Wiley, J. (2016) - Politics and The Concept of The Political

This book establishes a much-needed line of communication between broadly
postmodern theories of politics and the new political realism.

Enzo Rossi, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
This page intentionally left blank
POLITICS AND THE CONCEPT OF
THE POLITICAL
A recent trend in contemporary western political theory is to criticize it for

implicitly trying to “conquer,” “displace,” or “moralize” politics. James Wiley’s
book takes the “next step,” from criticizing contemporary political theory, to
showing what a more “politics-centered” political theory would look like by
exploring the meaning and value of politics in the writings of Max Weber, Carl
Schmitt, Paul Ricoeur, Hannah Arendt, Sheldon Wolin, Claude Lefort, and
Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe. These political theorists all use the concept
of “the political” to explain the value of politics and defend it from its detractors.
They represent state-centered, republic-centered, and society-centered concep-
tions of politics, as well as realist, authoritarian, idealist, republican, populist, and
radical democratic traditions of political thought. This book compares these the-
orists and traditions of “the political” in order to defend politics from its critics
and to contribute to the development of a politics-centered political theory.
Politics and the Concept of the Political will be a useful resource to general audiences
as well as to specialists in political theory.
James Wiley has a Ph.D. in Political Theory from the Johns Hopkins University
and has taught political theory and political science at the University of Rhode
Island, Western Michigan University, the University of Delaware, St. Norbert
College, the University of North Florida, John Carroll University, and the Col-
lege of Wooster. He is the author of Theory and Practice in the Philosophy of David
Hume (Palgrave Macmillan, 2012).
POLITICS AND THE
CONCEPT OF
THE POLITICAL
The Political Imagination
James Wiley
Add Add
Add Add
AddAddAdd
AddAdd Add
Add
First published 2016
by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
and by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2016 Taylor & Francis
The right of James Wiley to be identified as author of this work has been
asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or
utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now
known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any
information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the
publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered
trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent
to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Wiley, James, 1956- author.
Title: Politics and the concept of the political : the political imagination /
James Wiley.
Description: New York, NY : Routledge, 2016. | Includes bibliographical
references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2016003682| ISBN 9781138185814 (hbk) | ISBN
9781138185821 (pbk) | ISBN 9781315644233 (ebk)
Subjects: LCSH: Political science–Philosophy. | Political theory.
Classification: LCC JA83 .W538 2016 | DDC 320.01–dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016003682
ISBN: 978-1-138-18581-4 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-1-138-18582-1 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-315-64423-3 (ebk)
Typeset in Bembo
by Taylor & Francis Books
For my mother, Jean Wiley, my sister, Nancy Wiley, and
for Karen Taylor
CONTENTS
1 The Status of Politics and the Political 1
PART 1
The State
2 Realism: Weberx 23
3 Absolutism, Fascism, and Authoritarianism: Schmitt 54
4 Idealism: Ricoeur 89
PART 2
The Polis
5 Public and Private, Self and World: Arendt 119
6 The Social, the Political, and Democracy: Wolin 151
PART 3
Society
7 Economics, Culture, and the Political: Lefort, Laclau,
and Mouffe 187
8 Theories of the Political, Political Theory, and Politics 222
Bibliography 247
Index 289
1
THE STATUS OF POLITICS AND
THE POLITICAL
Politics is too often regarded as a poor relation, inherently dependent and subsidiary;
it is rarely praised as something with a life and character of its own.
Bernard Crick (1964: 15 or 2000: 1–2)
It might be suggested … that both the proponents of social science and the ethically-
minded political philosopher advocate an approach which misses the same point.
The issue is not solely methodological, nor even primarily ethical in character, but
substantive; that is, it concerns the status of politics and the political.
Sheldon Wolin (1960a: 288 or 2004: 258)
A recent trend in contemporary western political theory is to criticize it for

implicitly trying to “conquer,” “displace,” or “moralize” politics. This book takes
the “next step,” from criticizing contemporary political theory, to showing what
a more “politics-centered” political theory would look like by exploring the
meaning and value of politics in the writings of Max Weber, Carl Schmitt, Paul
Ricoeur, Hannah Arendt, Sheldon Wolin, Claude Lefort, and Ernesto Laclau and
Chantal Mouffe. These political theorists all use the concept of “the political” to
explain the value of politics and defend it from its detractors. They represent
state-centered, republic-centered, and society-centered conceptions of politics, as
well as realist, authoritarian, idealist, republican, populist, and radical democratic
traditions of political thought. This book compares these theorists and traditions
of “the political” in order to defend politics from its critics and to contribute to
the development of a politics-centered political theory. For readers who are
familiar with Bernard Crick’s In Defense of Politics (1964 or 2000) and Sheldon
Wolin’s Politics and Vision (1960 or 2004), this book aims to combine Crick’s
defense of politics against its detractors with Wolin’s critique of political theory
2 Politics and the Concept of the Political
from the perspective of “the political.” Crick defined politics as “the activity by
which differing interests within a given unit of rule are conciliated by giving
them a share in power in proportion to their importance to the welfare and the
survival of the whole community” (1964: 21 or 2000: 7). Crick excluded foreign
politics, emergencies, and authoritarian politics from his definition. My definition
is broader and generalizes from my authors. I define politics as “the struggle for,
or cooperative use of, power, authority and ideology in order to advance interests
and ideals in the name of some collectivity.” Borrowing from Wolin, I define
“the political” as the “union of power and community.”
The continual need to clarify the meaning and value of politics is due to a
fundamental ambivalence about its “status.” As Crick complained, “Politics is too
often regarded as a poor relation, inherently dependent and subsidiary; it is rarely
praised as something with a life and character of its own” (1964: 15 or 2000: 1–2).
Crick began his book by quoting a newspaper article that agreed with the Por-
tuguese dictator Antonio Salazar, who “detested” politics: “all those noisy and
incoherent promises, the impossible demands … opportunism that cares neither
for truth nor justice … the exploitation of the lowest instincts.” Ambrose Bierce’s
Devil’s Dictionary defined politics as “a strife of interests masquerading as a contest
of principle. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage” (2004: 307).
No one is thrilled by Joseph Schumpeter’s characterization of democracy as “the
rule of the politician” (2003: 285), but many believe it is accurate. Many utopian
schemes promise a world free from politics. William Morris, in News from
Nowhere, had his utopians declare, “we are very well off as to politics—because
we have none” (1962: 256). Morris’s utopians use their parliament building to
store manure.
Many Americans, it seems, do not like politics and would agree with these
negative assessments. According to two political scientists who have studied
American attitudes toward politics:
Participation in politics is low not because of the difficulty of registration

requirements or the dearth of places for citizens to discuss politics, not
because of the sometimes unseemly nature of debate in Congress or dis-
pleasure with a particular public policy. Participation in politics is low
because people do not like politics even in the best of circumstances; in other
words, they simply do not like the process of openly arriving at a decision in
the face of diverse opinions. They do not like politics when they view it from
afar and they certainly do not like politics when they participate in it themselves.
(Hibbing and Theiss-Morse 2002: 3)
By the last edition of his book (2000), even Crick was disappointed by the post-
Cold War parliamentary democracies of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet
Union, and he added an appendix devoted to Thucydides’s (1972) description of
the breakdown of ancient Greek politics during the Peloponnesian War. As Max
The Status of Politics and the Political 3
Weber wrote, politics is a “slow boring of hard boards” (1946c: 128). Because
politics is frustrating, there is a continual need to explain its meaning and value.
As the epigraph to this chapter by Wolin indicates, even political scientists and
political philosophers who study politics are ambivalent about it and implicitly
denigrate “the status of politics and the political” by trying to reduce it to ethics
or to psychological, sociological, or economic processes. In Chapter 6 of his book
(2000), Crick drew portraits of political theorists who also distrust politics: “the
non-political conservative,” who wants to be “above” politics (Michael Oake-
shott), “the a-political liberal,” who succumbs to self-righteous moralism, and
“the anti-political socialist,” who sees political processes, with their compromises,
as obstacles to radical change (Harold Laski). Today, there is an emerging cohort
of political theorists, such as Michael Walzer (1981; 2007), Benjamin Barber
(1988), Bonnie Honig (1993), Joseph Schwartz (1995), Mark Reinhardt (1997),
John Gray (2000), Glenn Newey (2001), Pierre Manent (2006), Richard North
(2010), Richard Bellamy (2010), John Horton (2010), Mark Philp (2010), Charles
Larmore (2013), and Lorna Finlayson (2015), who argue that most of their fellow
political theorists are professionally biased toward order, ethics, or the “jur-
idification” of politics. Like the theorists of the political discussed in this book,
these writers view most academic political theory as an attempt to “conquer,”
“displace,” or “transcend” politics. Others, such as Bernard Williams (2005) and
Raymond Geuss (2008), have argued that too much emphasis has been placed on
“moralism” or “ideal theory” and that political theories need to be more “realis-
tic” (Galston 2010; Rossi and Sleat 2014). Michael Freeden (2005; 2013) has
been badgering the field for some time to take ideology (which he thinks is more
authentically “political” than most academic political theory) seriously and Jeremy
Waldron (2013) calls for a “political political theory” focused on institutions. This
book aims to contribute to this emerging “politics-centered” literature by exam-
ining theorists who explicitly use the concept of the political in order to explore
some of the implications of making politics central to theorizing. Its other aim is
to articulate the meaning and value of politics, particularly for those who are
ambivalent about it (as I am).
But, first, what is this strange term, “the political”?
I The concept of the political

The “concept of the political” was coined in 1927 by the controversial right-wing
legal scholar Carl Schmitt (1947; 1976 or 1996a or 2007a). The “concept” of the
political is different from the use of the term “the political” in the German das
Politische, the French le politique, and the Italian il politico. These transform an
adjective into a noun and in French, Italian, and Spanish usually refer to “the
political (man),” or politician (the “politico”).1 But they are often used inter-
changeably with “politics” (die Politik, la politique, la politica) “without there being
any semantic difference” (Vollrath 1987: 19). Thus many Continental writers
(Ellul 1972; Castoriadis 1991a; Touraine 1997) use “the political” as a synonym
for politics or the state. In a famous letter, Max Weber wrote “And then das
Politische … it is my old ‘secret love,’” and this has been translated as both “the
political” (Scaff 1989: 152) and “politics” (Mommsen 1989: 7). The term is used
less often in the English-speaking world where the Continental terms are sometimes
translated as “polity” or simply as “politics.”
The demand for an explicit “concept of the political” arises whenever the
common sense view of politics breaks down. According to Agnes Heller (1990:
114), this happens when the old ruling classes lose their monopoly on the control
of politics.2 Schmitt coined the concept of the political in order to save the clas-
sical European state conception of politics, which he believed was being under-
mined by democracy and pluralism. Previously, according to Schmitt, “the
political” could be identified with the state. Democracy, however, subjected the
state to society’s wants and the state responded by expanding its activities into
society, thereby blurring the distinction between politics and other activities:
The equation state = politics becomes erroneous and deceptive at exactly the
moment when state and society penetrate each other. What had been up to
that point affairs of state become thereby social matters and vice versa, what
had been purely social matters become affairs of state—as must necessarily
occur in a democratically organized unit … In such a state, therefore,
everything is at least potentially political, and in referring to the state it is no
longer possible to assert for it a specifically political characteristic.
(1976 or 2007a: 22)
Schmitt pointed to, but did not dwell on, a paradox that lies at the heart of the
“concept” of the political. Democracy leads to an expansion of the state: society is
politicized. Everything becomes “at least potentially political.” But as everything
becomes political, the political loses its particular identity. The state becomes
socialized and “it is no longer possible to assert for it a specifically political character-
istic.” The politicization of society and the socialization of the state present a para-
dox that requires a concept of the political in order to distinguish the genuinely
political from the falsely or temporarily politicized.
Forty years later, in the lead essay to the inaugural issue of the academic journal
Political Theory, Giovanni Sartori made a similar point. The “democratization or
massification of politics,” he wrote (1973: 21), means “above all, the ubiquity of
politics.” But this ubiquity also produces a “sociologization of politics” (22), a
reduction of politics to private demands by social groups, and then to complaints
about the “dilution, emasculation, and eclipse” of the political (23). This paradox,
that when the concept of politics expands it loses its identity, is also inherent in
debates about whether or not “everything is political.” When Michel Foucault
was asked to define “the political,” he defined it in terms of force and suggested
that everything was political. But he immediately added this caveat: “To say that
‘everything is political’ is to affirm this ubiquity of relations of force and their

immanence in a political field; but this is to give oneself the task, which has
scarcely been outlined, of disentangling this indefinite knot” (1980a: 189).
Pluralism poses a similar, though opposite, challenge. One purpose of Schmitt’s
concept of the political (1976 or 2007a: 37–45 and 1999a) was to criticize French
syndicalism and the British pluralist theories of Harold Laski (1968), G.D.H. Cole
and J.N. Figges (Hirst 1989b), which upheld churches, unions, and other orga-
nizations as having the same claims on the loyalty of individuals as the state. By
attacking the concept of the state, pluralism undermines the idea that there is a
specifically political realm or activity. In contrast to the expansion of the demo-
cratic state (which politicizes society and socializes politics), pluralism creates the
opposite paradox where a “socialization” or privatization of politics dissolves the
state into interest groups and private associations, and then politicizes those social
units in a new “feudalism.”3 Karl Marx (1978) described feudalism in terms of
this inversion: it was a system where the state was “the private affair of a ruler and
his servants” (45), while “the old civil society had a directly political character”
(44). Critics of pluralism and “corporatism” often make a similar point.4 At the
extreme where pluralism becomes “feudalism,” one can reverse the paradox of
“everything” being political: where nothing is specifically political, then “every-
thing” is. Thus, under modern conditions of democracy and pluralism, the
question of what is political becomes especially salient.
“The political” is now fashionable in Anglophone political theory, particularly
among British writers or among those studying Continental political philosophy.
Books and articles are published regularly with “the political” somewhere in the
title. For example, there is Adorno and the Political, Lacan and the Political, Foucault
and the Political, Derrida and the Political, Nietzsche and the Political, Heidegger and the
Political, Lyotard and the Political, Deleuze and the Political, Interpreting the Political,
Feminists Theorize the Political, Defining the Political, The Primacy of the Political, The
Fate of the Political, Revisioning the Political, The Permanence of the Political, Reinter-
preting the Political, Theology and the Political, Confronting the Political in Interna-
tional Relations, The Enlightenment Origins of the Political, Contesting the Boundaries of
the Political, and most simply, The Political.5 Even the late John Rawls (1989)
jumped on the bandwagon with an essay on “The Domain of the Political and
Overlapping Consensus.”
Many of these are excellent works and much can be learned from them. But
the reader who opens these in search of insight into “the political” will find that
there is a lot of discussion of the other topics in the titles and frustratingly little
about the political itself. In contrast, the theorists of the political examined in this
book attempt to articulate and defend those qualities that are specifically political,
rather than philosophical, economic, or social.
Briefly, Max Weber conceived politics as the struggle for power within and
among states, and divided citizens into rulers (or leaders) and ruled. The meaning
and value of politics for him was the power to resist evil and advance interests or
ideals. In particular, the vast power of a state meant “the power to determine the
character of culture in the future.” Power imposed moral obligations (which
Weber called “our responsibility before history”), such as a nation’s collective
responsibility to ensure favorable political, economic, and cultural conditions for
its descendants and, more generally, for the world. Weber belongs to the tradition
of western political thought known as realism.
Carl Schmitt conceived the political as the friend–enemy relation and (like
Weber) divided citizens into statesmen who make political decisions and subjects
who obey. The meaning and value of politics for Schmitt was authority and the
order, hierarchy, and discipline it imposed on a rebellious human nature. Schmitt
is controversial and can be classified as an “absolutist” like Thomas Hobbes, a
fascist like Benito Mussolini, or a Catholic authoritarian like Joseph de Maistre.
Paul Ricoeur conceived the political as the ideal of the state (understood as jus-
tice, the “rule of law,” or the “organization of freedom”) and citizenship as a
moral achievement over private interest. The meaning and value of politics was
the power to realize ideals, such as justice, freedom, and equality. Like Jean-Jacques
Rousseau and G.W.F. Hegel, Ricoeur believed that the state provided moral
education, for both individual citizens and the human race. Ricoeur was an
“idealist”—as are most political theorists.
Hannah Arendt conceived the political as the public realm of freedom and citi-
zenship as participation in government. The meaning and value of politics for her
was freedom, understood as participation in government, and the chance for citizens to
act in concert to initiate something new and memorable in the world. Arendt can
be placed in a tradition of political thought historians call “republicanism” or
“civic humanism,” which was inspired by the political ideals of ancient Greece
and republican Rome, which centered on the polis, res publica, or city-state.
Sheldon Wolin viewed the political as the union of authority and community and
citizenship as the collaborative use of power. He initially identified the political
with the state, but in his later writings concluded that democracy is the only
authentic example of this union and collaboration. The meaning and value of
politics was thus popular power, the ability of ordinary people to participate in the
collective use of power. Wolin’s democratic politics was populist.
Claude Lefort, Ernesto Laclau, and Chantal Mouffe conceived of the political
as those practices of culture and hegemony that institute, maintain and transform society.
For Lefort, the meaning and value of politics was freedom, understood as partici-
pation in perpetual debates and social conflicts that energize society. For Laclau and Mouffe,
the meaning and value of politics was the chance for people to exercise their freedom
and power by transforming social relationships and changing their world. Lefort,
Laclau, and Mouffe were former Marxists who became “radical” democrats.
Another way to “fix ideas” is to note that the conceptions of the political and
politics in Weber, Schmitt, and Ricoeur (as well as the political traditions I
associate with them) derived from the historical institution of the state; the con-
ceptions of Arendt and Wolin were inspired by the ancient Greek polis and
Roman res publica; and the conceptions of the political in Lefort, Laclau, and
Mouffe derived from the French revolutionary tradition, as modified by the social
movement politics symbolized by May 1968. In this tradition, society (rather than
the state or polis) is the context for politics, politics is ideological, and it is
“institutionalized” as “the Revolution” or “the Movement.” These three con-
ceptions of the political (statist, polis, or republic-centered and society-centered)
also correspond to textbook conceptions of politics: as government, as public
affairs, and as power and resources:
Three clearly distinct conceptions of politics can be identified. In the first

place, politics has long been associated with the formal institutions of gov-
ernment and the activities which take place therein. Secondly, politics is
commonly linked to public life and public activities, in contrast to what is
thought of as private or personal. Thirdly, politics has been related to the
distribution of power, wealth and resources, something that takes place
within all institutions and at every level of social existence.
(Heywood 1994: 17)
II The political and political theory

Theories of the political do not constitute an explicit “genre” or subfield in
contemporary western political theory.6 In Anglo-American political thought,
theories of the political (particularly those of Arendt and Wolin) are usually
lumped together with other “grand theories” (such as those of Leo Strauss and
Eric Voegelin) and the history of the transformation of political philosophy into
social science is understood primarily in terms of the shift in knowledge from philo-
sophy to science rather than from the political to the social.7 In France, the political
continues to be used as a synonym for the state. But there has been a tendency
(called “the return of the political”) to identify the political with political thought
and ideology, and to emphasize its role alongside material interests in producing
events (Jennings 1997; Rosanvallon 2001). Ernst Vollrath (1996) reports that in
Germany most political theory is subsumed under moral theory.8 In Italy, evi-
dently under the influence of Benedetto Croce’s (1960) realist interpretation of
Machiavelli and the “autonomy” of politics (as well as Schmitt’s influence during
the fascist period), theories of the political do form a subfield. The Italian political
theorist Alexander Passerin d’Entreves (1971) divided political theory into 1) the
classical quest for the best regime, 2) the analytic concern with concepts and
methodology, 3) the concept of the political, and 4) theories of legitimacy.
But d’Entreves disliked the concept of the political because he believed that
theorists like Schmitt who use this concept try to reduce politics to force in the
name of either a brutal “realism” or fascism. The strong claim made by theorists
of the political is that there is some sort of “rationality” or causal “logic” specific
to politics and that it is the proper task of political philosophy to “extract” this
“authentic” rationality (Vollrath 1987: 18). The easiest “logic” to establish is the
realist logic of power, which on the one hand seems to emancipate politics from
morality, and on the other hand can claim the empirical “primacy” of the state
and politics over economic interests, social functions, or cultural and ideological
beliefs. For many political theorists, realism is an unacceptable way to interpret
politics, even if it seems capable of contesting economic, sociological, or philo-
sophical conceptions of history and the “real” world. Political theory is, for the
most part, “idealist” in its relation to politics.
But there is a more fundamental tension between theories of the political and
conventional political theory. As noted by Crick and argued by theorists of the
political such as Wolin and Arendt, there is an ambivalence among political theorists
about politics that goes back to the origins of political theory. In his “Seventh
Letter,” Plato explained that as a young Athenian man from an aristocratic family
he had planned to go into politics, but had been repelled by its sordidness. He
was disillusioned in particular by the trial and execution of Socrates (1973: 112–14).
In his Republic, the “founding” text of political philosophy, Plato quickly decides
that the philosophic way of life is superior to politics and absorbs the content of
politics into philosophy. In the chapter on Plato in Politics and Vision, Wolin
complained that “Unless the distinctively political context is preserved, political
theory tends to vanish into larger questions, such as the nature of the Good, the
ultimate destiny of man, or the problem of right conduct, thereby losing contact
with the essentially political questions that are its proper concern” (1960a: 43 or
2004: 40).
Arguably, most political theorists (I include myself here) are mostly concerned
with the “larger questions” of ethics and ultimate destiny instead of what
Wolin considered “essentially political questions.” Many, if not most, traditional
and contemporary political theorists either start with “larger questions,” as Wolin
claimed, and deduce a theory of politics from them, or else conceive politics as a
means to something higher. Dante Germino, representing this “traditional” view,
argued that the political theorist “bases his political knowledge on his under-
standing of man’s essential human nature, since the natural political order will be
a reflection of the order within the psyche of the representative human type”
(1969: 102). More commonly, contemporary western political theorists tend to
view political theory as a subfield of moral theory. According to Isaiah Berlin,
political theory “is but ethics applied to society” (1991b: 2).
Even writers who use the term “the political” usually reduce or expand it into
something else in the ways that Wolin indicates. In Nietzsche and the Political,
Daniel Conway (1997: 3) sees the political relevance of Nietzsche in his asking
the question “what ought humankind to become?” But Conway identifies this
“founding question of politics” as “a philosophical question of ultimate justifi-
cation or legitimation” (6, italics added). The author of Derrida and the Political
relegates his definition of the political to a footnote where “the ‘political’ is, in
Platonic vein, the trait that allows us to describe/recognize a gesture of thought

