, moral philosophers have clarified and debated many of the complex technical issues raised by value pluralism as well as broader objections to the overall approach. One must ...ask why value pluralism is to be preferred to the various forms of monism that thinkers have advanced since the beginning of philosophy as people know it. Many practitioners, and not a few philosophers, shy away from value pluralism out of fear that it leads to deliberative anarchy. Experience suggests that this is not necessarily so. The author explores three kinds of responses to the question whether how a viable political community be secured: the requirements of public order, the structuring processes of constitutionalism, and the force of ethical presumptions. The political meaning of moral pluralism emerges in the unending dialogue between the differentiating force of individuality and the organizing tendencies of commonality.