or action as political” (Beardsworth 1996: introduction, note 1). The distinction
between the political and politics is thus matched to Martin Heidegger’s distinc-
tion between the “ontological” and the “ontic” (1962a).9 This is also the
approach of Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe and Jean-Luc Nancy in Retreating the Poli-
tical (1997). Similarly, Reiner Schurmann (1990), Fred Dallmayr (1990), and
David Campbell and Mick Dillon (1993: 173) extract a notion of the political
from Heidegger in which the political “is taken to be the site in which the conjunction
of things, actions, and speech—all those features which constitute the unifying
force of a dominant metaphysical referent—is exposed or revealed.” While these
conceptions of the political are interesting and not “wrong” in any objective
sense, they presume without argument the identity of metaphysics and the political.
In contrast to these metaphysical conceptions of the political, the author of
Heidegger’s Political Thinking (Ward 1995: xviii) identifies the political with action
and practice, and thus as “the order of human things.” This led a reviewer (Sluga
1996: 180–1) to complain about an “overly broad conception of the political”
which “fails to distinguish between the practical, the social, and the political and
is, for that reason, unhelpful in isolating political lessons in Heidegger’s work.”
The author was presuming Aristotle’s conception of political philosophy as the
“philosophy of human affairs.”10 This is a broad view derived from Aristotle’s
distinction between “theoretical” and “practical” philosophy, in which everything
practical, and everything human, is by definition political (Strauss 1975b: 74–5;
Lobkowicz 1967: 3–57). But this leads us back to the problem of “disentangling”
Foucault’s “indefinite knot.”
When the political is not identified with metaphysics, practice, or human
affairs, many political theorists identify it with society, community, or collectivity.
As part of their polemics against liberal individualism, some political theorists
conflate any “we” identity with the political. Lacoue‑Labarthe and Nancy, when
they are not identifying the political with the ontological, identify it with com-
munity.11 In a similar communal spirit, Jacques Derrida (1997) identified the
political relation with friendship.12 Although they did not use the term “the
political,” communitarians such as Charles Taylor (1989), Michael Sandel (1996),
and William Sullivan (1986) appropriated “civic republicanism” for their polemics
against liberalism, but, like the deconstructionists, mostly reduced its political
content to the assertion of community against individualism.
The same criticism can be applied to many theories of citizenship. Wilhelm
Hennis asserts insightfully, “For all truly political thought, the relationship
between man and citizen is the central political problem” (1991: 36). Yet, in an
otherwise intriguing study linking Weber’s sociology to the republican political
tradition of Machiavelli, Rousseau, and Tocqueville, Hennis (1988) ends with the
disappointing conclusion that what these writers share is a sense of civic “duty” in
opposition to bourgeois selfishness.13 Similarly, in essays on the history of the
relationship of “bourgeois” to “citoyen,” both J.G.A. Pocock (1995) and Michael
Ignatieff (1995) see socialism as the (failed) successor to civic humanism, but in so
doing they reduce “citizen” to mean something like “unified personality” (the
hapless bourgeois is always torn between private interests and civic duty, neither a
“man” nor a “citizen”) and ignore both the variety of non‑political models of
unified personalities (the philosopher, the saint, the artist) and the sense in which
socialist “man” was intended to transcend both the political limitations of the
citizen and the economic limitations of the bourgeois.
These (alleged) confusions between political and social are common in political
and social theory, and can be understood to derive from translating Aristotle’s
“political animal” (zoon politikon) into Latin as “social animal” (animal socialis).
Arendt (1958a: 23) protested against this (mis)translation because she believed
politics involved more than simply social interactions and altruistic commitments.
She complained in The Human Condition that western political traditions considered
politics to be a mere means to some other non-political end like philosophy,
religion, or social well-being:
The substitution of making for acting and the concomitant degradation of

politics into a means to obtain an allegedly “higher” end—in antiquity the
protection of the good men from the rule of the bad in general, and the
safety of the philosopher in particular, in the Middle Ages the salvation of
souls, in the modern age the productivity and progress of society—is as old as
the tradition of political philosophy.
(1958a: 229)
If the reader will indulge further criticism of political theory (again, it takes
one to know one), another characteristic approach of contemporary political
theorists has been to try to deduce a theory of politics from epistemology, the-
ories of language, hermeneutics, theories of judgment, social constructivism,
hypothetical scenarios, etc. These “interpretive” methods are usually opposed to
“scientific” or “positivist” approaches to politics and are claimed to provide better
insights into politics. But according to Wolin, the methodological disputes in
political science that during the 1950s polarized into “normative” (or inter-
pretative) and “empirical” (or scientific) approaches to politics involved both sides
taking the political for granted. Empirical social scientists tended to reduce politics
to economic, social, or psychological processes while normative political philo-
sophers tended to reduce it to metaphysics or ethics. These methodological disputes
between political scientists and political theorists, Wolin complained, concealed a
common substantive devaluation of the political: “It might be suggested … that
both the proponents of social science and the ethically-minded political philoso-
pher advocate an approach which misses the same point. The issue is not solely
methodological, nor even primarily ethical in character, but substantive; that is, it
concerns the status of politics and the political” (1960a: 288 or 2004: 258).
If most political theorists start with ethics, human nature, language, meta-
physics, or method, and deduce theories of politics from them, theorists of the
political proceed in the opposite direction. Beginning with a “substantive” com-
mitment to a particular conception or ideal of politics, they in effect “deduce”
everything else from politics. This is what d’Entreves seemed to mean when he
wrote that “defining politics is therefore tantamount to taking a particular stand
about the ends of human activity” (1971: 309). Stated in “ethically-minded” or
normative terms, theories of the political either claim that politics and citizenship
represent the “good life,” or (if they are unwilling to go that far) they provide a
defense of politics and the citizen against the moralist, the philosopher, the
bourgeois, the saint, etc. Hennis is right: “For all truly political thought, the
relationship between man [or woman] and citizen is the central political pro-
blem.” Human beings are obviously “social animals” (contra Rousseau’s solitary
“Orang-outangs” in his Second Discourse), but in what sense are they “political”
animals or “citizens”? This problem cannot be decided simply by deductions
from human nature, theories of power, or theories of reality because what is at stake
is the value the theorist places on politics itself. And many political theorists don’t like
politics, or at least are ambivalent about politics (as I am). Many of us would fit
Crick’s caricatures of the non-political conservative, the a-political liberal, or the anti-
political socialist. It is logically quite possible for two political theorists to agree
about metaphysics or human nature (or even ideology) while disagreeing about
the political implications of these because they have different conceptions and
evaluations of politics. This is what I take Wolin to mean by the “substantive”
issue of “the status of politics and the political.”
Stated in terms of “social science,” theories of the political either assert the “pri-
macy” of the political over the moral, the economic, the social, etc., because (say)
politics provides the preconditions of social order without which life will be “nasty,
brutish and short,” or else they assert the “autonomy” of the political in relation
to these other areas and activities. As Kenneth Minogue put it in a discussion of the
state, society, economy, and culture as forms of human association: “Can we argue that
one of the four forms of association is more fundamental than the others? This is
perhaps the founding question of modern political philosophy” (1995: 51). This
“founding question of modern political philosophy” cannot be answered simply
by methodological means because the “status of politics and the political”
involves a fusion of concept and evaluation. It is at least arguable that conceptions
of politics and the political, rather than being deductions or inferences from
higher principles, operate as “independent variables” in political theories.
III Previous theories of the political and the “original position”

of politics
Before presenting the plan of this book I want to clarify two things: the defects of
previous theories of the political (particularly in Arendt and Wolin) and what I
conceive to be the “original position” of politics, ethics, and philosophy in

ancient Greece.
Defects of previous theories of the political

As noted earlier, some conceptions of the political are considered objectionable
because they are too oriented toward power and force. I answer this criticism in
the chapters on Weber and realism and on Schmitt in relation to absolutism,
fascism, and authoritarianism. Another defect of the concept of the political as a
“genre” or subfield has been the tendency of its theorists to isolate politics from
everything else. The attempt to divide the world up into various “spheres” (the
political, the philosophical, the economic, etc.), even when not viewed skepti-
cally, tends to create an abstract or “metaphysical” discussion that isolates this
genre, especially (and ironically) from politics itself. The vice of Arendt’s The
Human Condition and Wolin’s Politics and Vision was to produce either a rigid
definition of the political that excluded a lot of things previously considered to be
political (Arendt’s solution), or else to leave the definition of the political vague
and mysterious (Wolin’s solution). Wolin conceded at the beginning of Politics
and Vision that “the difficulties of preserving a clear notion of what is political
forms the basic theme of this book” (1960a: 4 or 2004: 5). Politics and Vision was
filled with demands that theorists consider the “truly political,” “distinctively
political,” and “genuinely political” aspects of political theory (1960a: 51, 43, 433
or 2004: 48, 41, 388). The irony was that when Wolin confronted theorists like
Machiavelli and Hobbes, who actually produced “truly political” theories, he
accused them of severing the vital connection between politics and the beliefs and
practices of the community. The original edition of Politics and Vision ended with
Wolin still in search of the political. In his later writings, the political was clearer
(it was “fugitive democracy”), but totally separated from everyday politics.
The 1960 edition of Politics and Vison also focused on the anti-political trends
in modern political thought, which either denigrated politics because of its coer-
cion (classical liberalism) or “sublimated” politics into pluralist organizations.
Aside from the rejected “visions” of Machiavelli and Hobbes, Wolin did not
describe any other modern political visions. The 2004 expanded edition presented
the economic vision of Marx, the cultural vision of Nietzsche, and the liberal
visions of Rawls, Karl Popper, and John Dewey, but not any political visions
other than fugitive democracy. This book presents seven distinct modern (twentieth-
century) political visions, including Wolin’s, and links them to older traditions of
political thought.
This brings up another defect of the political as a genre: the hostility of its
theorists toward contemporary ideologies. Weber ignored ideology in his “realist”
theory of politics and had an ambiguous relation to liberalism. Schmitt was a
right-wing theorist who hated both liberalism and socialism and, in becoming a
Nazi, or “clerico-fascist,” was far to the right of most contemporary conservatives.
Arendt and Wolin also disliked liberalism and socialism, as well as most forms of
conservatism. As former socialists, however, Ricoeur, Lefort, Laclau, and Mouffe
were sympathetic to various aspects of liberalism and socialism. Including them in
this book partly balances the hostility of Schmitt, Arendt, and Wolin to liberalism
and socialism. But all theorists of the political criticize liberalism, socialism, and
conservatism for trying to subsume politics under ethics, economics, or social
processes. This hostility toward mainstream ideologies (all of these theorists also
downplay feminism and ignore ecology) isolates the genre. While it is important
to criticize the non-political conservative, the apolitical liberal, and the anti-political
socialist (as well as the anti-political elements in their particular ideologies),
part of the purpose of criticizing them is to induce them to become “political”
conservatives, “political” liberals, and “political” socialists.
If a defect of theories of the political is their opposition to ideologies, an
opposite defect (related to the isolation defect) is that theories of the political, by
delineating an “autonomous” political sphere, exclude many things that should be
considered political. A similar criticism of politics as excluding the real problems
was made by Marx in his critique of Jacobin and republican politics and of
Hegel’s Philosophy of Right: “The principle of politics is the will. The more one-
sided, and therefore, the more perfected the political mind is, the more does it
believe in the omnipotence of the will, the more is it blind to the natural and
spiritual limits of the will, and more incapable is it therefore of discovering the
source of social ills” (Marx 1975b: 199).
Both Robespierre and Napoleon had tried to abolish poverty through legisla-
tion. The British established Poor Laws to alleviate poverty, but then came to
blame poverty on their Poor Laws. Theorists under the spell of this “political
illusion” cannot understand the systemic economic or social origin of social pro-
blems. They insist on an “administrative” solution or on blaming someone or
something (the poor, the rich, counterrevolutionaries, Nature). Marx’s criticism
of politics is also the criticism of Jacques Ranciere (2000), Alain Badiou (2005),
and others, who see “theories of the political” (by Arendt, Lefort, and others) as
trying to confine politics within acceptable bourgeois limits (which Ranciere
calls “the police”). According to Ranciere and Badiou, the 1980s “return of the
political” in France was a Trojan horse for “neoliberalism.” On this view, a
theory of politics and the political is an ideology that obscures the real hier-
archies of power and systemic problems in society. This criticism should be kept
in mind.
Against overly realist, isolationist, anti-ideological, and ideological conceptions
of the political, this book is, accordingly, not concerned with isolating a single
“essence” of the political. The conceptions of the political in this book fall into
three categories that derive from historical western institutions such as the state
(Weber, Schmitt, and Ricoeur), the ancient Greek polis (Arendt and Wolin), and
a society-centered conception of the political derived from the French revolu-
tionary tradition (Lefort, Laclau, and Mouffe). I have also associated these
theorists with existing political traditions such as realism, absolutism, authoritar-

ianism, idealism, civic humanism, populism, and radical democracy. One of my
objectives is to argue that “the concept” of “the political” is false (or needs to be
proved rather than assumed by theorists) by demonstrating that there are several
conceptions of the political. I have limited myself to three western political insti-
tutions: state, polis, and society. But there are other possible conceptions of the
political derived from other historical political institutions such as empires, feud-
alism, tribes, the Sumerian “temple-state,” the ancient Chinese “family-state,” the
Balinese “theater state,” etc.14 When someone writes about “the political,” or
claims that “everything is political,” readers should ask “which political?”
Finally, in order to prevent “isolation,” I have also, in part III of each chapter,
tried to relate these “abstract” theories and traditions to practical political pro-
blems such as international relations, war, emergencies, culture wars, ideals in
relation to reality, civic engagement and public life, populism, and ideology,
strategy, and political organization.
The “original position” of politics, ethics, and philosophy

As we saw, Wolin and Arendt criticized philosophers, beginning with Plato, for
being hostile to politics. Plato and Aristotle were contesting the ancient Greek
view that politics was the “best way of life.” The ancient Greeks (who gave us
our political vocabulary) believed that the political life was the “best way of life”
for free male human beings. Aristotle famously argued that men were “political
animals” who naturally sought to live the “good life” provided by life in a polis
(or what we would call a “city-state”).15 The “good life” consisted of the material
abundance, diversity of people and skills, and self-sufficiency of life in a city. But,
the good life also meant participation in politics. The citizens were united in
sharing a common conception of justice and took turns “ruling and being ruled.”
Pericles’s Funeral Speech, as reported in Thucydides’s History of the Peloponnesian
War (1972: 143–51, Book 2, Section 41), conveyed the ordinary Greek citizen’s
view of the good life of politics: wealth, power, glory, public festivals, and free-
dom. It was, as Leo Strauss phrased it, the combination of “freedom and civiliza-
tion” (1949: 38–9 and 1964: 30). The Greeks contrasted their polis, or city-state,
to the large Asian kingdoms (which had civilization but not freedom) and to the
northern barbarian tribes (which had freedom but no civilization).16 Echoes of
this Greek view of the good life as combining freedom and civilization survive
today when theorists (for example, Manent 2006) defend the modern liberal
democratic nation-state as the right size for defense, a sufficient economy, and the
preservation of freedom. But most people today tend to see freedom and the
“good life” as private rather than public or political.
The Greek ideal of the good life obtained by politics, however, had a “realist”
side: it depended on war and empire, hierarchy, and slavery. Thucydides notor-
iously depicted the Athenians at Melos asserting that “justice depends on the
equality of power” (1972: 402, Book 5, Section 89), that “the strong do what
they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept,” and
that it is a “law of nature to rule wherever one can” (404, Book 5, Section 105).
These views seem cynical or realist to us, but they were the “Homeric” ethos of a
warrior society based on hierarchy, slavery, and war. The Athenians visiting
Sparta before the war expressed the same opinions as the Athenians at Melos (80,
Book 1, Section 76). This harsh Homeric ethics had been modified over the dec-
ades by the idea that the gods rewarded good and punished evil in the afterlife
and by the idea that justice was admirable as a secondary virtue, after advantage
(Adkins 1960). The advent of the polis had also created a formal political equality
among citizens and a “higher” loyalty to the collective interest. But Homer
remained “the educator of Greece” and the aristocratic ethos persisted. Civic
equality required popular struggles against the aristocracy and derived from the
military need for hoplite infantry or rowers for the navy, not from an ethics of
egalitarianism. Many citizens, like Alcibiades, put their personal honor and inter-
ests above loyalty to their city. Aeschylus’s tragedies, which all extolled the
interests of the polis over the interests of personal and family honor, suggest the
need to continually remind Athenian audiences about where their primary
loyalties ought to lie.
At the beginning of the Peloponnesian War, the Athenians (like all imperialists)
defended their empire in “moral” terms as more “moderate” and “just” than
other empires (Thucydides 1972: 80, Book 1, Section 76). But the fact was that
they now were applying the aristocratic “right of the strongest” to fellow Greeks,
not to barbarians and slaves, and the prospect of permanent subjugation of fellow
Greeks was the central moral ambiguity of the war.17 Pericles praised the Athe-
nian empire in his Funeral Speech, but in his last speech Thucydides had him
admit the “empire is now like a tyranny” and that its victims hate being ruled
(161, Book 2, Section 63). In Cleon’s speech in the debate over Mytilene the
empire was no longer “like” a tyranny, it was one (213, Book 3, Section 37).
These more cynical views (which culminated in the Melian dialogue) were the
effects of the hubris of power, the stress of a long war of attrition, and the fact that
the Athenians could no longer reconcile their professed “moderation” with the
fact of their “tyranny.” But according to historian Yvon Garlan (1995: 56), “we
know of no Athenians in the fifth century who were opposed to imperialism in
and of itself” and even Thucydides supported the empire (Grene 1966). There are
no “idealists” in our sense in Thucydides.
It was this Homeric warrior ethics (and its later corrupt or cynical Sophistic
forms) that Plato and Aristotle were trying to dislodge by introducing virtue into
politics. In Plato’s Republic, Socrates rejected not only the cynicism of the Sophist
Thrasymachus, but Polemarchus’s “political” ethics of helping friends and harm-
ing enemies. No ordinary Greek would have agreed with Socrates that it is better
to suffer wrong than to do wrong. Plato wanted to ban Homer and the other
poets from his ideal society because they taught the wrong moral lessons. He also
wanted Greeks to fight and enslave barbarians, not other Greeks (1985: 161,
Book 5, 469c–d). Aristotle did not like the Greek political obsession with war
and conquest (1995: 256, 286–7, Book 7, Chapter 2, 1324b20 and Chapter 14,
1333b5–1334a). His ideal city would be isolated and the citizens would use their
leisure time to pursue philosophy instead of war (1995: 259, Book 7, Chapter 3,
1325b14). In ancient China, at around the same time, the philosopher Confucius
was trying to do the same thing, challenge the old warrior ethics (and its corrupt
forms) with a new ethics.
The conflict between “ethics and politics,” as well as the conflict between
politics and philosophy, originates here. Politics is not devoid of ethics (and one
of the claims of this book is that “all politics is moral”), but the original ethics is a
harsh ethics of warriors who believe that their own “freedom and civilization” is
possible only by subjugating and exploiting others. Plato, Aristotle, and Confucius
modify and soften this harshness by redefining virtue (arête, or excellence) and
aristocratic-warrior ideals in moral terms and by redefining politics as guided by
this new ethics. The “good life” of the polis becomes the life of virtue or justice.
This is the origin of “idealism” in politics.
For Plato, Aristotle, and Confucius, the new ethics derived from a philoso-
phical or metaphysical conception of “nature,” “ideas,” or the “Way.” Plato and
Aristotle believed the best way of life was the contemplative life of philosophy.
For both, virtue was knowledge and so morality derived ultimately from philoso-
phy. The job of the political philosopher was to persuade political actors that the life
of virtue was the best way of life (and so to control politics with the new, phi-
losophically derived morality). Again, to justify this new morality, they had to
explain how it embodied or reflected the “true reality” of Nature, Reason, or
God. The philosophers were the first “idealists” or “moralists” in our sense. But
their conception of morality remained aristocratic. They, too, believed in hierarchy
and slavery. It was left to later religions, such as Christianity, and philosophies to
provide more egalitarian morals and ideals.
As this brief and “schematic” presentation of the “original position” of politics
and philosophy is meant to suggest, politics was originally “autonomous” and had
its own ethics. This ethics was subsequently challenged by philosophers and reli-
gious thinkers who formulated a new ethics derived from metaphysics or religion.
This new ethics was then “imposed” on politics from the “outside” and this
creates the tension within political philosophy between its political side and its
ethical, philosophical, religious, or theoretical side. In response, theorists of poli-
tics and the political then complain that politics has been “conquered” or “dis-
placed” by moral, metaphysical, or religious concerns. Philosophers and moralists
reply that without a philosophical or religious conception of morals, politics will
revert to the brutal “right of the stronger” (as it did under fascism and totalitar-
ianism). Today, the metaphysical and religious foundations for ethics are in doubt
and hence the chief theoretical task of political theory understandably seems to be
the need to restore these foundations (or else to learn to live without them
(Strong 2012)). Moreover, philosophers and religious thinkers would reject my

“schematic” presentation of the problem as originating in conflicting “ways of
life” and replace it with theories in which ultimate reality is the basis for every-
thing else. But this means, as the critics complain, that most political theorists are
preoccupied with either metaphysics or ethics—and not with politics.
If this complaint is valid, then what would a “politics-centered political
theory” look like? My argument is that it would look like the theories of the
political of Max Weber, Carl Schmitt, Paul Ricoeur, Hannah Arendt, Sheldon
Wolin, Claude Lefort, and Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe. As we will see,
these theories do contain metaphysics and morals, but their relationship to politics
is different from that relationship in “traditional” political philosophy.
IV Outline of the book

This book has eight chapters and is divided into three parts: Part 1 is on the state-
centered conceptions of politics in Weber, Schmitt, and Ricoeur. Part 2 is on
the polis-centered conception of the political in Arendt and Wolin. Part 3 is on
the society-centered conceptions of the political in Lefort, Laclau, and Mouffe.
Each chapter also has three parts: the first part or section of each chapter describes
each author’s conception of politics and its meaning and value. The second sec-
tion of each chapter demonstrates the tensions or “asymmetry” between politics
and metaphysics, ethics or religion. This is a major theme of this book. I argue
that politics and the political are “autonomous” from ethics, religion, meta-
physics, etc. But there is still a relation between politics and these other areas
because we often enter politics to advance ethical or religious ideals and because
we often judge politics as a whole from these “outside” perspectives. I call this
relationship the “asymmetry” between politics and ethics, religion and philoso-
phy. By “asymmetry,” I mean not “inequality,” but a “lack of” (a-) “balance or
evenness” (symmetry). Asymmetry can be understood as a stronger (more auton-
omous) version of the “relative autonomy” of politics. The “relative” in relative
autonomy, however, undercuts the “autonomy.” Politics is autonomous. That is
why its relations with other activities are “asymmetrical.”
The third section of each chapter shows some practical applications of the ideas
of the other two parts or relates those ideas to political traditions such as realism,
social conservatism, human rights, republicanism, populism, socialism, and radical
democracy.
Briefly, Chapter 2 describes Max Weber’s realist and statist conception of pol-
itics, the autonomy of politics that emerges when power is pursued for its own
sake, and the political “visions” of “reason of state,” nationalism, and a cosmo-
politanism that sees states and political actors as having a larger “responsibility
before history.” The second part describes Weber’s positivist and value pluralist
challenges to political theory, and explains why, even if philosophers, theologians,
and political theorists could overcome these challenges, they would still confront
the “asymmetry” between politics and “metaphysics.” This section also describes
the debate in analytic political philosophy between “ideal” theorists and realists.
The third part defends a normative realism and the long-term project of building
a world state to avoid great power wars.
Chapter 3 uses three interpretations of Carl Schmitt to describe the political
visions of Hobbesian absolutism, fascism, and Maistrean authoritarianism, tradi-
tions not often examined in political theory. The second part describes Schmitt’s
political theology and the asymmetry between politics and theology that emerged
when Schmitt tried to unite the two in his endorsement of novelist Fyodor
Dostoevsky’s figure of The Grand Inquisitor. The third part argues against
Schmitt’s tendentious conceptions of “enemy” and “bracketed” war, describes the
dilemmas of emergencies and domestic enemies, the role of authority in the
culture wars, and the religious vision of social conservatism.
Chapter 4 examines the idealist tradition of political theory from the perspec-
tive of Paul Ricoeur’s statism, in which the state is both an ideal and “idea” of
justice and the rule of law. In this political idealist vision, the conflict between
ethics and politics is “resolved” through understanding the paradoxical relation-
ship between ideals and reality. In part II, the asymmetry between ethics and
politics emerges at the religious or philosophical level in the conflict between
Christian love, philosopher Emmanuel Levinas’ ethics and post-Nietzschean
ethics, and political justice. The third part describes how religious idealists, poli-
tical idealists, and realists might interact positively in the “real” world of politics.
Part 2 of the book switches from examining statist visions of politics to the
political theories of Hannah Arendt and Sheldon Wolin, which were inspired by
the ancient Greek polis. Politics as domination and violence is replaced by the
cooperative use of power and the idea that politics represents “the good life.”
“Asymmetry” shifts to the conflict between politics and philosophy.
Chapter 5 examines Arendt’s revival of the Greek ideal of politics in part I and
situates it in relation to other spheres of life. Part II examines Arendt’s critique of
philosophy and her alternative “metaphysics” of “worldliness.” Part III examines
republicanism as a historical phenomenon and ideal that haunts modern “statist”
and “bourgeois” political thought. It also looks at efforts to revive citizenship and
public life in order to counteract the privatizing tendency that Alexis de Tocqueville
called “individualism.”
Chapter 6, part I, describes Wolin’s distinction between “the social” and the
political and his early statist vision of the political as the union of authority and
community. Wolin later concluded that democracy was the only example of this
union and he contrasted democracy both to Arendt’s “elitist” republicanism and
to the state. Part II examines how Wolin’s conceptions of theory changed as he
moved from liberal statism to democracy. I criticize Wolin for not developing a
populist political theory and I sketch a populist ideal-type in part III.
Part 3 switches from statist and polis-centered theories of the political to
society-centered and ideological conceptions of politics, which derived from the
French revolutionary tradition. In Chapter 7, I examine the theories of the poli-

tical of Lefort, Laclau, and Mouffe, in which the political is the “mode of insti-
tution” of society (and therefore pervades “everything”) and politics is the
attempt to transform social relationships. Part I describes Lefort’s “metaphysical”
vision of democracy as the society without certainty. Part II describes Laclau and
Mouffe’s conception of hegemony and their vision of radical democracy. In
ideological conceptions of politics, philosophical and “ontological” issues are
intrinsically part of political theories. Part III of Chapter 7 describes the “ontolo-
gical turn” in political theory and the ontologies of Lefort, Laclau, and Mouffe. I
criticize Lefort, Laclau, and Mouffe for not offering alternatives and strategies and
so, in the last part, I sketch a socialist alternative and strategy.
The purpose of this book is to expand “the political imagination” beyond the
usual alternatives of liberalism, conservatism, and socialism and beyond the exclusively
normative and ontological concerns of much contemporary political theory. In
Chapter 8, I compare these political visions, describe how they might contribute
to a “politics-centered” political theory, and explain how they might induce
those who are ambivalent about politics to appreciate its meaning and value.
Notes
1 The sixteenth-century French party of “les Politiques” can be translated as “the Poli-
ticals,” which presumably captures how that term sounded at the time. See Sternberger
(1982: 33). As in German, Spanish uses the neuter article for the concept of “the
political” and Schmitt’s book is translated as El Concepto de lo Politico.
2 For other views on the origin of the need for a concept of the political, see Arditi
(1994), Valentine (2006), Palonen (2007), Marchart (2007: Chapter 2), and Jay (2010).
3 This was how Schmitt (1997: 272) viewed Weimar politics, with its multiple parties,
each organized as a “total” party with its own social, sports, and youth clubs that
attempted to encompass the lives of its members in a society within society: “M.J.
Bonn, a clear-eyed critic of these developments, has characterized this transformation
as a transition toward a new feudal society of orders.”
4 This is how Wolin characterized pluralism in Politics and Vision, Chapter 10. See also
Morgenthau (1962).
5 Hammer (2006), Stavrakakis (2005), Simons (1995), Beardsworth (1996), Conway
(1997), Beisteigui (1998), Williams (2000), Patton (2000), Carver and Hyvarinen
(1997), Butler and Scott (1992), Howard (1989 and 2010), Villa (1996), Hirschman
and DiStefano (1996), Schwartz (1995), Langsdorf and Watson with Smith (1998),
Ebata and Neufeld (2000), Davies, Milbank and Zizek (2005), Bates (2012), Benhabib
(1996), Ingram (2002).
6 I use “political theory” interchangeably with “political philosophy” throughout this
book. Analytic political theorists often call their own theorizing “political philosophy”
(Estlund 2012) and “political theory” is everything else (Dryzek, Honig, and Phillips
2008).
7 Pocock (1981: 70) and Gunnell (1979), for example, place Arendt and Wolin with
Strauss and Voegelin in a line of “grand theories” that they want to dismantle. Strong
(2012), who covers three of the theorists of the political in this book (Weber, Schmitt,
Arendt), is more interested in their attempts to “think without a banister” than in their
theories of politics.
8 For a contrary view, which sees Weber, Schmitt, Franz Neumann, Otto Kirchheimer,
and Jurgen Habermas as obsessed with “the political,” see Thornhill (2000). But
Thornhill does not claim these efforts constitute an established genre in German
political theory.
9 “Ontic” refers to “surface realities” (such as politics, economics, art, religion, etc.)
which are derived from a deeper “ontological” reality. “Ontology” is the study of
being or reality and is the same thing as “metaphysics.” For the view that the distinc-
tion between the political and politics is the metaphysical distinction between ontology
and ontic, see Marchart (2007).
10 Aristotle (1962: 302, Book 10, Chapter 9, 1181b15, translated by Martin Ostwald).
W.D. Ross (McKeon 1941: 1112) and J.L. Ackrill (1973: 181) translate it as “philo-
sophy of human nature,” while Barker (1962: 359) translates it as “philosophy of
things human.”
11 In other words, the political is the ontology of community. Although Nancy claims
the political-as-community involves power relations, these follow from the prior exis-
tence of community: “there would be no power relations … if the political were
not the place of community—in other words, the place of a specific existence, the
existence of being-in-common, which gives rise to the existence of being-self”
(Nancy 1991: xxxvii). See also Lacoue-Labarthe (1990: 68–70). Their conception of
community is “political” in the sense that it is “communist,” but this reinstalls the
political ambiguity of communism, which seeks a non-political community in which
the abolition of classes also abolishes politics.
12 Derrida was examining the paradox attributed to Aristotle, “Oh my friends, there is no
friend,” as well as contesting Schmitt’s emphasis on “the enemy.” But although Aristotle
wrote that friendship is necessary to the polis, he claimed in Politics, Book III, Chapter 9
(1280b) that friendship is primarily concerned with “social life” (to su zen) and that
this is different from the “good life” (to eu zen) specific to the polis (Barker 1962: 120
and note 2).
13 Similarly, Scaff (1989: 152, 181–5) tantalizes the reader by quoting Weber as writing
that “the political” is “my old ‘secret love,’” but merely interprets the political in terms
of Weber’s ethics of responsibility.
14 See, for example, Crone on tribes (1986), Finer on Sumeria (1997: Chapter 1), Hahm
on Confucianism (2004), and Geertz on the Balinese theater-state (1980). Finer covers
other political forms as does Black (2009). An important new subfield is comparative
political theory. See Parel and Keith (1992), Dallmayr (2010), Godrej (2011), Black
(2011), and Freeden and Vincent (2012).
15 Aristotle, Politics, Book 1, Chapter 2, 1252b28–1253a18.
16 See Aristotle, Politics, Book 7, Chapter 7, 1327b20–30, where he contrasted the Greek
“spirit” to the spirit of the Asians and northern barbarians.
17 This is distinct from the other moral theme in Thucydides, the decline of concern for
the public interest, which only Pericles had been able to uphold, and the ensuing
struggle for personal power by Athenian politicians (which was gained through telling
the people what they wanted to hear, rather than what the public interest required).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ackerman, Bruce and Anne Alstott. 1999. The Stakeholder Society. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Ackrill, J.L. 1973. Aristotle’s Ethics. London: Faber and Faber.
Adkins, Arthur W.H. 1960. Merit and Responsibility: A Study in Greek Values. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Adorno, Theodor W. 1973. Negative Dialectics. London and New York: Routledge.
Agamben, Giorgio. 1998. Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life. Trans. Daniel
Heller-Roazen. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Agamben, Giorgio. 2005. State of Exception. Chicago, IL and London: University of Chicago
Press.
Albert, Michael. 2003. Parecon: Life after Capitalism. London: Verso.
Albert, Michael and Robin Hahnel. 1991. The Political Economy of Participatory Economics.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Alinsky, Saul. 1946. Reveille for Radicals. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Alinsky, Saul. 1971. Rules for Radicals: A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals. New York:
Random House.
Allen, Kieran. 2004. Max Weber: A Critical Introduction. London: Pluto Press.
Allison, Graham. 1971. Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. Boston, MA:
Little, Brown.
Almond, Gabriel A. 1990. A Discipline Divided: Schools and Sects in Political Science. London
and Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Alperovitz, Gar. 2004. America beyond Capitalism: Reclaiming Our Wealth, Our Liberty, Our
Democracy. Hoboken, NJ: J. Wiley.
Altemeyer, Bob. 1996. The Authoritarian Specter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Althusser, Louis. 1969. For Marx. London: Verso.
Althusser, Louis. 1971. “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses,” in Althusser, Lenin
and Philosophy. New York: Monthly Review Press.
248 Bibliography
Andreani, Tony. 2008. “Market Socialism: Problems and Models,” in Jacques Bidet and
Stathis Kouvelakis, eds, Critical Companion to Contemporary Marxism. Leiden: Brill.
Archibugi, Daniele and David Held, eds. 1995. Cosmopolitan Democracy: An Agenda for a
New World Order. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Arditi, Benjamin. 1994. “Tracing the Political.” Angelaki, 1, 3, 15–28.
Arendt, Hannah. 1951. The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co.
Arendt, Hannah. 1953. “Understanding and Politics.” Partisan Review, 20, 4, July–August.
Arendt, Hannah. 1958a. The Human Condition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Arendt, Hannah. 1958b. The Origins of Totalitarianism. 2nd edition. Cleveland and New
York: Meridian Publishing Company.
Arendt, Hannah. 1959. “Reflections on Little Rock.” Dissent, 6, 1, Winter.
Arendt, Hannah. 1964. “Eichmann in Jerusalem: An Exchange of Letters between Gershom
Scholem and Hannah Arendt.” Encounter, January (reprinted in Arendt 2000).
Arendt, Hannah. 1965. On Revolution. New York: Viking Press.
Arendt, Hannah. 1968a. “The Concept of History: Ancient and Modern,” in Arendt,
Between Past and Future: Eight Exercises on Political Thought. New York: Viking Press.
Arendt, Hannah. 1968b. “The Crisis in Culture,” in Arendt, Between Past and Future: Eight
Exercises on Political Thought. New York: Viking Press.
Arendt, Hannah. 1968c. “The Crisis in Education,” in Arendt, Between Past and Future:
Eight Exercises on Political Thought. New York: Viking Press.
Arendt, Hannah. 1968d. “Truth and Politics,” in Arendt, Between Past and Future: Eight
Arendt, Hannah. 1968e. “What Is Authority?” in Arendt, Between Past and Future: Eight
Arendt, Hannah. 1968f. “What Is Freedom?” in Arendt, Between Past and Future: Eight
Arendt, Hannah. 1972a. “Civil Disobedience,” in Arendt, Crises of the Republic. New York:
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Arendt, Hannah. 1972b. “On Violence,” in Arendt, Crises of the Republic. New York:
Arendt, Hannah. 1972c. “Thoughts on Politics and Revolution,” in Arendt, Crises of the
Republic. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Arendt, Hannah. 1974. Rahel Varnhagen: The Life of a Jewish Woman. San Diego, CA:
Arendt, Hannah. 1978a. The Jew as Pariah: Jewish Identity and Politics in the Modern Age, ed.
and intro. Ron H. Feldman. New York: Grove Press.
Arendt, Hannah. 1978b. The Life of the Mind, Vol. 1: Thinking, Vol. 2: Willing. New York
and London: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Arendt, Hannah. 1979. “Hannah Arendt on Hannah Arendt,” in Melvin Hill, ed., Hannah
Arendt: The Recovery of the Public World. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Arendt, Hannah. 1982. Lectures on Kant’s Political Philosophy. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Arendt, Hannah. 1983a. “Berthold Brecht,” in Arendt, Men in Dark Times. San Diego,
CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Arendt, Hannah. 1983b. “On Humanity in Dark Times: Thoughts on Lessing,” in Arendt,
Men in Dark Times. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Arendt, Hannah. 1983c. “Preface” to Arendt, Men in Dark Times. San Diego, CA:
Bibliography 249
Arendt, Hannah. 1987. “Collective Responsibility,” in James W. Bernauer, ed., Amor

Mundi: Explorations in the Faith and Thought of Hannah Arendt. Boston, MA: Martinus
Nijhoff Publishers.
Arendt, Hannah. 1990. “Philosophy and Politics.” Social Research, 57, 1, Spring.
Arendt, Hannah. 1994a. “Concern with Politics in Recent European Thought” (1954), in
Jerome Kohn, ed., Hannah Arendt: Essays in Understanding: 1930–1954. New York:
Harcourt Brace and Co.
Arendt, Hannah. 1994b. Essays in Understanding: 1930–1954, ed. Jerome Kohn. New
York: Harcourt Brace and Co.
Arendt, Hannah. 1994c. “Some Questions of Moral Philosophy” (1965). Social Research,
61, 4, Winter.
Arendt, Hannah. 1996. Love and Saint Augustine. Chicago, IL and London: University of
Chicago Press.
Arendt, Hannah. 2000. The Portable Hannah Arendt. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Aries, Philippe. 1962. Centuries of Childhood: Social History of Family Life. New York:
Vintage.
Aries, Philippe. 1989. “Introduction” to Roger Chartier, ed., A History of Private Life III:
Passions of the Renaissance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Aristotle. 1962. Nicomachean Ethics. Trans. Martin Ostwald. Indianapolis,IN: Bobbs-Merrill.
Aristotle. 1995. Politics. Trans. Ernest Barker and R.F. Stalley. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Aronowitz, Stanley. 1996. The Death and Rebirth of American Radicalism. New York and
London: Routledge.
Augustine. 1984. City of God. Trans. Henry Bettensen. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Ayer, A.J. 1952. Language, Truth and Logic (1936, 1946). New York: Dover.
Badiou, Alain. 2001. Ethics: An Essay on the Understanding of Evil. London and New York:
Verso.
Badiou, Alain. 2005. Metapolitics. London and New York: Verso.
Badiou, Alain. 2010. The Communist Hypothesis. London and New York: Verso.
Baker, Dean. 2009. “An Unemployment Solution: Pay People to Work Shorter Hours.”
Nation, November 17.
Bakunin, Mikhail. 1973. La Theologie politique de Mazzini et l’Internationale (St. Imier, 1871),
in Bakunin, Oeuvre completes I. Paris: Champ Libre.
Balakrishnan, Gopal. 2000. The Enemy: An Intellectual Portrait of Carl Schmitt. London:
Verso.
Barbalet, Jack. 2010. “Citizenship in Max Weber.” Journal of Classical Sociology, 10, 3.
Barber, Benjamin. 1988. The Conquest of Politics: Liberal Philosophy in Democratic Times.
Barber, Benjamin. 1992. “Jihad vs. McWorld.” Atlantic Monthly, March.
Barbour, Charles. 2009. “‘Separated unto the Gospel of God’: Political Theology in
Badiou and Agamben.” Seattle University Law Review, 32.
Barker, Ernest. 1962. The Politics of Aristotle. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Barnett, Michael. 2005. “Humanitarianism Transformed.” Perspectives on Politics, 3, 4,
December.
Barry, Brian. 1965. Political Argument. New York: Humanities Press; London: Routledge
(reissued Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1990).
Bates, David. 2006. “Political Theology and the Nazi State: Carl Schmitt’s Concept of the
Institution.” Modern Intellectual History, 3, 3.
250 Bibliography
Bates, David William. 2012. States of War: Enlightenment Origins of the Political. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Baxi, Upendra. 2009. Human Rights in a Posthuman World: Critical Essays. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Beardsworth, Richard. 1996. Derrida and the Political. London: Routledge.
Beauchamp, Gorman. 2007. “‘Legend of the Grand Inquisitor’: The Utopian as Sadist.”
Humanitas, 20, 1 and 2.
Beetham, David. 1974. Max Weber and the Theory of Modern Politics. London: Allen and
Unwin.
Beiner, Ronald, ed. 1995. Theorizing Citizenship. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Beiner, Ronald. 1996. “Love and Worldliness: Hannah Arendt’s Reading of Saint
Augustine,” in Larry May and Jerome Kohn, eds, Hannah Arendt: Twenty Years Later.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Beisteigui, Miguel de. 1998. Heidegger and the Political. London: Routledge.
Bell, Lynda S., Andrew J. Nathan, and Ilan Peleg, eds. 2000. Negotiating Culture and Human
Rights. New York: Columbia University Press.
Bellah, Robert, R. Madsen, William Sullivan, Ann Swidler, and S. Tipton. 1985. Habits of
the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life. New York: Harper and Row.
Bellamy, Richard. 2010. “Dirty Hands and Clean Gloves: Liberal Ideals and Real Politics.”
European Journal of Political Theory, 9, 4, October.
Bendersky, Joseph W. 1983. Carl Schmitt: Theorist for the Reich. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Benhabib, Seyla. 1995. “The Pariah and Her Shadow: Hannah Arendt’s Biography of
Rahel Varnhagen,” in Bonnie Honig, ed., Feminist Interpretations of Hannah Arendt.
University Park, PA: Pennsylvania University Press.
Benhabib, Seyla, ed. 1996. Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political.
Benjamin, Walter. 1968a. “Theses on the Philosophy of History,” in Benjamin, Illumina-
tions. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.
Benjamin, Walter. 1968b. “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”
[1936], in W. Benjamin, Illuminations: Essays and Reflections. San Diego, CA: Harcourt,
Brace, and World.
Benjamin, Walter. 1978. “Critique of Violence,” in Benjamin, Reflections: Essays, Aphorisms,
Autobiographical Writings. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
Benjamin, Walter. 1979. “Theories of German Fascism” [1930]. New German Critique, 17,
Spring.
Benoist, Alain de. 2013. Carl Schmitt Today: Terrorism, Just War and the State of Emergency
[2007]. London: Arktos Media.
Berlin, Isaiah. 1982. Against the Current: Essays in the History of Ideas. Harmondsworth:
Penguin.
Berlin, Isaiah. 1991a. “Joseph de Maistre and the Origins of Fascism,” in Berlin, The
Crooked Timber of Humanity, ed. Henry Hardy. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Berlin, Isaiah. 1991b. “The Pursuit of the Ideal,” in Berlin, The Crooked Timber of
Humanity: Chapters in the History of Ideas, ed. Henry Hardy. New York: Alfred A.
Knopf.
Bernstein, Eduard. 1961. Evolutionary Socialism [1899]. New York: Shocken.
Bernstein, Richard. 1986. Philosophical Profiles. Philadelphia, PA: University of
Pennsylvania.
Bibliography 251
Best, Michael H. and William E. Connolly. 1982. The Politicized Economy. 2nd edition.
Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company.
Bhaskar, Roy. 1991. “Knowledge, Theories of,” in Tom Bottomore, ed., A Dictionary of
Marxist Thought. 2nd edition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Bierce, Ambrose. 2004. “The Devil’s Dictionary” [1911], in Kenneth M. Dolbeare and
Michael S. Cummings, eds, American Political Thought. 5th edition. Washington, DC:
CQ Press.
Black, Antony. 2009. A World History of Ancient Political Thought. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Black, Antony. 2011. “The Way Forward in Comparative Political Thought.” Journal of
International Political Theory, 7, 2.
Bluhm, William T. 1971. Theories of the Political System: Classics of Political Thought and
Modern Political Analysis. 2nd edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Blumenberg, Hans. 1989. The Legitimacy of the Modern Age. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
1st German edition 1966.
Bobbio, Norberto. 1993. Thomas Hobbes and the Natural Law Tradition. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Bobbitt, Phillip. 2002. The Shield of Achilles: War, Peace, and the Course of History. New
York: Knopf.
Bobbitt, Phillip. 2008. Terror and Consent: The Wars for the Twenty-first Century. New York:
Random House.
Bockenforde, Ernst-Wolfgang. 1996. “Carl Schmitt Revisited.” Telos, 109, Fall.
Boling, Patricia. 1996. Privacy and the Politics of Intimate Life. Ithaca, NY and London:
Cornell University Press.
Bolsinger, Eckard. 2001. The Autonomy of the Political: Carl Schmitt’s and Lenin’s Political
Realism. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Bosteels, Bruno. 2009. “Afterword: Thinking, Being, Acting, or On the Uses and Dis-
advantages of Ontology for Politics,” in Carsten Strathausen, ed., A Leftist Ontology:
Beyond Relativism and Identity Politics. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Botwinick, Aryreh and William E. Connolly, eds. 2001. Democracy and Vision: Sheldon
Wolin and the Vicissitudes of the Political. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Boucher, Geoff. 2008. The Charmed Circle of Ideology: A Critique of Laclau and Mouffe, Butler
and Zizek. Melbourne: re.press.
Boyle, Patrick. 1987. “Elusive Neighborliness: Hannah Arendt’s Interpretation of Saint
Augustine,” in James W. Bernauer, ed., Amor Mundi. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.
Boyte, Harry. 1981a. The Backyard Revolution: Understanding the New Citizen Movement.
Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Boyte, Harry. 1981b. “Populism and the Left.” democracy, 1, April.
Boyte, Harry. 1984. Community Is Possible: Repairing America’s Roots. New York: Harper
and Row.
Boyte, Harry. 1989. CommonWealth: A Return to Citizen Politics. New York: Free Press.
Boyte, Harry. 2003. “Civic Populism.” Perspectives on Politics, 1, 4, 737–742.
Boyte, Harry. 2004. Everyday Politics: Reconnecting Citizens and Public Life. Philadelphia, PA:
University of Pennsylvania Press.
Boyte, Harry. 2005. “Reconceptualizing Politics.” Public Administration Review, 65, 5,
September–October.
Boyte, Harry. 2008. The Citizen Solution: How You Can Make a Difference. St. Paul, MN:
Minnesota Historical Society Press.
252 Bibliography
Boyte, Harry. 2011. “Constructive Politics as Public Work: Organizing the Literature.”
Political Theory, 39, 5.
Boyte, Harry C. and Nancy N. Kari. 1996. Building America: The Democratic Promise of
Public Work. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Boyte, Harry C. and Frank Riessman, eds. 1986. The New Populism: The Politics of
Empowerment. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Boyte, Harry C., Heather Booth, and Steve Max. 1986. Citizen Action and the New Amer-
ican Populism. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Braver, Lee. 2012. Groundless Grounds: A Study of Wittgenstein and Heidegger. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Breckman, Warren. 2013. Adventures of the Symbolic: Post-Marxism and Radical Democracy.
New York: Columbia University Press.
Breiner, Peter. 1996. Max Weber and Democratic Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press.
Breines, Wini. 1982. Community and Organization in the New Left: 1962–1968: The Great
Refusal. New York: Praeger.
Brunn, Han Henrik. 2007. Science, Values and Politics in Max Weber’s Methodology [1972].
Aldershot: Ashgate.
Buck-Morss, Susan. 2013. “A Commonist Ethics,” in Slavoj Zizek, ed., The Idea of Com-
munism, Vol. 2. London and New York: Verso.
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce. 2000. Principles of International Politics. Washington, DC: CQ
Press.
Bull, Hedley. 1977. The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. London:
Macmillan and New York: Columbia University Press.
Burke, Edmund. 1968. Reflections on the Revolution in France [1790]. Harmondsworth:
Penguin.
Butler, Judith. 1996. “Universality in Culture,” in Martha C. Nussbaum, et al., For Love of
Country: Debating the Limits of Patriotism, ed. Joshua Cohen. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Butler, Judith and Joan W. Scott, eds. 1992. Feminists Theorize the Political. New York:
Routledge.
Butler, Judith, Ernesto Laclau, and Slavoj Zizek. 1999. Contingency, Hegemony, Universality:
Contemporary Dialogues on the Left. London and New York: Verso.
Butler, Judith, Jürgen Habermas, Charles Taylor, and Cornel West. 2011. The Power of
Religion in the Public Sphere, ed. Eduardo Mendieta and Jonathan Van Antwerpen. New
York: Columbia University Press.
Butterfield, Herbert and Martin Wight, eds. 1966. Diplomatic Investigations: Essays in the
Theory of International Relations. London: Allen and Unwin.
Caille, Alain. 1995. “Claude Lefort, the Social Sciences and Political Philosophy.” Thesis
Eleven, 43.
Campbell, Craig. 2007. Glimmer of a New Leviathan: Total War in the Realism of Niebuhr,
Morgenthau and Waltz. New York: Columbia University Press.
Campbell, David and Michael Dillon. 1993. “Postface: The Political and the Ethical,” in
David Campbell and Michael Dillon, eds, The Political Subject of Violence. Manchester
and New York: Manchester University Press.
Camus, Albert. 1971. The Rebel. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Canovan, Margaret. 1981. Populism. London: Junction.
Canovan, Margaret. 1992. Hannah Arendt: A Reinterpretation of Her Political Thought.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bibliography 253
Caputo, John. 1997. Deconstruction in a Nutshell: A Conversation with Jacques Derrida, ed. and
commentary John D. Caputo. New York: Fordham University Press.
Carpentier, Nico and Bart Cammaerts. 2006. “Hegemony, Democracy, Agonism and
Journalism: An Interview with Chantal Mouffe.” Journalism Studies, 7, 6.
Carr, Edward Hallett. 1964. The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919–1939: An Introduction to
International Relations [1939, 1946]. New York: Harper and Row.
Carrithers, David, Matei Candea, Karen Sykes, Martin Holbraad, and Soumhya Venkate-
san. 2010. “Ontology Is Just Another Word for Culture.” Critique of Anthropology, 30, 2.
Carver, Terrell and Matti Hyvarinen, eds. 1997. Interpreting the Political: New Methodologies.
London and New York: Routledge.
Castan, Yves. 1989. “Politics and Private Life,” in Roger Chartier, ed., The History of
Private Life, Vol. 3: Passions of the Renaissance. Cambridge: Belknap Press.
Castoriadis, Cornelius. 1991a. Philosophy, Politics, Autonomy: Essays in Political Philosophy.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Castoriadis, Cornelius. 1991b. “Power, Politics, Autonomy,” in Castoriadis, Philosophy,
Politics, Autonomy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Cavanaugh, William T. and Peter Scott, eds. 2004. The Blackwell Companion to Political
Theology. Oxford: Blackwell.
Chalcraft, David, Fanon Howell, Marisol Lopez Menendez, and Hector Vera, eds. 2008.
Max Weber Matters: Interweaving Past and Present. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing.
Chambers, Edward T. 1978. Organizing for Family and Congregation. New York: Industrial
Areas Foundation.
Chambers, Edward T. with Michael A. Cowan. 2003. Roots for Radicals: Organizing for
Power, Action, and Justice. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Chan, Steve. 1997. “In Search of Democratic Peace.” Mershon International Studies Review,
41, 1, May.
Chappel, James. 2011. “The Catholic Origins of Totalitarianism Theory in Interwar
Europe.” Modern Intellectual History, 8, 3, November.
Church, W.F. 1972. Richelieu and Reason of State. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Clastres, Pierre. 1987. Society against the State: Essays in Political Anthropology. New York:
Zone Books.
Clastres, Pierre. 1994. The Archaeology of Violence. New York: Semiotext(e).
Clausewitz, Carl von. 1968. On War. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Coady, C.A.J. 2008. Messy Morality: The Challenge of Politics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Cohen, G.A. 2003. “Facts and Principles.” Philosophy and Public Affairs, 31, 3, Summer.
Cohen, Jean L. 1996. “Democracy, Difference, and the Right of Privacy,” in Seyla Ben-
habib, ed., Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Cohen, Jean L. and Andrew Arato. 1992. Civil Society and Political Theory. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Coles, Romand. 2006. “Of Tensions and Tricksters: Grassroots Democracy between
Theory and Practice.” Perspectives on Politics, 4, 3, Fall.
Collins, Randall. 1986a. “Imperialism and Legitimacy: Weber’s Theory of Politics,” in
Collins, Weberian Sociological Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Chapter 6.
Collins, Randall. 1986b. Weberian Sociological Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
254 Bibliography
Connolly, William E. 1981. “Socialism and Freedom,” in Connolly, Appearance and Reality
in Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Connolly, William E. 1984a. “The Dilemma of Legitimacy,” in Connolly, ed., Legitimacy
and the State. New York: New York University Press.
Connolly, William E., ed. 1984b. Legitimacy and the State. New York: New York University
Press.
Connolly, William E. 1987. “Modern Authority and Ambiguity,” in Connolly, Politics and
Ambiguity. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Connolly, William E. 1991. Identity/Difference: Democratic Negotiations of Political Paradox.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Connolly, William E. 1993. The Augustinian Imperative: A Reflection on the Politics of
Morality. London: Sage Publications.
Connolly, William E. 1995. The Ethos of Pluralization. Minneapolis, MN: University of
Minnesota Press.
Connolly, William E. 2009. “The Left and Ontopolitics,” in Carsten Strathausen, ed., A
Leftist Ontology: Beyond Relativism and Identity Politics. Minneapolis, MN: University of
Minnesota Press.
Constant, Benjamin. 1988a. “The Liberty of the Ancients, Compared with That of the
Moderns,” in Constant, Political Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Constant, Benjamin. 1988b. “Principles of Politics Applicable to All Representative Gov-
ernments,” in Constant, Political Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
Chapter 1.
Constellations. 2012. “Claude Lefort: An Intellectual and Political Memorial.” Constella-
tions, 19, 1, March.
Conway, Daniel W. 1997. Nietzsche and the Political. London: Routledge.
Crick, Bernard. 1964. In Defence of Politics [1962]. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Crick, Bernard. 2000. In Defence of Politics, 5th edition. London: Continuum (reprinted
2005).
Cristi, Renato. 1998. Carl Schmitt and Authoritarian Liberalism. Cardiff: University of Wales
Press.
Critchley, Simon. 1992. The Ethics of Deconstruction: Derrida and Levinas. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell (2nd edition, Edinburgh University Press, 2014).
Critchley, Simon. 1993. “Re-tracing the Political: Politics and Community in the Work of
Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe and Jean-Luc Nancy,” in David Campbell and Michael
Dillon, eds, The Political Subject of Violence. Manchester and New York: Manchester
University Press.
Critchley, Simon. 2004. “Five Problems in Levinas’s View of Politics and the Sketch of a
Solution to Them.” Political Theory, 32, 2, April.
Critchley, Simon and Oliver Marchart, eds. 2004. Laclau: A Critical Reader. London and
New York: Routledge.
Croce, Benedetto. 1960. “The Autonomy and Necessity of Politics,” in De Lamar Jensen,
ed., Machiavelli: Cynic, Patriot, or Political Scientist? Boston, MA: D.C. Heath.
Crone, Patricia. 1986. “The Tribe and the State,” in John A. Hall, ed., States in History.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Dagger, Richard. 2004. “Communitarianism and Republicanism,” in Gerald F. Gaus and
Chandran Kuthkas, eds, The Handbook of Political Theory. London: Sage.
Bibliography 255
Dallmayr, Fred. 1990. “Rethinking the Political: Some Heideggerian Contributions.”

Review of Politics, 52, 4, Fall (reprinted in Dallmayr, The Other Heidegger, Ithaca, NY and
London: Cornell University Press, 1993).
Dallmayr, Fred. 1993. “Politics and Power: Ricoeur’s Political Paradox Revisited,” in
David E. Klemm and William Schweiker, eds, Meanings in Texts and Actions: Questioning
Paul Ricoeur. Charlottesville, VA and London: University Press of Virginia.
Dallmayr, Fred, ed. 2010. Comparative Political Theory: An Introduction. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Daly, Herman and John B. Cobb, Jr. 1994. For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy
toward Community, the Environment and a Sustainable Future, 2nd edition. Boston, MA:
Beacon Press.
Dannreuther, Roland. 2007. International Security: The Contemporary Agenda. Oxford: Polity
Press.
Dauenhauer, Bernard. 1998. Paul Ricoeur: The Promise and Risk of Politics. Lanham, MD:
Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
Davidson, Carl. 2009. “Socialism and the Emerging Progressive Majority,” August, available
at http://carldavidsonblogspot.com/2009/08/socialism-and-emerging-progressive.html.
Davies, Creston, John Milbank, and Slavoj Zizek, eds. 2005. Theology and the Political: The
New Debate. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
d’Entreves, Alexander Passerin. 1967. The Notion of the State: An Introduction to Political
Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
d’Entreves, Alexander Passerin. 1971. “On the Notion of Political Philosophy,” in Klaus
von Beyne, ed. Theory and Politics/Theorie und Politik: Festschrift zum 70. Geburtstag fur
Carl Joachim Friedrich. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
De Vries, Hent and Lawrence Sullivan, eds. 2006. Political Theologies: Public Religions in a
Post-Secular World. New York: Fordham University Press.
Deane, Herbert A. 1963. The Political and Social Ideas of St. Augustine. New York and
London: Columbia University Press.
Delgado, Gary. 1986. Organizing the Movement: The Roots and Growth of ACORN.
Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Delgado, Gary. 1994. Beyond the Politics of Place: New Directions in Community Organizing.
Oakland, CA: Applied Research Center.
Derman, Joshua. 2008. “Philosophy beyond the Bounds of Reason: Max Weber’s Influ-
ence on the Development of Karl Jaspers’ Existenzphilosophie, 1909–1932,” in David
Chalcraft, Fanon Howell, Marisol Lopez Menendez, and Hector Vera, eds., Max Weber
Matters: Interweaving Past and Present. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing.
Derrida, Jacques. 1982. “The Ends of Man,” in Derrida, Margins of Philosophy. Chicago, IL
and London: University of Chicago Press.
Derrida, Jacques. 1997. Politics of Friendship. London: Verso.
Derrida, Jacques. 2005a. “Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Social Sciences”
[1966], in Derrida, Writing and Difference [1967]. London and New York: Routledge.
Derrida, Jacques. 2005b. “Violence and Metaphysics: An Essay on the Thoughts of
Emmanuel Levinas,” in Derrida, Writing and Difference. London and New York:
Routledge.
Desch, Michael C. 2003. “It Is Kind to Be Cruel: The Humanity of American Realism.”
Review of International Studies, 29.
Dewey, John. 2012. The Public and Its Problems: An Essay in Political Inquiry [1927]. State
College, PA: Pennsylvania University Press.
256 Bibliography
Dietz, Mary G. 1995. “Feminist Receptions of Hannah Arendt,” in Bonnie Honig, ed.,
Feminist Interpretations of Hannah Arendt. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania University
Press.
Dobbs, Farrell. 1972. Teamster Rebellion. New York: Pathfinder Press.
Donoso Cortes, Juan. 2010. Essays on Catholicism, Liberalism and Socialism [1851], trans.
William McDonald. Gornahoor Press.
Douzinas, Costos and Slavoj Zizek, eds. 2010. The Idea of Communism. London and New
York: Verso.
Dryzek, John, Bonnie Honig, and Anne Philips, eds. 2008. The Oxford Handbook of Political
Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dunn, John. 1978. Western Political Theory in the Face of the Future. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press (2nd edition 1993).
Dunne, Tim. 2011. “The English School,” in Robert E. Goodin, ed., The Oxford Hand-
book of Political Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dunne, Tim, Milja Kurki, and Steve Smith, eds. 2010. International Relations Theories:
Discipline and Diversity, 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dyzenhaus, David. 1997. Legality and Legitimacy: Carl Schmitt, Hans Kelsen and Hermann
Heller in Weimar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Dyzenhaus, David. 2007. “States of Emergency,” in Robert E. Goodin, Philip Pettit, and
Thomas Pogge, eds, A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy, 2nd edition.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Easton, David. 1951. “The Decline of Modern Political Theory.” Journal of Politics, 13, 1,
February.
Eatwell, Roger. 1996. “On Defining the Fascist Minimum: The Centrality of Ideology.”
Journal of Political Ideologies, 1.
Eaves, Jehu. 2014. “The Single Nonreformist Reform that Can End Capitalism in Months Not
Decades,” June 9, available at http://therealmovement.wordpress.com/2014/06/09/
the-single-non-reformist-reform-that-can-end-capitalism-within-months-not-decades/.
Ebata, Michi and Beverly Neufeld, eds. 2000. Confronting the Political in International Rela-
tions. Houndmills: Macmillan Press; New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Ebenstein, William, ed. 1947. Man and the State: Modern Political Ideologies. New York:
Rinehart and Company.
Eberly, Don E., ed. 2000. The Essential Civil Society Reader: The Classic Essays in the American
Civil Society Debate. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Echevarra, Antulio. 2005. Fourth Generation War and Other Myths. Carlisle, PA: Strategic
Studies Institute.
Edkins, Jenny. 1999. Poststructuralism and International Relations: Bringing the Political Back In.
Boulder, CO and London: Lynne Rienner.
Edwards, Michael, ed. 2011. Oxford Handbook of Civil Society. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Ellul, Jacques. 1972. The Political Illusion. New York: Vintage.
Elshtain, Jean Bethke. 1981. Public Man, Private Woman. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Elson, Diane. 1998. “Market Socialism or Socialization of the Market.” New Left Review,
172, November–December.
Elson, Diane. 2000. “Socializing Markets, Not Market Socialism.” Socialist Register.
Estlund, David, ed. 2012. The Oxford Handbook of Political Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Bibliography 257
Etzioni, Amitai. 1993. The Spirit of Community: Rights, Responsibilities, and the Communitarian
Agenda. New York: Crown.
Evans, Peter, Dietrich Rueschemeyer, and Theda Skocpol, eds. 1985. Bringing the State
Back In. New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Finer, S.E. 1997. The History of Government, Vol. 1: Ancient Monarchies and Empires. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Fink, Zera S. 1945. The Classical Republicans: An Essay in the Recovery of a Pattern of Thought
in Seventeenth Century England. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Finlayson, Lorna. 2015. The Political Is Political: Conformity and the Illusion of Dissent in
Contemporary Political Philosophy. London and New York: Rowman and Littlefield
International.
Finley, M. I. 1954. The World of Odysseus. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Finley, M. 1963. The Ancient Greeks. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Finley, M. 1972. “Introduction” to Thucydides, The History of the Peloponnesian War.
Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Finnis, John. 1980. Natural Law and Natural Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fisher, Robert, ed. 2009. The People Shall Rule: ACORN, Community Organizing and the
Struggle for Economic Justice. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University.
Flinders, Matthew, 2012. Defending Politics: Why Democracy Matters in the Twenty-first Century.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Flynn, Bernard. 1992. Political Philosophy at the Closure of Metaphysics. Atlantic Highlands,
NJ: Humanities Press.
Flynn, Bernard. 1998. “Lefort,” in Simon Critchley and William R. Schroeder, eds, A
Companion to Continental Philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell.
Flynn, Bernard. 2005. The Philosophy of Claude Lefort: Interpreting the Political. Evanston, IL:
Northwestern University Press.
Forsyth, Murray. 1996. “Carl Schmitt: The Concept of the Political,” in Murray Forsyth
and Maurice Keens-Soper, eds, The Political Classics: Green to Dworkin. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Foucault, Michel. 1980a. “The History of Sexuality,” in Foucault, Power/Knowledge:
Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972–1977, ed. Colin Gordon. New York:
Pantheon Books.
Foucault, Michel. 1980b. “On Popular Justice: A Discussion with Maoists,” in Foucault,
Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972–1977, ed. Colin Gordon.
New York: Pantheon Books.
Foucault, Michel. 1988a. “Power and Sex,” in Foucault, Politics, Philosophy, Culture:
Interviews and Other Writings 1977–1984. New York and London: Routledge.
Foucault, Michel. 1988b. “The Art of Telling the Truth,” in Foucault, Politics, Philosophy,
Culture: Interviews and Other Writings 1977–1984, ed. Lawrence D. Kritzman. New York
and London: Routledge.
Fraser, Nancy. 1984. “The French Derrideans: Politicizing Deconstruction or Decon-
structing the Political?” New German Critique, 33, Fall (reprinted in Fraser, Unruly Prac-
tices: Power, Discourse and Gender in Contemporary Social Theory, Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota Press and Polity Press).
Freeden, Michael. 2004. “Ideology, Political Theory and Political Philosophy,” in Gerald
F. Gaus and Chandran Kuthas, eds, The Handbook of Political Theory. London: Sage
Publications.
258 Bibliography
Freeden, Michael. 2005. “What Should the ‘Political’ in Political Theory Explore?” Journal
of Political Philosophy, 13, 2.
Freeden, Michael. 2012. “Interpretative Realism and Prescriptive Realism.” Journal of
Political Ideologies, 17, 1.
Freeden, Michael. 2013. The Political Theory of Political Thinking. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Freeden, Michael and Andrew Vincent, eds. 2012. Comparative Political Thought: Theorizing
Practices. New York: Routledge.
Freedlander, David. 2014. “ACORN’s Seeds Sprout up around the Country,” Daily Beast,
January 13.
Friedmann, Thomas L. 1999. The Lexus and the Olive Tree: Understanding Globalization.
New York: Anchor Books.
Friedrich, Carl J. 1957. Constitutional Reason of State: The Survival of the Constitutional Order.
Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
Friedrich, Carl J. 1968. Constitutional Government and Democracy: Theory and Practice in
Europe and America. Waltham, MA: Blaisdell.
Friedrichs, Jorg. 2001. “The Meaning of the New Medievalism.” European Journal of
International Relations, 7, 4.
Frohnen, Bruce. 1999. “The Misdirected Quest for Community.” Family Policy, 12, 3,
May–June.
Fukuyama, Francis. 1989. “The End of History?” National Interest, Summer.
Fukuyama, Francis. 1992. The End of History and the Last Man. New York: Free Press.
Fullbrook, Edward, ed. 2009. Ontology and Economics: Tony Lawson and His Critics. London
and New York: Routledge.
Furet, Francois. 1981. Interpreting the French Revolution [1978]. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Furet, Francois. 1989. “Revolutionary Government,” in Francois Furet and Mona Ozouf,
eds, A Critical Dictionary of the French Revolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Furet, Francois. 1990. “Thirteen Transformations in the Historiography of the Revolu-
tion,” in Ferenic Feher, ed., The French Revolution and the Birth of Modernity. Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press.
Furet, Francois. 1999. The Passing of an Illusion: The Idea of Communism in the Twentieth
Century [1995]. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Galston, William A. 2010. “Realism and Political Theory.” European Journal of Political
Theory, 9, 4, October.
Gamble, Andrew. 2001. “Regional Blocs, World Order and the New Medievalism,” in
Mario Telò, ed., European Union and the New Regionalism: Regional Actors and Global
Governance in a Post-Hegemonic Era. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Gardner, Lloyd C., Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., and Hans J. Morgenthau. 1970. The Origins of
the Cold War. Waltham, MA: Ginn and Company.
Garlan, Yvon. 1995. “War and Peace,” in Jean-Pierre Vernant, ed., The Greeks. Chicago,
IL and London: University of Chicago Press.
Gaus, Gerald F. and Chandran Kuthas, eds. 2004. The Handbook of Political Theory. London:
Sage Publications.
Geertz, Clifford. 1980. Negara: The Theatre State in Nineteenth Century Bali. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Bibliography 259
Gentile, Emilio. 1990. “Fascism as Political Religion.” Journal of Contemporary History, 25,
2–3, May–June.
Germino, Dante. 1969. “The Revival of Political Theory,” in Richard H. Cox, ed.,
Ideology, Politics and Political Theory. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co.
Gerwith, Hans and C. Wright Mills. 1946. “Introduction: The Man and His Work,” in
Gerwith and Mills, eds, From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Geuss, Raymond. 2001. History and Illusion in Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Geuss, Raymond. 2008. Philosophy and Real Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Geuss, Raymond. 2010. Politics and the Imagination. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Geuss, Raymond. 2012. “Did Williams Do Ethics?” Arion, 19, 1, Winter.
Giddens, Anthony. 1972. Politics and Sociology in the Thought of Max Weber. London:
Macmillan.
Gilpin, Robert, with Jean Gilpin. 2001. Global Political Economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Gleason, Abbott. 1995. Totalitarianism: The Inner History of the Cold War. New York and
Godrej, Farah. 2011. Cosmopolitan Political Thought: Method, Practice, Discipline. Oxford:
Goldie, Mark. 2011. “Absolutism,” in George Klosko, ed., Oxford Handbook of the History
of Political Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goldstein, Philip. 2005. Post-Marxist Theory: An Introduction. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Goodale, Mark. 2009. Surrendering to Utopia: An Anthropology of Human Rights. Stanford,
CA: Stanford University Press.
Goodin, Robert E., Philip Pettit, and Thomas Pogge, eds. 2007. A Companion to
Contemporary Political Philosophy, 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Goodwyn, Lawrence. 1976. Democratic Promise: The Populist Movement in America. Oxford:
Goodwyn, Lawrence. 1978. The Populist Moment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goodwyn, Lawrence. 1981. “Organizing Democracy: The Limits of Theory and Practice.”
democracy 1, January.
Goodwyn, Lawrence. 1991. Breaking the Barrier: The Rise of Solidarity in Poland. New York:
Gordon, Daniel. 1994. Citizens without Sovereignty: Equality and Sociability in French Thought,
1670–1789. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Gottfried, Paul Edward. 1990. Carl Schmitt: Politics and Theory. New York: Greenwood
Press.
Gottfried, Paul Edward. 1993. “Schmitt and Strauss.” Telos, 96, Summer.
Gottsegen, Michael G. 1994. The Political Thought of Hannah Arendt. Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.
Graham, Jesse, Jonathan Haidt, Sena Koleva, Matt Motyl, Ravi Iyer, Sean P. Wojcik, and
Peter H. Ditto. 2013. “Moral Foundations Theory: The Pragmatic Validity of Moral
Pluralism.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 47.
Gramsci, Antonio. 1971. Selections from the Prison Notebooks. New York: International
Publishers and London: Lawrence and Wishart.
260 Bibliography
Gray, John. 2000. Two Faces of Liberalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Green, Philip and Michael Walzer, eds. 1969. The Political Imagination in Literature: A
Reader. New York: Free Press.
Grene, David. 1966. Greek Political Theory: The Image of Man in Thucydides and Plato. Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Press.
Grewe, Wilhelm. 2000. The Epochs of International Law. New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Grieco, Joseph M. 1997. “Realist International Theory and the Study of World Politics,”
in Michael W. Doyle and G. John Ikenberry, eds, New Thinking in International Relations.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Griffin, Roger. 1991. The Nature of Fascism. London: Routledge.
Gross, Raphael. 2007. Carl Schmitt and the Jews: The “Jewish Question,” the Holocaust, and
German Legal Theory. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Gunnell, John G. 1979. Political Theory: Tradition and Interpretation. Cambridge, MA:
Winthrop Publishers.
Haakonssen, Knud. 2007. “Republicanism,” in Robert E. Goodin, Philip Pettit, and
Thomas Pogge, eds, A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy, 2nd edition.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Habermas, Jurgen. 1973. Legitimation Crisis. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Habermas, Jurgen. 1984. The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol. 1: Reason and the Ratio-
nalization of Society. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Habermas, Jurgen. 1991. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a
Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Habermas, Jurgen. 1994. “Hannah Arendt’s Communications Concept of Power,” in
Lewis P. Hinchman and Sandra K. Hinchman, eds, Hannah Arendt: Critical Essays.
Albany, NY: State University Press of New York.
Habermas, Jurgen. 2011. “The Political: The Rational Meaning of a Questionable
Inheritance of Political Theology,” in Judith Butler, Jürgen Habermas, Charles Taylor,
and Cornel West, The Power of Religion in the Public Sphere, ed. Eduardo Mendieta and
Jonathan Van Antwerpen. New York: Columbia University Press.
Hahm, Chaibong. 2004. “Ironies of Confucianism.” Journal of Democracy, 15, 3, July.
Haidt, Jonathan. 2012. The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Religion and
Politics. New York: Pantheon.
Haidt, Jonathan and Craig Joseph. 2004. “Intuitive Ethics: How Innately Prepared
Intuitions Generate Culturally Variable Virtues.” Daedalus, Fall.
Hall, Ian. 2006. The International Thought of Martin Wight. New York: Palgrave.
Hammer, Espen. 2006. Adorno and the Political. London and New York: Routledge.
Hampson, Fen Osler. 2008. “Human Security,” in Paul D. Williams, ed., Security Studies:
An Introduction. New York: Routledge.
Hansen, Guillermo. 1996. “When Parallel Lines Converge: Roman Catholic Integrism and
Evangelical Fundamentalism: Some Reflections from Latin America.” Journal of Lutheran
Ethics, 6, 7, November.
Harrington, James. 1993. The Commonwealth of Oceana and A System of Politics. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Hart, H.L.A. 1961. The Concept of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2nd edition
1994.
Haslam, Jonathan. 2002. No Virtue Like Necessity: Realist Thought in International Relations
since Machiavelli. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Bibliography 261
Hauptmann, Emily. 2004. “A Local History of ‘The Political.’” Political Theory, 32, 1,
February.
Hawken, Paul. 1993. The Ecology of Commerce. New York: HarperCollins.
Hawken, Paul, Amory Lovins, and Hunter Lovins. 1999. Natural Capitalism. Boston, MA:
Little, Brown.
Hay, Colin. 2011. “Political Ontology,” in Robert E. Goodin, ed., Oxford Handbook of
Political Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hayek, Friedrich. 1960. The Constitution of Liberty. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Hayek, Friedrich. 1979. Law, Legislation and Liberty, Vol. 3. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Healey, F.G. 1959. The Literary Culture of Napoleon. Geneva: Libraire E. Droz.
Hegel, G.W.F. 1942. Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, trans. T.M. Knox. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Hegel, G. 1977. The Phenomenology of Spirit. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Heidegger, Martin. 1962a. Being and Time [1926]. New York: Harper and Row.
Heidegger, Martin. 1962b. “Plato’s Doctrine of Truth,” in William Barrett and Henry D.
Aiken, eds, Philosophy in the Twentieth Century, An Anthology, Vol. 3. New York:
Random House.
Heidegger, Martin. 1972. “Time and Being,” in Heidegger, On Time and Being. New
York: Harper and Row.
Heidegger, Martin. 1973. “Overcoming Metaphysics,” in Heidegger, The End of Philoso-
phy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press (reprinted 2003).
Heidegger, Martin. 1977. The Question concerning Technology and Other Essays. New York
and London: Garland.
Heller, Agnes. 1990. “The Concept of the Political Revisited,” in Heller, Can Modernity
Survive? Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hennis, Wilhelm. 1988. Max Weber: Essays in Reconstruction. London: Allen and Unwin.
Hennis, Wilhelm. 1991. “In Search of the ‘New Science of Politics,’” in Ken Masugi, ed.,
Interpreting Tocqueville’s Democracy in America. Savage, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Hetherington, Marc and Jonathan Weiler. 2009. Authoritarianism and Polarization in Amer-
ican Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heywood, Andrew. 1994. Political Ideas and Concepts: An Introduction. New York: St.
Martin’s Press.
Hibbing, John R. and Elizabeth Theiss-Morse. 2002. Stealth Democracy: Americans’ Beliefs
about How Government Should Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hinchman, Lewis P. and Sandra K. Hinchman, eds. 1994. Hannah Arendt: Critical Essays.
Albany, NY: New York State University Press.
Hirschmann, Nancy J. and Christine DiStefano, eds. 1996. Revisioning the Political. Boulder,
CO: Westview Press.
Hirst, Paul Q. 1989a. “Introduction” to Hirst, The Pluralist Theory of the State. London:
Routledge.
Hirst, Paul Q., ed. 1989b. The Pluralist Theory of the State: Selected Writings of G.D.H. Cole,
J.N. Figgis, and H.J. Laski. London and New York: Routledge.
Hirst, Paul Q. 1999. “Carl Schmitt’s Decisionism,” in Chantal Mouffe, ed., The Challenge
of Carl Schmitt. London: Verso.
Hitler, Adolf. 1998. Mein Kampf, trans. Ralph Manheim. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Hobbes, Thomas. 1968. Leviathan. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
262 Bibliography
Hodgkinson, Virginia A. and Michael W. Foley, eds. 2003. The Civil Society Reader.
Boston, MA: Tufts University Press.
Hohendahl, Peter. 2008. “Political Theology Revisited: Carl Schmitt’s Postwar Reassessment.”
Konturen, 1.
Hollerich, Michael. 2004. “Carl Schmitt,” in Peter Scott and William T. Cavanaugh, eds,
The Blackwell Companion to Political Theology. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Holmes, Stephen. 1993. The Anatomy of Antiliberalism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Honig, Bonnie. 1992. “Toward an Agonistic Feminism: Hannah Arendt and the Politics of
Identity,” in Judith Butler and Joan W. Scott, eds, Feminists Theorize the Political. New
York and London: Routledge.
Honig, Bonnie. 1993. Political Theory and the Displacement of Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.
Honig, Bonnie. 2007. “Between Decision and Deliberation: Political Paradox in Demo-
cratic Theory.” American Political Science Review, 101, 1, February (reprinted in Honig
2009).
Honig, Bonnie. 2009. Emergency Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Honneth, Axel. 1995. The Struggle for Recognition: The Moral Grammar of Social Conflicts.
New York: Polity Press.
Horkheimer, Max. 1947. The Eclipse of Reason. New York: Oxford University Press.
Horkheimer, Max and Theodor W. Adorno. 1972. Dialectic of Enlightenment. New York:
Seabury Press.
Horowitz, Asher and Terry Maley, eds. 1994. The Barbarism of Reason: Max Weber and the
Twilight of Enlightenment. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Horton, John. 2010. “Realism, Moralism and a Political Theory of Modus Vivendi,”
Horton, John and Andrea T. Baumeister, eds. 1996. Literature and the Political Imagination.
Howard, Dick. 1974–5. “Introduction to Lefort.” Telos, 22.
Howard, Dick. 1975. “An Interview with C. Castoriadis.” Telos, 23, Spring.
Howard, Dick. 1975–6. “An Interview with Claude Lefort.” Telos, 30.
Howard, Dick. 1989. Defining the Political. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota
Press.
Howard, Dick. 2010. The Primacy of the Political: A History of Political Thought from the Greeks
to the French Revolution. New York: Columbia University Press.
Howard, Dick. 2013. “Claude Lefort: A Political Biography,” in Martin Plot, ed., Claude
Lefort: Thinker of the Political. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Howarth, David, ed. 2014. Ernesto Laclau: Post-Marxism, Populism and Critique. London and
Howe, Irving, ed. 1986. Essential Works of Socialism, 3rd edition. New Haven, CT and
London: Yale University Press.
Hume, David. 1888. A Treatise of Human Nature, ed. L.A. Selby-Bigge. Oxford: Clarendon
Press (2nd edition ed. P.H. Nidditch, 1978).
Hume, David. 1985. “Of the Original Contract,” in Hume, Essays, Moral, Political and
Literary, ed. Eugene F. Miller. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Classics.
Hunnicutt, Benjamin Kline. 1984. “The End of Shorter Hours.” Labor History, XXV,
Summer.
Bibliography 263
Hunter, James Davison. 1992. Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America. New York:
Basic Books.
Huntington, Samuel. 1983. American Politics: The Promise of Disharmony. Cambridge: Belknap
Press.
Huntington, Samuel. 1993. “The Clash of Civilizations?” Foreign Affairs, September.
Huntington, Samuel. 1996. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New
York: Simon and Schuster.
Ignatieff, Michael. 1995. “The Myth of Citizenship,” in Ronald Beiner, ed., Theorizing
Citizenship. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Ingram, David, ed. 2002. The Political. Malden, MA: Basil Blackwell.
Jackson, Robert. 2003. The Global Covenant: Human Conduct in a World of States. Oxford:
Jacobson, Norman. 1958. “The Unity of Political Theory: Science, Morals, and Politics,”
in Roland Young, ed., Approaches to the Study of Politics. Evanston, IL: Northwestern
University Press.
Jacobson, Norman. 1978. Pride and Solace: The Functions and Limits of Political Theory. New
York: Methuen.
Janis, Irving. 1972. Victims of Groupthink. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Jasper, James M. 2005. “Culture, Knowledge, Politics,” in Thomas Janoski, Robert Alford,
Alexander Hicks, and Mildred A. Schwartz, eds, The Handbook of Political Sociology.
Jay, Martin. 2010. “On the Political,” in Jay, The Virtues of Mendacity: On Lying in Politics
Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press.
Jennings, Jeremy. 1997. “The Return of the Political? New French Journals in the History
of Political Thought,” History of Political Thought, 18, 1, Spring.
Johnson, Greg S. and Dan R. Stiver, eds. 2013. Paul Ricoeur and the Task of Political Philosophy.
Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Johnson, Simon and James Kwak. 2010. 13 Bankers: The Wall Street Takeover and the Next
Financial Meltdown. New York: Random House.
Jones, Van. 2008. The Green Collar Economy: How One Solution Can Fix Our Two Greatest
Problems. New York: Harper Collins.
Jung, Hwa Yol, ed. 1972. Existential Phenomenology and Political Theory. Chicago, IL: Henry
Regnery.
Kahn, Paul. 2011. Political Theology: Four New Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty. New
Kaldor, Mary. 1999. New and Old Wars: Organized Violence in a Global Era. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Kaldor, Mary. 2003. Global Civil Society: An Answer to War. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Kalyvas, Andreas. 2009. Democracy and the Politics of the Extraordinary: Max Weber, Carl
Schmitt and Hannah Arendt. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kantorowicz, Ernst H. 1957. The King’s Two Bodies: A Study in Medieval Political Theology.
Kaplan, David M. 2003. Ricoeur’s Criticial Theory. Albany, NY: State University of New
York Press.
Kaplan, Robert. 1994. “The Coming Anarchy.” Atlantic Monthly, 273, 2, February.
Kazin, Alfred. 1978. New York Jew. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Kazin, Michael. 1995. The Populist Persuasion. New York: Basic Books.
264 Bibliography
Kellogg, Edward. 1875. A New Monetary System [1848], 5th edition. Philadelphia, PA:
Henry Carey Baird and Co. (this book is also titled Labor and Capital ).
Kelly, Duncan. 2003. The State of the Political: Concepts of Politics and the State in the Thought
of Max Weber, Carl Schmitt, and Franz Neumann. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kelso, Louis O. and Mortimer J. Adler. 1958. The Capitalist Manifesto. New York:
Random House.
Kennan, George. 1951. American Diplomacy: 1900–1950. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Kennedy, Ellen. 2004. Constitutional Failure: Carl Schmitt in Weimar. Durham, NC and
London: Duke University Press.
Keohane, Nannerl. 1980. Philosophy and the State in France. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Kepel, Gilles. 1994. The Revenge of God: The Resurgence of Islam, Christianity and Judaism in
the Modern World. State College, PA: Penn State University and Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Keynes, John Maynard. 1963. “Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren” [1930], in
Keynes, Essays in Persuasion. New York: W.W. Norton and Co.
Kirk, Russell. 1953. The Conservative Mind. Chicago, IL: Regnery.
Kissinger, Henry. 1994. Diplomacy. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Klemm, David E. and William Schweiker, eds. 1993. Meanings in Texts and Actions:
Questioning Paul Ricoeur. Charlottesville, VA and London: University Press of Virginia.
Klosko, Gregory, ed. 2012. The Oxford Handbook of the History of Political Philosophy.
Kobrin, Stephen J. 1998. “Back to the Future: Neomedievalism and the Postmodern
Digital World Economy.” Journal of International Affairs, Spring.
Kohler, Lotte and Hans Saner, eds. 1992. Hannah Arendt-Karl Jaspers Correspondence,
1926–1969. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Kojeve, Alexander. 1969. Introduction to the Reading of Hegel. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press.
Koskenniemi, Martti. 2001. The Gentle Civilizer of Nations: The Rise and Fall of International
Law 1879–1960. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Koskenniemi, Martti. 2004. “International Law as Political Theology: How to Read
Nomos der Erde?” Constellations, 11, 4.
Kosselleck, Reinhart. 1988. Critique and Crisis: Enlightenment and the Pathogenesis of Modern
Society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kouvelakis, Stathis. 2008. “The Crises of Marxism and the Transformation of Capitalism,”
in Jacques Bidet and Stathis Kouvelakis, eds, Critical Companion to Contemporary Marxism.
Leiden: Brill.
Kuhn, Thomas. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Kurtz, Stanley. 2010. Radical in Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American
Socialism. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Laclau, Ernesto. 1978. Politics and Ideology in Marxist Theory: Capitalism, Fascism, Populism.
London: New Left Books.
Laclau, Ernesto. 1988. “Politics and the Limits of Modernity,” in Andrew Ross, ed., Uni-
versal Abandon? The Politics of Postmodernism. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.
Laclau, Ernesto. 1990a. “Building a New Left,” in Laclau, New Reflections on the Revolution
of Our Time. London: Verso.
Bibliography 265
Laclau, Ernesto. 1990b. “The Impossibility of Society,” in Laclau, New Reflections on the
Revolution of Our Time. London: Verso.
Laclau, Ernesto. 1990c. “Marxism and Psychoanalysis,” in Laclau, New Reflections on the
Revolution of Our Time. London: Verso.
Laclau, Ernesto. 1990d. New Reflections on the Revolution of Our Time. London: Verso.
Laclau, Ernesto. 1990e. “Theory, Democracy and Socialism,” in Laclau, New Reflections on
the Revolution of Our Time. London: Verso.
Laclau, Ernesto. 1996. “The Death and Resurrection of the Theory of Ideologies.” Journal
of Political Ideologies, 1, 3, October.
Laclau, Ernesto. 2001. “Democracy and the Question of Power.” Constellations, 8, 1.
Laclau, Ernesto. 2004a. “An Ethics of Militant Engagement,” in Peter Hallward, ed., Think
Again: Alain Badiou and the Future of Philosophy. London and New York: Continuum.
Laclau, Ernesto. 2004b. “Glimpsing the Future,” in Simon Critchley and Oliver Marchart,
eds, Laclau: A Critical Reader. London and New York: Routledge.
Laclau, Ernesto. 2005a. “Populism, Representation and Democracy,” in Laclau, On
Populist Reason. London and New York: Verso.
Laclau, Ernesto. 2005b. On Populist Reason. London and New York: Verso.
Laclau, Ernesto. 2006. “Ideology and Post-Marxism.” Journal of Political Ideologies, 11, 2,
June.
Laclau, Ernesto. 2014a. “Ethics, Normativity and the Heteronomy of Law,” in Laclau, The
Rhetorical Foundation of Society. London: Verso.
Laclau, Ernesto. 2014b. The Rhetorical Foundation of Society. London: Verso.
Laclau, Ernsto and Chantal Mouffe. 1985. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical
Democratic Politics. London: Verso.
Laclau, Ernsto and Chantal Mouffe. 1990. “Post-Marxism without Apologies,” in Laclau,
New Reflections on the Revolution of Our Time. London: Verso.
Laclau, Ernsto and Chantal Mouffe. 2001. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical
Democratic Politics, 2nd edition. London: Verso.
Lacoue-Labarthe, Philippe. 1990. Heidegger, Art and Politics: The Fiction of the Political.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Lacoue-Labarthe, Philippe and Jean-Luc Nancy. 1997. Retreating the Political, ed. Simon
Sparks. London and New York: Routledge.
Lakey, George. 2004. “Strategy for a Living Revolution,” in David Solnit, ed., Globalize
Liberation. San Francisco, CA: City Lights Books, available at http://www.trainingforcha
nge.org/node/181.
Lakoff, George. 2002. Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think, 2nd edition.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press (1st edition, 1996).
Landes, David. 1969. The Unbound Prometheus: Technological Change and Industrial Development
since 1750 to the Present. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Landes, Joan. 1988. Women and the Public Sphere in the Age of the French Revolution. Ithaca,
NY: Cornell University Press.
Langsdorf, Lenore and Stephen H. Watson, with Karen A. Smith, eds. 1998. Reinterpreting
the Political: Continental Philosophy and Political Theory. Albany, NY: State University of
New York Press.
Laqueur, Walter. 1976. Guerrilla Warfare: A Historical and Critical Study. Boston, MA: Little,
Brown (reprinted New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1998).
Laqueur, Walter. 1999. The New Terrorism: Fanaticism and the Arms of Mass Destruction.
266 Bibliography
Larmore, Charles. 2013. “What Is Political Philosophy?” Journal of Moral Philosophy, 10.
Lasch, Christopher. 1981. “Democracy and the Crisis of Confidence.” democracy, 1,
January.
Lasch, Christopher. 1986. “The Communitarian Critique of Liberalism.” Soundings: An
Interdisciplinary Journal, 69, 1–2, Spring–Summer (reprinted in Charles H. Reynolds and
Ralph Norman, eds, Community in America: The Challenge of Habits of the Heart.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1988).
Lasch, Christopher. 1991. The True and Only Heaven: Progress and Its Critics. New York:
Norton.
Lasch, Christopher. 1995a. “Populism vs. Communitarianism,” in Lasch, The Revolt of the
Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy. New York and London: W.W. Norton and
Company.
Lasch, Christopher. 1995b. “The Soul of Man under Secularism,” in Lasch, The Revolt of
the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy. New York and London: W.W. Norton and
Company.
Lash, Scott and Sam Whimster, eds. 1987. Max Weber, Rationality and Modernity. London:
Allen and Unwin.
Laski, Harold J. 1968. Studies in the Problem of Sovereignty [1917]. New York: Howard
Fertig.
Laslett, Peter, ed. 1956. Philosophy, Politics and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lassman, Peter. 1994. “Introduction” to Weber: Political Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Laurence, Stephen and Cynthia Macdonald, eds. 1998. Contemporary Readings in the Foun-
dations of Metaphysics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Layne, Christopher. 1991. “Why the Gulf War Was Not in the National Interest.” Atlantic
Monthly, July.
Layne, Christopher. 2006. The Peace of Illusions: American Grand Strategy from 1940 to the
Present. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Lebow, Richard Ned. 2003. The Tragic Vision of Politics: Ethics, Interests and Orders. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lefort, Claude. 1986a. “The Contradiction of Trotsky” [1948–9], in Lefort, The Political
Forms of Modern Society: Bureaucracy, Democracy, Totalitarianism. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press, London: Polity Press.
Lefort, Claude. 1986b. “Marx: From One Vision of History to Another” [1965], in Lefort,
The Political Forms of Modern Society: Bureaucracy, Democracy, Totalitarianism. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Lefort, Claude. 1986c. “Outline of the Genesis of Ideology in Modern Societies” [1978],
in Lefort, The Political Forms of Modern Society: Bureaucracy, Democracy, Totalitarianism
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lefort, Claude. 1986d. The Political Forms of Modern Society: Bureaucracy, Democracy, Totali-
tarianism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, London: Polity Press.
Lefort, Claude. 1988a. Democracy and Political Theory. Minneapolis, MN: University of
Minnesota Press.
Lefort, Claude. 1988b. “Hannah Arendt and the Question of the Political” [1985], in
Lefort, Democracy and Political Theory. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Lefort, Claude. 1988c. “Human Rights and the Welfare State,” in Lefort, Democracy and
Political Theory. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Bibliography 267
Lefort, Claude. 1988d. “Interpreting the Revolution within the French Revolution”
[1980], in Lefort, Democracy and Political Theory. Minneapolis, MN: University of
Minnesota Press.
Lefort, Claude. 1988e. “Introduction” to Democracy and Political Theory. Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota Press.
Lefort, Claude. 1988f. “Permanence of the Theological-Political?” in Lefort, Democracy and
Lefort, Claude. 1988g. “The Question of Democracy” [1983], in Lefort, Democracy and
Lefort, Claude. 1988h. “Reversibility,” in Lefort, Democracy and Political Theory. Minnea-
polis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Lefort, Claude. 1991. “Modern Democracy and Political Philosophy,” in Hugh Silverman,
ed., Writing the Politics of Difference. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Lefort, Claude. 2000a. “Dialogue with Pierre Clastres,” in Lefort, Writing: The Political
Test. Durham, NC and London: Duke University Press.
Lefort, Claude. 2000b. “Philosopher?” in Lefort, Writing: The Political Test. Durham, NC
and London: Duke University Press.
Lefort, Claude. 2000c. “Tocqueville: Democracy and the Art of Writing,” in Lefort,
Writing: The Political Test. Durham, NC and London: Duke University Press.
Lefort, Claude. 2000d. Writing: The Political Test, trans. David Ames Curtis. New York:
Routledge.
Lefort, Claude. 2007. Complications: Communism and the Dilemmas of Democracy [1999]. New
Lefort, Claude. 2012. Machiavelli in the Making. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University
Press.
Levinas, Emmanuel. 1969. Totality and Infinity [1961]. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University
Press.
Lewes, George Henry. 1965. The Life of Goethe [1855]. New York: Frederick Ungar
Publishing.
Lilla, Mark. 2008. The Stillborn God. New York: Vintage Books.
Lind, William S., Keith Nightengale, John F. Schmitt, Joseph W. Sutton, and Gary I.
Wilson. 1989. “The Changing Face of War: Into the Fourth Generation.” Marine Corps
Gazette, October.
Lippmann, Walter. 2011. The Phantom Public [1925]. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction
Publishers.
Lipset, Seymour Martin and Sheldon S. Wolin, eds. 1965. The Berkeley Student Revolt: Facts
and Interpretations. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
Litt, Edgar. 1966. The Political Imagination: Dialogues on Politics and Political Behavior.
Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
Lobkowicz, Nicholas. 1967. Theory and Practice: History of a Concept from Aristotle to Marx.
South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Locke, John. 1980. Second Treatise of Government. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.
Lousse, Emile. 1964. “Absolutism,” in Heinz Lubascz, ed., The Development of the Modern
State. New York: Macmillan.
Lowi, Theodore. 1969. The End of Liberalism: Ideology, Policy and the Crisis of Public
Authority. New York: W.W. Norton and Co.
Lowi, Theodore. 1995. The End of the Republican Era. Norman, OK: University of
Oklahoma Press.
268 Bibliography
Löwith, Karl. 1949. Meaning and History: The Theological Implications of the Philosophy of
History. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Löwith, Karl. 1995. “The Occasional Decisionism of Carl Schmitt” [1935], in Richard
Wolin, ed., Martin Heidegger and European Nihilism. New York: Columbia University
Press.
Lu, Catherine. 2006. “World Government,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Winter,
available at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/world-government/.
Lukacs, Georg. 1971. “Lukacs on His Life and Work.” New Left Review, I, 68, July–August.
Luke, David and Robert Pick, eds. 1966. Goethe: Conversations and Encounters. Chicago, IL:
Henry Regnery Co.
Luxemburg, Rosa. 2004. “Reform or Revolution,” in Peter Hudis and Kevin B. Anderson,
eds, The Rosa Luxemburg Reader. New York: Monthly Review.
Machiavelli, Niccolo. 1964. The Prince and Other Works, trans. Allan Gilbert. New York:
Hendricks House.
Machiavelli, Niccolo. 1983. The Discourses [1517], trans. Leslie Walker. Harmondsworth:
Penguin.
MacIntyre, Alasdair. 1981. After Virtue. Notre Dame, IL: University of Notre Dame Press.
MacIntryre, Alasdair and Paul Ricoeur. 1969. The Religious Significance of Atheism. New
York and London: Columbia University Press.
Maistre, Joseph de. 1838. Letters on the Spanish Inquisition [1815]. London: Keating, Dolman
and Jones.
Maley, Terry. 2011. Democracy and the Political in Max Weber’s Thought. Toronto: University
of Toronto Press.
Mandel, Ernest. 1986. “In Defense of Socialist Planning.” New Left Review, 159, September–
October.
Manent, Pierre. 1994. An Intellectual History of Liberalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Manent, Pierre. 2006. A World beyond Politics? A Defense of the Nation-State. Princeton, NJ
and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Mann, Michael. 1984. The Sources of Social Power, Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Mann, Michael. 1988. “The Autonomous Power of the State: Its Origins, Mechanisms and
Results,” in Mann, ed., States, War and Capitalism. New York: Basil Blackwell.
Mann, Michael. 1993. The Sources of Social Power, Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Mann, Michael. 1997. “Has Globalization Ended the Rise and Rise of the Nation-State?”
Review of International Political Economy, 4, 3, Autumn.
Mann, Michael. 2004. Fascists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mann, Michael. 2012. The Sources of Social Power, Vol. 4: Globalizations: 1945–2011.
Marchart, Oliver. 2006. “The Absence at the Heart of Presence: Radical Democracy and
the ‘Ontology of Lack,’” in Lars Tonder and Lasse Thomassen, eds, On Radical Democracy:
Politics between Abundance and Lack. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Marchart, Oliver. 2007. Post-Foundational Political Thought: Political Difference in Nancy,
Lefort, Badiou and Laclau. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Marder, Michael. 2012. The Political Ontology of Carl Schmitt. New York: Continuum
Books.
Bibliography 269
Martin, James, ed. 2014. Chantal Mouffe: Hegemony, Radical Democracy and the Political.
London: Routledge.
Marx, Karl. 1970. “Theses on Feuerbach,” in Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, The German
Ideology. New York: International Publishers.
Marx, Karl. 1978. “On the Jewish Question,” in Robert C. Tucker, ed., The Marx-Engels
Reader. New York: Norton.
Marx, Karl. 1975a. “Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Law,” in Karl
Marx and Friedrich Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 3. New York: International Publishers.
Marx, Karl. 1975b. “Critical Marginal Notes on the Article ‘The King of Prussia and
Social Reform, by a Prussian’” [1844], in Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Collected
Works, Vol. 3. New York: International Publishers.
Marx, Karl and Frederick Engels. 1970. The German Ideology. New York: International
Publishers.
Marx, Karl and Frederick Engels. 1975. Collected Works, Vol. 3. New York: International
Publishers.
Mayhew, David R. 2000. “Political Science and Political Philosophy: Ontological Not
Normative.” PS: Political Science and Politics, 33, 2, June.
McCarthy, Daniel. 2006. “The Authoritarian Movement.” American Conservative, June 30.
McCormick, John. 1997. Carl Schmitt’s Critique of Liberalism: Against Politics as Technology.
McCormick, John. 1998. “Review Essay: Political Theory and Political Theology: The
Second Wave of Carl Schmitt in English.” Political Theory, 26, 6, December.
McCormick, John. 2004. “Identifying or Exploiting the Paradoxes of Constitutional
Democracy? An Introduction to Carl Schmitt’s Legality and Legitimacy,” in Carl Schmitt,
Legality and Legitimacy. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
McDonough, William and Michael Braungart. 2002. Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way
We Make Things. New York: North Point Press.
McKeon, Richard, ed. 1941. The Basic Works of Aristotle. New York: Random House.
McNay, Lois. 2014. The Misguided Search for the Political: Social Weightlessness in Radical
Democratic Theory. Cambridge: Polity.
McWilliams, Wilson Carey. 1973. The Idea of Fraternity in America. Berkeley, CA: University
of California Press.
Mead, Walter Russell. 2014. “The Return of Geopolitics.” Foreign Affairs, May–June.
Meade, James. 1993. Liberty, Equality, and Efficiency. New York: New York University
Press.
Mearsheimer, John. 2000. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W.W. Norton.
Mearsheimer, John. 2005. “Hans Morgenthau and the Iraq War: Realism versus Neo-
Conservatism.” openDemocracy.net, April 21.
Mearsheimer, John and Stephen Walt. 2003. “An Unnecessary War.” Foreign Policy,
January–February.
Meier, Heinrich. 1995. Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss: The Hidden Dialogue. Chicago, IL and
London: University of Chicago Press.
Meier, Heinrich. 1998. The Lesson of Carl Schmitt: Four Chapters on the Distinction between
Political Theology and Political Philosophy. Chicago, IL and London: University of Chicago
Press.
Meier, Heinrich. 2006. Was ist Politische Theologie? What is Political Theology? Munich: Carl
Friedrich von Siemans Stiftung.
270 Bibliography
Meinecke, Friedrich. 1957. Machiavellism: The Doctrine of Raison d’Etat and Its Place in
Modern History. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Meister, Robert. 2011. After Evil: A Politics of Human Rights. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Menczer, Bela, ed. 1962. Catholic Political Thought 1789–1848. Notre Dame, IL: University
of Notre Dame Press.
Miller, David. 1995. On Nationality. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Miller, David. 2003. Political Philosophy: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Miller, James. 1987. Democracy Is in the Streets: From Port Huron to the Siege of Chicago. New
York: Simon and Schuster.
Minogue, Kenneth. 1995. Politics: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Mitrany, David. 1948. “The Functionalist Approach to World Organization.” International
Affairs, 24, 3, July.
Molnar, Thomas. 1995. Authority and Its Enemies [1976]. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction
Publishers.
Mommsen, Wolfgang J. 1984. Max Weber and German Politics 1890–1920. Chicago, IL:
Mommsen, Wolfgang J. 1989. The Political and Social Theory of Max Weber: Collected Essays.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Monroe, Kristen, ed. 2005. Perestroika! The Raucous Rebellion in Political Science. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Montesquieu, Charles de Secondat, baron de. 1989. The Spirit of the Laws, trans. Anne M.
Cohler, Basia Carolyn Miller, and Harold Samuel Stone. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Moody, Kim. 2000. “The Rank and File Strategy: Building a Socialist Movement in the
U.S.,” available at http://www.solidarity-us.org/rankandfilestrategy.
Morgenthau, Hans J. 1946. Scientific Man vs. Power Politics. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Morgenthau, Hans J. 1951. In Defense of the National Interest: A Critical Examination of
American Foreign Policy. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Morgenthau, Hans J. 1962. “The New Despotism and the New Feudalism,” in Mor-
genthau, The Restoration of American Politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Morgenthau, Hans J. 1965a. “We Are Deluding Ourselves in Vietnam.” New York Times
Magazine, April 18, available at http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/vietnam/hans%
27.htm.
Morgenthau, Hans J. 1965b. Vietnam and the United States. Washington, DC: Public Affairs
Press.
Morgenthau, Hans J. 1971a. “The Commitments of a Theory of International Relations”
[1959], in Morgenthau, Politics in the Twentieth Century, abridged edition. Chicago, IL
and London: University of Chicago Press.
Morgenthau, Hans J. 1971b. “The Commitments of Political Science,” in Morgenthau,
Politics in the Twentieth Century, abridged edition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Morgenthau, Hans J. 1971c. “Death in the Nuclear Age,” in Morgenthau, Politics in the
Twentieth Century, abridged edition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Bibliography 271
Morgenthau, Hans J. 1971d. Politics in the Twentieth Century, abridged edition. Chicago, IL:
Morgenthau, Hans J. 1971e. “The Problem of the National Interest” [1952], in Morgenthau,
Politics in the Twentieth Century, abridged edition. Chicago, IL and London: University of
Chicago Press.
Morgenthau, Hans J. 1978a. “An Intellectual Biography.” Society, 15, 2.
Morgenthau, Hans J. 1978b. Politics among Nations, 5th edition revised. New York: Alfred
A. Knopf.
Morgenthau, Hans J. 1984. “Fragments of an Intellectual Autobiography, 1904–1932,” in
Kenneth Thompson and Robert J. Myers, eds, Truth and Tragedy. New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction Publishers.
Morgenthau, Hans J. 2012. The Concept of the Political [1933]. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Morris, William. 1962. “News from Nowhere,” in Asa Briggs, ed., William Morris: Selected
Writings and Designs. Gretna, LA: Pelican.
Mouffe, Chantal, ed. 1977a. Gramsci and Marxist Theory. London: Routledge and Kegan
Paul.
Mouffe, Chantal. 1977b. “Hegemony and Ideology in Gramsci,” in Mouffe, ed., Gramsci
and Marxist Theory. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Mouffe, Chantal, ed. 1992. Dimensions of Radical Democracy. London: Verso.
Mouffe, Chantal. 1993a. “Radical Democracy: Modern or Postmodern?” in Mouffe, The
Return of the Political. London: Verso.
Mouffe, Chantal. 1993b. The Return of the Political. London: Verso.
Mouffe, Chantal. 1996a, “Deconstruction, Pragmatism and Democracy,” in Mouffe, ed.,
Deconstruction and Pragmatism. London: Routledge.
Mouffe, Chantal, ed. 1996b. Deconstruction and Pragmatism. London: Routledge.
Mouffe, Chantal, ed. 1999. The Challenge of Carl Schmitt. London: Verso.
Mouffe, Chantal. 2000a. The Democratic Paradox. London: Verso.
Mouffe, Chantal. 2000b. “Conclusion: The Ethics of Democracy,” in Mouffe, The
Democratic Paradox. London: Verso.
Mouffe, Chantal. 2005. On the Political. London: Routledge.
Mouffe, Chantal. 2013. Agonistics: Thinking the World Politically. London: Verso.
Mouffe, Chantal and Ernesto Laclau. 1998. “Hegemony and Socialism: An Interview with
Chantal Mouffe and Ernesto Laclau.” Conflicting Publics (Simon Fraser University),
available at http://anselmocarranco.tripod.com/id68.html.
Mouffe, Chantal, Ernesto Laclau, and Mary Zournazi. 2001. “Hope, Passion and the New
World Order: Mary Zournazi in Conversation with Chantal Mouffe and Ernesto
Laclau.” Contretemps, 2, May.
Moyn, Samuel Moyn. 2008. “On the Intellectual Origins of Furet’s Masterpiece.” Tocqueville
Review/La Revue Tocqueville, 29, 2.
Moyn, Samuel Moyn. 2010. The Last Utopia: Human Rights in History. Cambridge, MA:
Belknap Press.
Muller, Jan-Werner. 2003. A Dangerous Mind: Carl Schmitt in Post-War European Thought.
New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press.
Muller, Jan-Werner. 2012. “Reimagining Leviathan: Schmitt and Oakeshott on Hobbes
and Political Order,” in Johan Traulau, ed., Thomas Hobbes and Carl Schmitt: The Politics
of Order and Myth. New York: Routledge.
272 Bibliography
Murray, Alastair J.H. 1997. Reconstructing Realism: Between Power Politics and Cosmopolitan
Ethics. Edinburgh: Keele University Press.
Mussolini, Benito. 1968. “The Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism” [1932], in
Nathanael Greene, ed., Fascism: An Anthology. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell.
Nancy, Jean-Luc. 1991. The Inoperative Community, ed. Peter Connor. Minneapolis, MN:
Neocleous, Mark. 1997. Fascism. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
New Economics Foundation. 2010. “21 Hours: Why a Shorter Work Week Can Help Us
All Flourish in the 21st Century,” February, available at http://www.neweconomics.
org.
Newey, Glen. 2001. After Politics: The Rejection of Politics in Contemporary Liberal Philosophy.
New York: Palgrave.
Newey, Glen. 2010. “Two Dogmas of Liberalism.” European Journal of Political Theory, 9, 4,
October.
Niebuhr, Reinhold. 1935. An Interpretation of Christian Ethics. New York: Harper and
Rowe.
Niebuhr, Reinhold. 1944. The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness. New York:
Charles Scribners’ Sons.
Niebuhr, Reinhold. 1960. Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study in Ethics and Politics
[1932]. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Niebuhr, Reinhold. 1970. “Reinhold Niebuhr Discusses the War in Vietnam.” New
Republic, January 1, available at www.tnr.com/article/reinhold-niebuhr-discusses-the-wa
r-vietnam.
Niebuhr, Reinhold. 1986. “Augustine’s Political Realism,” in Robert McAfee Brown, ed.,
The Essential Reinhold Niebuhr: Selected Essays and Addresses. New Haven, CT and
London: Yale University Press.
Nietzsche, Friedrich. 1954. “Twilight of the Idols,” in Walter Kaufman, ed., The Portable
Nietzsche. New York: Viking (also Penguin 1999).
Nietzsche, Friedrich. 1967a. The Birth of Tragedy and the Case of Wagner. New York:
Vintage.
Nietzsche, Friedrich. 1967b. The Will to Power. New York: Vintage Books.
Nisbet, Robert. 1975. Twilight of Authority. New York: Oxford University Press.
North, Richard. 2010. “Political Realism: Introduction.” European Journal of Political
Theory, 9, 4, October.
Nove, Alec. 1983. The Economics of Feasible Socialism. London: Allen and Unwin.
Oakeshott, Michael. 1991a. “Introduction to Leviathan,” in Oakeshott, Rationalism in
Politics and Other Essays, expanded edition. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Press.
Oakeshott, Michael. 1991b. Rationalism in Politics, expanded edition. Indianapolis, IN:
Liberty Press.
Odysseos, Louisa and Fabio Petito, eds. 2007. The International Political Thought of Carl
Schmitt: Terror, Liberal War and the Crisis of Global Order. New York: Routledge.
O’Neill, Martin and Thad Williamson, eds. 2010. Property-Owning Democracy. Oxford:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Owen, David and Tracy B. Strong. 2004. “Introduction,” in Max Weber, The Vocation
Lectures. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing.
Paget, Karen. 1990. “Citizen Organizing: Many Movements, No Majority.” American
Prospect, 2, Summer.
Bibliography 273
Paine, Thomas. 2004a. “Agrarian Justice” [1797], in Paine, Common Sense and Agrarian
Justice. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Paine, Thomas. 2004b. “Common Sense,” in Paine, Common Sense and Agrarian Justice.
Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Palonen, Kari. 2007. “Politics or the Political? An Historical Perspective on a Contemporary
Non-Debate.” European Political Science, 6.
Parel, Anthony J. and Ronald C. Keith, eds. 1992. Comparative Political Philosophy: Studies
under the Upas Tree. London: Sage (2nd edition: Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2003).
Passerin d’Entreves, Maurizio. 1992. “Hannah Arendt and the Idea of Citizenship,” in
Chantal Mouffe, ed., Dimensions of Radical Democracy. London: Verso.
Passerin d’Entreves, Maurizio. 1994. The Political Philosophy of Hannah Arendt. London:
Routledge.
Pateman, Carole. 1987. “Feminist Critiques of the Public/Private Dichotomy,” in Anne
Phillips, ed., Feminism and Equality. New York: New York University Press.
Patton, Paul. 2000. Deleuze and the Political. London: Routledge.
Payne, Stanley G. 1980. Fascism: Comparison and Definition. Madison, WI: University of
Wisconsin Press.
Pettit, Philip. 1997. Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Philp, Mark. 2010. “What Is to Be Done? Political Theory and Political Realism.”
Piccone, Paul and G.L. Ulmen. 1987. “Introduction to Carl Schmitt.” Telos, 72, Summer.
Piccone, Paul and G.L. Ulmen. 2004. “The Use and Abuse of Schmitt.” Telos, Winter.
Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel. 1994. “Justice: On Relating Private and Public,” in Lewis P.
Hinchman and Sandra K. Hinchman, eds, Hannah Arendt: Critical Essays. Albany, NY:
New York State University Press.
Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel. 1998. The Attack of the Blob: Hannah Arendt’s Concept of the Social.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Plant, Raymond. 2001. Politics, Theology and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Plato. 1973. Phaedrus and the Seventh and Eighth Letters. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Plato. 1985. Republic, trans. Richard W. Sterling and William C. Scott. New York: W.W.
Norton and Co.
Plot, Martin, ed. 2013. Claude Lefort: Thinker of the Political. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Pocock, J.G.A. 1975. The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic
Republican Tradition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Pocock, J. 1981. “The Machiavellian Moment Revisited.” Journal of Modern Politics, 53,
March.
Pocock, J. 1995. “The Ideal of Citizenship since Classical Times,” in Ronald Beiner, ed.,
Theorizing Citizenship. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Pocock, J. 1998. “The Ideal of Citizenship since Classical Times,” in Gershon Schaefer,
ed., The Citizenship Debates: A Reader. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Polanyi, Karl. 2007. The Great Transformation [1944]. Boston, MA: Beacon Books.
Polk, William. 2007. Violent Politics: A History of Insurgency and Terrorism. New York:
Harper Collins.
Polybius. 1979. The Rise of the Roman Empire. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
274 Bibliography
Portis, Edward Bryan. 1986. Max Weber and Political Commitment: Science, Politics and
Personality. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Pranchere, Jean-Yves. 2001. “Joseph de Maistre’s Catholic Philosophy of Authority,” in
Richard A. Lebrun, ed., Joseph de Maistre’s Life, Thought and Influence: Selected Studies.
Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press.
Preuss, Ulrich. 1999. “Political Order and Democracy: Carl Schmitt and His Influence,” in
Chantal Mouffe, ed., The Challenge of Carl Schmitt. London: Verso.
Putnam, Robert. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community.
New York: Simon and Schuster.
Ranciere, Jacques. 2000. Disagreement. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Rapley, John. 2006. “The New Middle Ages.” Foreign Affairs, May–June.
Rasch, William. 2009. “The Structure of the Political vs. the Politics of Hope,” in Carsten
Strathusen, ed., A Leftist Ontology: Beyond Relativism and Identity Politics. Minneapolis,
MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Rawls, John. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rawls, John. 1985. “Justice as Fairness: Political Not Metaphysical.” Philosophy and Public
Affairs, 14, 3, Summer.
Rawls, John. 1989. “The Domain of the Political and Overlapping Consensus.” New York
University Law Review, 64, 2, May.
Rawls, John. 1993. Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.
Rawls, John. 1999a. A Theory of Justice, 2nd edition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Rawls, John. 1999b. The Law of Peoples. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rawls, John. 2001. Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Reagan, Charles. 1996. Paul Ricoeur: His Life and Work. Chicago, IL and London: University
of Chicago Press.
Reinhardt, Mark. 1997. The Art of Being Free: Taking Liberties with Tocqueville, Marx and
Arendt. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Reverby, Susan M. and Dorothy O. Helly. 1992. “Converging on History,” in Dorothy
O. Helly and Susan M. Reverby, eds, Gendered Domains: Rethinking Public and Private in
Women’s History. Ithaca, NY and London: Cornell University Press.
Ricoeur, Paul. 1958. “Power and State.” Dissent, 5, 1, Winter.
Ricoeur, Paul. 1964a. “Christianity and the Meaning of History,” in Ricoeur, History and
Truth. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Ricoeur, Paul. 1964b. History and Truth. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Ricoeur, Paul. 1964c. “The Political Paradox,” in Ricoeur, History and Truth. Evanston,
IL: Northwestern University Press.
Ricoeur, Paul. 1964d. “State and Violence,” in Ricoeur, History and Truth. Evanston, IL:
Ricoeur, Paul. 1965. Fallible Man [1960]. Chicago,IL: Regnery.
Ricoeur, Paul. 1966. Freedom and Nature: The Voluntary and the Involuntary [1950].
Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Ricoeur, Paul. 1967. The Symbolism of Evil [1960]. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Ricoeur, Paul. 1970. Freud and Philosophy: An Essay on Interpretation [1965]. New Haven,
CT and London: Yale University Press.
Ricoeur, Paul. 1974a. “Adventures of the State and the Task of Christians,” in Ricoeur,
Political and Social Essays. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press.
Bibliography 275
Ricoeur, Paul. 1974b. The Conflict of Interpretations [1969]. Evanston, IL: Northwestern
University Press.
Ricoeur, Paul. 1974c. “Existence and Hermeneutics” [1965], in Ricoeur, The Conflict of
Interpretations [1969]. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Ricoeur, Paul. 1974d. “Nature and Freedom,” in Ricoeur, Political and Social Essays, ed.
David Stewart and Joseph Bien. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press.
Ricoeur, Paul. 1974e. Political and Social Essays, ed. David Stewart and Joseph Bien.
Athens, OH: Ohio University Press.
Ricoeur, Paul. 1974f. “Religion, Atheism and Faith” [1966], in Ricoeur, The Conflict of
Interpretations. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Ricoeur, Paul. 1974g. “The Tasks of the Political Educator,” in Ricoeur, Political and Social
Essays, ed. David Stewart and Joseph Bien. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press.
Ricoeur, Paul. 1974h. “Ye Are the Salt of the Earth,” in Ricoeur, Political and Social Essays,
ed. David Stewart and Joseph Bien. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press.
Ricoeur, Paul. 1977. The Rule of Metaphor: Multidisciplinary Studies of the Creation of Meaning
in Language [1975]. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Ricoeur, Paul. 1978. “The Problem of the Foundation of Moral Philosophy.” Philosophy
Today, 22, 3–4, Fall.
Ricoeur, Paul. 1984, 1985, 1988. Time and Narrative, 3 vols. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Ricoeur, Paul. 1986. Lectures on Ideology and Utopia, ed. George H. Taylor. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Ricoeur, Paul. 1987. “The Fragility of Political Language.” Philosophy Today, 31, 1, Spring.
Ricoeur, Paul. 1991a. “Ethics and Politics,” in Ricoeur, From Text to Action: Essays in
Hermeneutics II. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Ricoeur, Paul. 1991b. From Text to Action: Essays in Hermeneutics II. Evanston, IL:
Ricoeur, Paul. 1992. Oneself as Another [1990]. Chicago, IL and London: University of
Chicago Press.
Ricoeur, Paul. 1994. “Note about Certain ‘Words of Prisoners,’” October 17, available at
http://www.fondsricoeur.fr/photo/Prisonner%20of%20war%20camp%281%29.pdf.
Ricoeur, Paul. 1995. “Evil, a Challenge to Philosophy and Theology,” in Ricoeur, Figur-
ing the Sacred: Religion, Narrative, and Imagination. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.
Ricoeur, Paul. 1998. Critique and Conviction: Conversations with Francois Azouvi and Marc de
Launay. New York: Columbia University Press.
Ricoeur, Paul. 2000. The Just. Chicago, IL and London: University of Chicago Press.
Ricoeur, Paul. 2004. Memory, History, Forgetting. Chicago, IL and London: University of
Chicago Press.
Ricoeur, Paul. 2005. The Course of Recognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ricoeur, Paul. 2007. Reflections on the Just. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Rieff, David. 2002. “Humanitarianism in Crisis.” Foreign Affairs, November–December.
Ringer, Fritz. 2004. Max Weber: An Intellectual Biography. Chicago, IL and London: University
of Chicago Press.
Rosaldo, Michelle Zimbalist. 1974. “Woman, Culture, and Society: A Theoretical Over-
view,” in Michelle Zimbalist Rosaldo and Louise Lamphere, eds, Woman, Culture, and
Society. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
276 Bibliography
Rosanvallon, Pierre. 2001. “Towards a Philosophical History of the Political,” in Dario

Castiglione and Iain Hampsher-Monk, eds, The History of Political Thought in National
Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rosanvallon, Pierre. 2010. “Trial by Politics,” October 16, available at http://www.
booksandideas.net/Trial-by-Politics.html.
Rosenthal, Joel. 1991. Righteous Realists: Political Realism, Responsible Power, and American
Culture in a Nuclear Age. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press.
Rossi, Enzo. 2010. “Review: Reality and Imagination in Political Theory and Practice:
Raymond Geuss’s Realism.” European Journal of Political Theory, 9, 4, October.
Rossi, Enzo and Matt Sleat. 2014. “Realism and Normative Political Theory,” Philosophy
Compass.
Rossiter, Clinton. 1948. Constitutional Dictatorship: Crisis Government in the Modern
Democracies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Roth, Guenther. 1978. “Introduction” to Max Weber, Economy and Society: An Outline of
Interpretive Sociology. Berkeley, CA: University of California.
Roth, Guenther. 2008. “Reminiscences of the Weber Centenary 1964, Its Prehistory and
Aftermath: Lessons in Academic Politics,” in David Chalcraft, Fanon Howell, Marisol
Lopez Menendez, and Hector Vera, eds, Max Weber Matters: Interweaving Past and
Present. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. N.d. Confessions. New York: Modern Library.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. 1964. The First and Second Discourses. New York: St. Martin’s
Press.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. 1968. Politics and the Arts: Letter to D’Alembert on the Theatre. Ithaca,
NY: Cornell University Press.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. 1978. On the Social Contract, trans. Judith Masters. New York:
St. Martin’s Press.
Sagan, Scott D. and Kenneth N. Waltz. 2002. The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate
Renewed. New York: W.W. Norton.
Sahlins, Marshall. 1976. Culture and Practical Reason. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Sandel, Michael. 1982. Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Sandel, Michael. 1996. Democracy’s Discontent: America in Search of a Public Philosophy.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sangiovanni, Andrea. 2008. “Justice and the Priority of Politics to Morality.” Journal of
Political Philosophy, 16, 2.
Sartori, Giovanni. 1973. “What Is ‘Politics’?” Political Theory, 1, 1, February.
Scaff, Lawrence. 1989. Fleeing the Iron Cage: Culture, Politics, and Modernity in the Thought of
Max Weber. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Schaar, John. 1961. Escape from Authority: The Perspectives of Erich Fromm. New York:
Harper and Row.
Schaar, John. 1981. “Authority in the Modern State,” in Schaar, Legitimacy in the Modern
State. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
Schaar, John H. and Sheldon S. Wolin. 1963. “Review Essay: Essays in the Scientific
Study of Politics: A Critique.” American Political Science Review, March.
Schaefer, Gershon, ed. 1998. The Citizenship Debates: A Reader. Minneapolis, MN:
Bibliography 277
Scheppele, Kim Lane. 2008. “Legal and Extralegal Emergencies,” in Keith E. Whittington,
R. Daniel Kelemen, and Gregory Caldeira, eds, Oxford Handbook of Law and Politics.
Scheuerman, William E. 1999. Carl Schmitt: The End of Law. Lanhan, MD: Rowman and
Littlefield.
Scheuerman, William E. 2006. “Emergency Powers.” Annual Review of Law and Social
Science, 2.
Scheuerman, William E. 2007. “Carl Schmitt and Hans Morgenthau: Realism and
Beyond,” in Michael Williams, ed., Reconsidering Realism: The Legacy of Hans J. Morgenthau.
Scheuerman, William E. 2009. Hans Morgenthau: Realism and Beyond. Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Scheuerman, William E. 2011. The Realist Case for Global Reform. Cambridge: Polity.
Scheuerman, William E. 2013. “The Realist Revival in Political Philosophy, or Why New
Is Not Always Improved.” International Politics, 50, 6.
Schluchter, Wolfgang. 1996. Paradoxes of Modernity: Culture and Conduct in the Theory of
Max Weber. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Schmitt, Carl. 1947. “Politics: The Struggle with the Enemy,” in William Ebenstein, ed.,
Man and the State: Modern Political Ideologies. New York: Rinehart and Company.
Schmitt, Carl. 1950. Ex Captivitate Salus: Erfahrungen der Zeit 1945–47. Cologne: Greven.
Schmitt, Carl. 1951. La Unidad del Mundo. Madrid: Ateneo (also published as “Die Einheit
der Welt,” Merkur, 6, 1, January, 1952).
Schmitt, Carl. 1976. The Concept of the Political. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University.
Schmitt, Carl. 1985. Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty [1922,
1933]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Schmitt, Carl. 1986. Political Romanticism [1919, 1925]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Schmitt, Carl. 1987a. “The Legal World Revolution” [1978]. Telos, 72, Summer.
Schmitt, Carl. 1987b. “The Source of the Tragic.” Telos, 72, Summer.
Schmitt, Carl. 1988. The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy [1923, 1926]. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Schmitt, Carl. 1993a. “Appropriation/Distribution/Production: Toward a Proper For-
mulation of Basic Questions of Any Social and Economic Order” [1953]. Telos, 95,
Spring.
Schmitt, Carl. 1993b. “The Age of Neutralizations and Depoliticizations” [1929]. Telos,
96, Summer.
Schmitt, Carl. 1996a. The Concept of the Political. London and Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Schmitt, Carl. 1996b. The Leviathan in the State Theory of Thomas Hobbes: Meaning and
Failure of a Political Symbol [1938]. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Schmitt, Carl. 1996c. Roman Catholicism and Political Form [1923]. Westport, CT:
Greenwood Press.
Schmitt, Carl. 1996d. The Tyranny of Values. Corvallis, OR: Plutarch Press.
Schmitt, Carl. 1997a. Land and Sea [1942, 1954], trans. Simona Draghici. Washington,
DC: Plutarch Press.
Schmitt, Carl. 1997b. “When Parliament Cannot Be Sovereign,” in Jerry Z. Muller, ed.,
Conservatism: An Anthology of Social and Political Thought. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
278 Bibliography
Schmitt, Carl. 1998. “Strong State and Sound Economy,” appendix to Renato Cristi, Carl
Schmitt and Authoritarian Liberalism. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.
Schmitt, Carl. 1999a. “Ethic of State and Pluralistic State,” in Chantal Mouffe, ed., The
Challenge of Carl Schmitt. London: Verso.
Schmitt, Carl. 1999b. “Further Development of the Total State in Germany” [1933], in
Schmitt, Four Articles: 1931–1938, trans. Simona Draghici. Washington, DC: Plutarch
Press.
Schmitt, Carl. 1999c. “Neutrality According to International Law and National Totality”
[1938], in Schmitt, Four Articles 1931–1938, trans. Simona Draghici. Washington, DC:
Plutarch Press.
Schmitt, Carl. 1999d. “Total Enemy, Total War, and Total State” [1937], in Schmitt, Four
Articles 1931–1938, trans. Simona Draghici. Washington, DC: Plutarch Press.
Schmitt, Carl. 1999e. “The Way to the Total State” [1931], in Schmitt, Four Articles
1931–1938, trans. Simona Draghici. Washington, DC: Plutarch Press.
Schmitt, Carl. 2000. “Ethic of State and the Pluralist State,” in Arthur J. Jacobson and
Bernhard Schlink, eds, Weimar: A Jurisprudence of Crisis. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.
Schmitt, Carl. 2001. State, Movement, People [1933]. Corvallis, OR: Plutarch Press.
Schmitt, Carl. 2002a. “Donoso Cortes in Berlin” [1927]. Telos, 125, Fall.
Schmitt, Carl. 2002b. “The Unknown Donoso Cortes” [1929]. Telos, 125, Fall.
Schmitt, Carl. 2002c. “A Pan-European Interpretation of Donoso Cortes” [1950]. Telos,
125, Fall.
Schmitt, Carl. 2003a. The Nomos of the Earth in the International Law of the Jus Publicum
Europaeum. New York: Telos Press.
Schmitt, Carl. 2003b. “Carl Schmitt, ‘Nomos-Nahme-Name’” [1957], appendix to
Schmitt, The Nomos of the Earth in the International Law of the Jus Publicum Europaeum.
New York: Telos Press.
Schmitt, Carl. 2004a. Legality and Legitimacy. Durham, NC and London: Duke University
Press.
Schmitt, Carl. 2004b. On the Three Types of Juristic Thought [1934]. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Schmitt, Carl. 2004c. “Theory of the Partisan.” CR: The New Centennial Review, 4, 3,
Winter.
Schmitt, Carl. 2004d. “Theory of the Partisan: Intermediate Commentary on the Concept
of the Political” [1963], translated by G.L. Ulmen. Telos, 127, Spring.
Schmitt, Carl. 2007a. The Concept of the Political, expanded edition. London and Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Press.
Schmitt, Carl. 2007b. Theory of the Partisan: Intermediate Commentary on the Concept of the
Political. New York: Telos Press.
Schmitt, Carl. 2008a. Constitutional Theory [1929]. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Schmitt, Carl. 2008b. Political Theology II: The Myth of the Closure of Any Political Theology
[1970]. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Schmitt, Carl. 2009. “Three Possibilities for a Christian Conception of History” [1950].
Telos, 147, Summer.
Schmitt, Carl. 2011. Writings on War. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Schmitt, Carl. 2014. Dictatorship [1921]. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Schumpeter, Joseph A. 2003. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy [1942]. London and New
York: Routledge.
Bibliography 279
Schurmann, Reiner. 1990. Heidegger: On Being and Acting: From Principles to Anarchy.
Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Schwab, George. 1970. The Challenge of the Exception: An Introduction to the Political Ideas of
Carl Schmitt between 1921 and 1936. Berlin: Duncker and Humblot.
Schwab, George. 1987. “Enemy or Foe: A Conflict of Modern Politics.” Telos, 72,
Summer.
Schwab, George. 2000. “Carl Schmitt, a Note on a Qualitative Authoritarian Bourgeois
Liberal.” Staat-Souveranitat-Verfassung. Berlin.
Schwartz, Joseph M. 1995. The Permanence of the Political: A Democratic Critique of the Radical
Impulse to Transcend Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Schweikart, David. 1993. Against Capitalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schweikart, David. 2002. After Capitalism. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Schwentler, Wolfgang. 1987. “Passion as a Mode of Life: Max Weber, the Otto Gross
Circle and Eroticism,” in Wolfgang J. Mommsen and Jurgen Osterhannel, eds, Max
Weber and His Contemporaries. London: Unwin Hyman.
Scott, Joanna Vechchiarelli and Judith Chalins Stark. 1996. “Introduction,” in Hannah
Arendt, Love and Saint Augustine. Chicago, IL and London: University of Chicago Press.
Scruton, Roger. 1980. The Meaning of Conservatism. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Scruton, Roger and Amitai Etzioni. 1997. “Community, Yes. But Whose?” City Journal,
Spring.
Sen, Renku. 2003. Stir It Up: Lessons in Community Organizing and Advocacy. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Sennett, Richard. 1977. The Fall of Public Man: On the Social Psychology of Capitalism. New
York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Sennett, Richard. 1990. The Conscience of the Eye: The Design and Social Life of Cities. New
York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Sennett, Richard. 2003. “Reflections on the Public Realm,” in Gary Bridge and Sophie
Watson, eds, A Companion to the City. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Shklar, Judith. 1957. After Utopia: The Decline of Political Faith. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Shulman, George. 1983. “The Pastoral Idyll of Democracy.” democracy, 3, Fall.
Sim, Stuart. 2000. Post-Marxism: An Intellectual History. London and New York:
Routledge.
Simmons, William Paul. 1999. “The Third: Levinas’ Theoretical Move from An-archical
Ethics to the Realm of Justice and Politics.” Philosophy and Social Criticism, 25, 6.
Simms, Karl. 2003. Paul Ricoeur. London and New York: Routledge.
Simon, Herbert A. 1947. Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in
Administrative Organization. New York: Macmillan.
Simons, Jon. 1995. Foucault and the Political. London: Routledge.
Singer, Max and Aaron Wildavsky. 1993. The Real New World Order: Zones of Peace/Zones
of Turmoil. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
Sirianni, Carmen. 2009. Investing in Democracy: Engaging Citizens in Collaborative Governance.
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Sirianni, Carmen and Lewis Friedland. 2001. Civic Innovation in America. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Sirianni, Carmen and Lewis Friedland. 2005. The Civic Renewal Movement: Community
Building and Democracy in the United States. Washington, DC: Charles F. Kettering
Foundation.
280 Bibliography
Skinner, Quentin. 1997. Liberty before Liberalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Slaughter, Ann-Marie. 1997. “The Real New World Order.” Foreign Affairs, September–
October.
Sleat, Mark. 2010. “Bernard Williams and the Possibility of a Realist Political Theory.”
Sluga, Hans. 1996. “Review of Ward, Heidegger’s Political Thinking.” American Political
Science Review, 90, 1, March.
Smith, Anna Marie. 1998. Laclau and Mouffe: The Radical Democratic Imaginary. London and
Smith, Anthony D. 1996. “The Origins of Nations,” in Geoff Eley and Ronald Gregor
Suny, eds, Becoming National: A Reader. New York: Oxford University Press (originally
published in Ethnic and Racial Studies, 12, 3).
Sommerville, J. P. 1991. “Absolutism and Royalism,” in J.H. Burns, ed. Cambridge History
of Political Thought, 1450–1700. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Spencer, Alexander. 2006. “Questioning the Concept of New Terrorism.” Peace, Conflict,
Development, 8, January.
Spruyt, Hendrik. 1996. The Sovereign State and Its Competitors. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Stavrakakis, Yannis. 2005. Lacan and the Political. London: Routledge.
Steinberger, Peter J. 2004. The Idea of the State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberger, Dolf. 1982. “‘Politics’ in Language: Twelve Notes on the History of Words
and Meanings,” in Maurice Cranston and Peter Mair, eds, Langage et Politique/Language
and Politics. Brussels: Bruylant.
Sternhell, Zeev. 1986. Neither Right nor Left: Fascist Ideology in France. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Stiglitz, Joseph E. 1987. “Principal and Agent,” in The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics,
Vol. 3. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Storing, Herbert, ed. 1962. Essays in the Scientific Study of Politics. New York: Holt,
Reinhardt, Winston.
Stout, Linda. 1996. Bridging the Class Divide and Other Lessons for Grassroots Organizing.
Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Strathausen, Carsten. 2006. “A Critique of Neo-Left Ontology.” Postmodern Culture, 16, 3,
May.
Strathausen, Carsten, ed. 2009. A Leftist Ontology: Beyond Relativism and Identity Politics.
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Strauss, Leo. 1949. “Political Philosophy and History.” Journal of the History of Ideas, January
(reprinted in Strauss, What is Political Philosophy and Other Studies. Chicago, IL: Uni-
versity of Chicago Press).
Strauss, Leo. 1953. Natural Right and History. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Strauss, Leo. 1957. “What Is Political Philosophy?” Journal of Politics, 19.
Strauss, Leo. 1961. “Relativism,” in Helmut Schoeck, ed., Relativism and the Study of Man.
New York: Van Nostrand.
Strauss, Leo. 1964. “On Aristotle’s Politics,” in Strauss, The City and Man. Chicago, IL:
Strauss, Leo. 1975a. “An Epilogue,” in Hilail Gildin, ed., Political Philosophy: Six Essays by
Leo Strauss. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.
Strauss, Leo. 1975b. “On Classical Political Philosophy,” in Strauss, Political Philosophy: Six
Essays by Leo Strauss. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.
Bibliography 281
Strauss, Leo. 1975c. Political Philosophy: Six Essays by Leo Strauss, ed. Hilail Gildin.
Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.
Strauss, Leo. 1976. “Comments on Schmitt’s Der Begriff des Politischen,” in Carl Schmitt,
ed., The Concept of the Political. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Strawson, P.F. 1992. Metaphysics and Analysis: An Introduction to Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Strong, Tracy B. 2012. Politics without Vision: Thinking without a Bannister in the Twentieth
Century. Chicago, IL and London: University of Chicago Press.
Sullivan, William M. 1986. Reconstructing Public Philosophy. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.
Svolik, Milan W. 2012. The Politics of Authoritarian Rule. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Taguieff, Pierre-Andre. 2002. “Julien Freund, Political Thinker.” Telos, 125, Fall.
Tamir, Yael. 2000. “Who’s Afraid of a Global State?” in Kjell Goldmann, Ulf Hannerz,
and Charles Westin, eds, Nationalism and Internationalism in the Post-Cold War Era.
Tarcov, Nathan and Thomas L. Pangle. 1987. “Epilogue: Leo Strauss and the History of
Political Philosophy,” in Leo Strauss and Joseph Cropsey, eds, History of Political
Philosophy, 3rd edition. Chicago, IL and London: University of Chicago Press.
Taylor, Charles. 1985. Philosophical Papers, 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, Charles. 1989. “Cross-Purposes: The Liberal‑Communitarian Debate,” in Nancy
L. Rosenblum, ed., Liberalism and the Moral Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Taylor, Charles. 1992. “The Politics of Recognition,” in Amy Gutman, ed., Multi-
culturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Taylor, Craig. 2012. Moralism: A Study of a Vice. Montreal: Magill-Queens University
Press.
Tenbruck, Friedrich H. 1980. “The Problem of Thematic Unity in the Works of Max
Weber,” British Journal of Sociology, 31, 3, September.
Thoma, Richard. 1988. “On the Ideology of Parliamentarianism” [1925], appendix to Carl
Schmitt, The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Thomson, Janice E. 1996. Mercenaries, Pirates and Sovereigns: State Building and Extraterritorial
Violence in Early Modern Europe. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Thornhill, Chris. 2000. Political Theory in Modern Germany: An Introduction. Cambridge:
Polity Press.
Thucydides. 1972. History of the Peloponnesian War, trans. Rex Warner. Harmondsworth:
Penguin.
Tinder, Glenn. 1964. The Crisis of Political Imagination. New York: Scribners.
Tocqueville, Alexis de. 1969. Democracy in America, trans. George Lawrence. New York:
Anchor.
Tonder, Lars and Lasse Thomassen, eds. 2006. On Radical Democracy: Politics between
Abundance and Lack. Manchester: Manchester University.
Touraine, Alaine. 1997. The Meaning of Democracy. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Trachtenburg, Marc. 2012. The Cold War and After: History, Theory and the Logic of
International Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Trend, David, ed. 1996. Radical Democracy: Identity, Citizenship, and the State. New York
and London: Routledge.
282 Bibliography
Trilling, Lionel. 1950. The Liberal Imagination: Essays on Literature and Society. Garden City,
NY: Doubleday Anchor Books.
Tucker, Robert W. and David C. Hendrickson. 1992. The Imperial Temptation: The New
World Order and America’s Purpose. New York: Council on Foreign Relations.
Turner, Bryan S. 1992. Max Weber: From History to Modernity. London and New York:
Routledge.
Turner, Charles. 1992. Modernity and Politics in the Work of Max Weber. London and New
York: Routledge.
Tushnet, Mark. 2006. “Emergencies and the Idea of Constitutionalism,” in Thomas E.
Baker and John F. Stack, Jr., eds, At War with Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. Lanham,
MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Ulmen, G.L. 1987. “Return of the Foe.” Telos, 72, Summer.
Ulmen, G. 1992. “Anthropological Theology/Theological Anthropology.” Telos, 93, Fall.
Ulmen, G. 1996. “Introduction” to Carl Schmitt, Roman Catholicism and Political Form.
Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Ulmen, G. 2001. “The Military Significance of September 11.” Telos, Fall.
Utter, Glenn H. and Charles Lockhart, eds. 1993. American Political Scientists: A Dictionary.
Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Valentine, Jeremy. 2006. “The Political.” Theory, Culture and Society, 23, 2–3, May.
Valentine, Jeremy. 2013. “Lefort and the Fate of Radical Democracy,” in Martin Plot, ed.,
Claude Lefort: Thinker of the Political. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
van Creveld, Martin. 1991. The Transformation of War. New York: Free Press.
van der Krogt, Christopher. 1992. “Catholic Fundamentalism or Catholic Integralism,” in
James Veitch, ed., To Strive and Not to Yield: Essays in Honor of Colin Brown. Wellington,
New Zealand: Victoria University.
Viereck, Peter. 2005. “Conservatives: Attitudes, Types and Present Status” [1974], appen-
dix to Viereck, Conservatism Revisited: The Revolt against Ideology. New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction Publishers.
Villa, Dana R. 1992. “Beyond Good and Evil: Arendt, Nietzsche, and the Aestheticization
of Political Action.” Political Theory, 20, 2.
Villa, Dana R. 1996. Arendt and Heidegger: The Fate of the Political. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Voegelin, Eric. 1952. The New Science of Politics: An Introduction. Chicago, IL and London:
Vollrath, Ernst. 1987. “The ‘Rational’ and the ‘Political’: An Essay in the Semantics of
Politics.” Philosophy and Social Criticism, 13, 1, Fall.
Vollrath, Ernst. 1996. “Perspectives of Political Thought in Germany after 1945,” in
Reiner Pommerin, ed., Culture in the Federal Republic of Germany, 1945–1995. Oxford:
Berg.
Waldron, Jeremy. 2013. “Political Political Theory: An Inaugural Lecture.” Journal of
Political Philosophy, 21, 1.
Walker, R.B.J. 1995. “From International Relations to World Politics,” in Joseph A.
Camilleri, Anthony P. Jarvis, and Albert J. Paolini, eds, The State in Transition: Reima-
gining Political Space. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Walt, Stephen. 1985. “Alliance Formation and the Balance of World Power.” International
Security, 9, 4, Spring.
Walt, Stephen. 2006. Taming American Power: The Global Response to U.S. Primacy. New
York: W.W. Norton.
Bibliography 283
Waltz, Kenneth N. 1954. Man, the State and War: A Theoretical Analysis. New York and
London: Columbia University Press.
Waltz, Kenneth N. 1964. “The Stability of a Bipolar World.” Daedalus, 93, 3, Summer.
Waltz, Kenneth N. 1979. Theory of International Politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Walzer, Michael. 1973. “Political Action: The Problem of Dirty Hands.” Philosophy and
Public Affairs, 2, 2, Winter.
Walzer, Michael. 1980. “A Day in the Life of a Socialist Citizen,” in Walzer, Radical
Principles. New York: Basic Books.
Walzer, Michael. 1981. “Philosophy and Democracy.” Political Theory, 9, 3, August.
Walzer, Michael. 1983. Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality. New York:
Basic Books.
Walzer, Michael. 2004. “Can There Be a Moral Foreign Policy?” in J. Bryan Hehir,
Michael Walzer, Louise Richardson, Shibley Telhami, Charles Krauthammer, and James
Lindsay, eds, Liberty and Power: A Dialogue on Religion and U.S. Foreign Policy in an Unjust
World. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Walzer, Michael. 2007. Thinking Politically. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Ward, James F. 1995. Heidegger’s Political Thinking. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts
Press.
Warner, Michael. 2002. Publics and Counterpublics. New York: Zone Books.
Warren, Mark. 1988. “Weber’s Liberalism for a Nietzschean World.” American Political
Science Review, 82, 1, March.
Watkins, Frederick M. 1964. The Age of Ideology: Political Thought, 1750 to the Present.
Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Weber, Max. 1946a. “National Character and the Junkers,” in H. Gerwith and C. Wright
Mills, eds, From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Weber, Max. 1946b. “Politics as a Vocation,” in H. Gerwith and C. Wright Mills, eds,
From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Weber, Max. 1946c. “Religious Rejections of the World and Their Directions,” in H.
Gerwith and C. Wright Mills, eds, From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. New York:
Weber, Max. 1946d. “Science as a Vocation,” in H. Gerwith and C. Wright Mills, eds,
From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Weber, Max 1946e. “The Social Psychology of the World Religions,” in H. Gerwith and
C. Wright Mills, eds, From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Weber, Max. 1949a. “The Meaning of Ethical Neutrality,” in The Methodology of the Social
Sciences, trans. and ed. Edward Shils and Henry Finch. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Weber, Max. 1949b. The Methodology of the Social Sciences, trans. and ed. Edward Shils and
Henry Finch. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Weber, Max. 1978a. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, ed. Guenther
Roth and Claus Wittich. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Weber, Max. 1978b. “Parliament and Government in a Reconstructed Germany,” in
Weber, Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, ed. Guenther Roth and
Claus Wittich. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Weber, Max. 1992. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. London and New York:
Routledge.
Weber, Max. 1994a. “Between Two Laws” [1916], in Peter Lassman and Ronald Spiers,
eds, Weber: Political Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
284 Bibliography
Weber, Max. 1994b. “The Nation State and Economic Policy (Inaugural lecture)” [1895],
in Peter Lassman and Ronald Spiers, eds, Weber: Political Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Weber, Max. 1994c. “On the Constitutional Situation in Russia,” in Peter Lassman and
Ronald Spiers, eds, Weber: Political Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Weber, Max. 1994d. “Parliament and Government,” in Peter Lassman and Ronald Spiers,
eds, Weber: Political Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Weber, Max. 1994e. “Socialism,” in Peter Lassman and Ronald Spiers, eds, Weber: Political
Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Weber, Max. 1994f. “Universal Suffrage and Democracy in Germany,” in Peter Lassman
and Ronald Spiers, eds, Weber: Political Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Weber, Max. 2003. General Economic History, trans. Frank H. Knight. New York: Dover.
Weber, Max. 2004a. “Politics as a Vocation,” in Weber, The Vocation Lectures, trans.
Rodney Livingstone. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing.
Weber, Max. 2004b. “Science as a Vocation,” in Weber, The Vocation Lectures, trans.
Rodney Livingstone. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing.
Weber, Max. 2012a. “Intervention in Discussion of ‘The Productivity of the National
Economy’” [1909], in Hans Henrik Brunn and Sam Whimster, eds, Max Weber: Collected
Methodological Writings. London and New York: Routledge.
Weber, Max. 2012b. “The Meaning of Value Freedom in the Sociological and Economic
Sciences,” in Hans Henrik Brunn and Sam Whimster, eds, Max Weber: Collected
Methodological Writings. London and New York: Routledge.
Weber, Max. 2012c. “The ‘Objectivity’ of Knowledge in Social Science and Social
Policy,” in Hans Henrik Brunn and Sam Whimster, eds, Max Weber: Collected Methodological
Writings. London and New York: Routledge.
Weber, Max. 2012d. “Roscher and Knies and the Logical Problems of Historical Econom-
ics,” in Hans Henrik Brunn and Sam Whimster, eds, Max Weber: Collected Methodological
Writings. London and New York: Routledge.
Weil, Eric. 1998. Hegel and the State [1950]. Baltimore, MD and London: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Weintraub, Jeff and Krishan Kumar, eds. 1997. Public and Private in Thought and Practice:
Perspectives on a Grand Dichotomy. Chicago, IL and London: University of Chicago Press.
Weiss, Konrad. 1933. Der christliche Epimetheus. Berlin: Verlag Edwin Runge.
Wendt, Alexander. 2003. “Why a World State is Inevitable.” European Journal of International
Relations, 9, 4.
Whelan, Frederick. 2004. Hume and Machiavelli: Realism and Liberal Political Thought.
Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Whimster, Sam. 2007. Understanding Weber. London and New York: Routledge.
White, Stephen K. 2000. Sustaining Affirmation: The Strengths of Weak Ontology in Political
Theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Whyte, William Foot and Kathleen Whyte. 1988. Making Mondragon: The Growth and
Dynamics of the Worker Cooperative Complex. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.
Wight, Martin. 1966a.“The Balance of Power,” in Herbert Butterfield and Martin Wight,
eds, Diplomatic Investigations. London: Allen and Unwin.
Wight, Martin. 1966b. “Western Values in International Relations,” in Herbert Butterfield
and Martin Wight, eds, Diplomatic Investigations: Essays in the Theory of International
Relations. London: Allen and Unwin.
Bibliography 285
Wight, Martin. 1966c. “Why Is There No International Theory?” [1960], in Herbert

Butterfield and Martin Wight, eds, Diplomatic Investigations: Essays in the Theory of
International Relations. London: Allen and Unwin.
Wight, Martin. 1991. International Theory: The Three Traditions, ed. Gabriele Wight and
Brian Porter. Leicester: Leicester University Press.
Wiley, James. 2012. Theory and Practice in the Philosophy of David Hume. London: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Williams, Bernard. 1980. “Political Philosophy and the Analytical Tradition,” in Melvin
Richter, ed., Political Theory and Political Education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Williams, Bernard. 1985. Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Williams, Bernard. 2005. In the Beginning Was the Deed: Realism and Moralism in Political
Argument, ed. Geoffrey Hawthorn. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Williams, Bernard. 2009a. “Philosophy as a Humanistic Discipline,” in Williams, Philosophy
as a Humanistic Discipline. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Williams, Bernard. 2009b. “Why Philosophy Needs History,” in Williams, Philosophy as a
Humanistic Discipline. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Williams, Bernard. 2014. “Why Philosophy Needs History,” in Williams, Essays and
Reviews: 1959–2002. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Williams, James. 2000. Lyotard and the Political. London: Routledge.
Williams, Michael C. 2005. The Realist Tradition and the Limits of International Relations.
Williams, Randall. 2010. The Divided World: Human Rights and Its Violence. Minneapolis,
MN and London: University of Minnesota Press.
Williams, Thad and Martin O’Neill. 2009. “Property Owning Democracy and the
Demands of Justice.” Living Reviews in Democracy, 1.
Willms, Bernard. 1991. “Politics as Politics: Carl Schmitt’s Concept of the Political and the
Tradition of European Political Thought.” History of European Ideas, 13, 4.
Wilson, James Q. 1984. Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It.
New York: Basic Books.
Wilson, William Julius. 1996. When Work Disappears: The World of the New Urban Poor.
New York: Knopf.
Wohlforth, William C. 2008. “Realism,” in Christian Reus-Smit and Duncan Snidal, eds,
The Oxford Handbook of International Relations. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wolfers, Arnold. 1962. “Political Theory and International Relations,” in Wolfers, Discord
and Collaboration: Essays on International Politics. Baltimore, MD and London: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Wolff, Jonathan. 2013. “Analytical Political Philosophy,” in Michael Beaney, ed., Oxford
Handbook of Analytic Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wolin, Richard. 1992a. “Carl Schmitt: The Conservative Revolutionary Habitus and the
Aesthetics of Horror.” Political Theory, 20, 3.
Wolin, Richard. 1992b. “Carl Schmitt, Political Existentialism, and the Total State,” in
Wolin, The Terms of Cultural Criticism: The Frankfurt School, Existentialism, Poststructuralism.
New York: Columbia University Press.
Wolin, Sheldon S. 1960a. Politics and Vision: Continuity and Innovation in Western Political
Thought. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
Wolin, Sheldon S. 1960b. “Review of Judith Shklar After Utopia.” Natural Law Forum, 5.
286 Bibliography
Wolin, Sheldon S. 1968. “Political Theory: Trends and Goals,” in David L. Sills, ed.,
International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, Vol. 12. New York: Macmillan and Free
Press.
Wolin, Sheldon S. 1969a. “Paradigms and Political Theories,” in P. King and B.C. Parekh,
eds, Politics and Experience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wolin, Sheldon S. 1969b. “Political Theory as a Vocation.” American Political Science
Review, lxiii, 4, December.
Wolin, Sheldon S. 1970. Hobbes and the Epic Tradition of Political Theory. Los Angeles:
William Andrews Clark Memorial Library.
Wolin, Sheldon S. 1980. “Political Theory and Political Commentary,” in Melvin Rich-
ter, ed., Political Theory and Political Education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
(reprinted 2014).
Wolin, Sheldon S. 1981a. “The American Pluralist Conception of Politics,” in Arthur L.
Caplan and Daniel Callahan, eds, Ethics in Hard Times. New York and London: Plenum
Press.
Wolin, Sheldon S. 1981b. “Max Weber: Legitimation, Method and the Politics of
Theory.” Political Theory, August.
Wolin, Sheldon S. 1982. “Theme Note.” Democracy, 2, 2, April.
Wolin, Sheldon S. 1983. “Reading Marx Politically,” in J. Roland Pennock and John W.
Chapman, eds, Marxism: Nomos XXVI. New York: New York University Press.
Wolin, Sheldon S. 1984. “Max Weber: Legitimation, Method and the Politics of Theory,”
in William E. Connolly, ed., Legitimacy and the State. New York: New York University
Press.
Wolin, Sheldon S. 1985. “The Radical Tradition.” Atlantic, 256, 5, November.
Wolin, Sheldon S. 1986a. “Contract and Birthright,” in Harry C. Boyte and Frank
Riessman, eds, The New Populism: The Politics of Empowerment. Philadelphia, PA: Temple
University Press.
Wolin, Sheldon S. 1986b. “Contract and Birthright.” Political Theory, May.
Wolin, Sheldon S. 1986c. “History and Theory: Methodism Redivivus,” in John S.
Nelson, ed., Tradition, Interpretation and Science: Political Theory in the American Academy.
Albany, NY: State University of New York.
Wolin, Sheldon S. 1987. “Can We Still Hear Tocqueville?” Atlantic, August.
Wolin, Sheldon S. 1988. “On the Theory and Practice of Power,” in Jonathan Arac, ed.,
After Foucault. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Wolin, Sheldon S. 1989a. “Archaism, Modernity, and Democracy in America,” in Wolin,
The Presence of the Past: Essays on the State and the Constitution. Baltimore, MD: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Wolin, Sheldon S. 1989b. “Collective Identity and Constitutional Power,” in Wolin, The
Presence of the Past: Essays on the State and the Constitution. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Wolin, Sheldon S. 1989c. “Contract and Birthright,” in Wolin, The Presence of the Past:
Essays on the State and the Constitution. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Wolin, Sheldon S. 1989d. “Democracy and the Welfare State,” in Wolin, The Presence of
the Past: Essays on the State and the Constitution. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University
Press.
Wolin, Sheldon S. 1989e. “Democracy without the Citizen,” in Wolin, The Presence of the
Past: Essays on the State and the Constitution. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University
Press.
Bibliography 287
Wolin, Sheldon S. 1989f. “Elitism and the Rage against Postmodernity,” in Wolin, The
Presence of the Past: Essays on the State and the Constitution. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Wolin, Sheldon S. 1989g. The Presence of the Past: Essays on the State and the Constitution.
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Wolin, Sheldon S. 1990. “Democracy in the Discourse of Postmodernism.” Social Research,
57, 1, Spring.
Wolin, Sheldon S. 1992. “What Revolutionary Action Means Today,” in Chantal
Mouffe, ed., Dimensions of Radical Democracy: Pluralism, Citizenship, Community. London:
Verso (originally appeared in democracy, Fall, 1982).
Wolin, Sheldon S. 1993a. “Democracy, Difference, and Re‑cognition.” Political Theory,
21, 3, August.
Wolin, Sheldon S. 1993b. “Reason in Exile: Critical Theory and Technological Society,”
in Arthur M. Melzer, Jerry Weinberger, and M. Richard Zinman, eds, Technology in the
Western Political Tradition. Ithaca, NY and London: Cornell University Press.
Wolin, Sheldon S. 1994a. “Hannah Arendt: Democracy and the Political,” in Lewis P.
Hinchman and Sandra K. Hinchman, eds, Hannah Arendt: Critical Essays. Albany, NY:
New York State University Press.
Wolin, Sheldon S. 1994b. “Norm and Form: The Constitutionalizing of Democracy,” in
J. Peter Euben, John R. Wallach, and Josiah Ober, eds, Athenian Political Thought and the
Reconstruction of American Democracy. Ithaca, NY and London: Cornell University Press.
Wolin, Sheldon S. 1996a “Fugitive Democracy,” in Seyla Benhabib, Democracy and Differ-
ence: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Wolin, Sheldon S. 1996b. “The Liberal/Democratic Divide: On Rawls’s Political Liberalism.”
Political Theory, 24, 1, February.
Wolin, Sheldon S. 1996c. “Transgression, Equality, and Voice,” in Josiah Ober and
Charles Hedrick, eds, Demokratia: A Conversation on Democracies, Ancient and Modern.
Wolin, Sheldon S. 1997. “The Destructive Sixties and Postmodern Conservatism,” in
Stephen Macedo, ed., Reassessing the Sixties: Debating the Political and Cultural Legacy.
New York: W.W. Norton.
Wolin, Sheldon S. 2000. “Political Theory: From Vocation to Invocation,” in Jason Frank
and John Tamborino, eds, Vocations of Political Theory. Minneapolis, MN: University of
Minnesota Press.
Wolin, Sheldon S. 2001. Tocqueville between Two Worlds: The Making of a Political and
Theoretical Life. Princeton, NJ and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Wolin, Sheldon S. 2004. Politics and Vision: Continuity and Innovation in Western Political
Thought, expanded edition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Wolin, Sheldon S. 2008. Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted
Totalitarianism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Wolin, Sheldon S. and John H. Schaar. 1970. The Berkeley Rebellion and Beyond: Essays on
Politics and Education in the Technological Society. New York: New York Review.
Wood, Ellen Meikins. 1986. The Retreat from Class: A New “True” Socialism. London:
Verso (2nd edition, 1998).
Wood, Ellen Meikins. 1995. Democracy against Capitalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Wray, L. Randall. 1998. Understanding Modern Money: The Key to Full Employment and Price
Stability. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
288 Bibliography
Young, James P. 1996. Reconsidering American Liberalism: The Troubled Odyssey of the Liberal
Idea. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Young-Bruehl, Elisabeth. 1982. Hannah Arendt: For Love of the World. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.
Zizek, Slavoj. 1990. “Beyond Discourse Analysis,” appendix to Ernesto Laclau, New
Reflections on the Revolution of Our Time. London: Verso.
Zizek, Slavoj, ed. 2013. The Idea of Communism, Vol. 2. London and New York: Verso.

Wiley, J. (2016) - Politics and The Concept of The Political

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Wiley, J. (2016) - Politics and The Concept of The Political

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

This book establishes a much-needed line of communication between broadly

postmodern theories of politics and the new political realism.

A recent trend in contemporary western political theory is to criticize it for

ISBN: 978-1-138-18581-4 (hbk)

1 The Status of Politics and the Political 1

A recent trend in contemporary western political theory is to criticize it for

Participation in politics is low not because of the diﬃculty of registration

I The concept of the political

‘everything is political’ is to aﬃrm this ubiquity of relations of force and their

Three clearly distinct conceptions of politics can be identiﬁed. In the ﬁrst

II The political and political theory

Platonic vein, the trait that allows us to describe/recognize a gesture of thought

The substitution of making for acting and the concomitant degradation of

III Previous theories of the political and the “original position”

conceive to be the “original position” of politics, ethics, and philosophy in

Defects of previous theories of the political

theorists with existing political traditions such as realism, absolutism, authoritar-

The “original position” of politics, ethics, and philosophy

(Strong 2012)). Moreover, philosophers and religious thinkers would reject my

IV Outline of the book

French revolutionary tradition. In Chapter 7, I examine the theories of the poli-

Arendt, Hannah. 1987. “Collective Responsibility,” in James W. Bernauer, ed., Amor

Dallmayr, Fred. 1990. “Rethinking the Political: Some Heideggerian Contributions.”

Gray, John. 2000. Two Faces of Liberalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Rosanvallon, Pierre. 2001. “Towards a Philosophical History of the Political,” in Dario

Wight, Martin. 1966c. “Why Is There No International Theory?” [1960], in Herbert

S-ar putea să vă placă și