This book presents an overview of Jean–Jacques Rousseau's work from a political science perspective. Was Rousseau — the great theorist of the French Revolution—really a conservative? The text argues that the author of ‘The Social Contract’ was a constitutionalist much closer to Madison, Montesquieu, and Locke than to revolutionaries. Outlining his profound opposition to Godless materialism and revolutionary change, this book finds parallels between Rousseau and Burke, as well as showing that Rousseau developed the first modern theory of nationalism. It presents an integrated political analysis of Rousseau's educational, ethical, religious and political writings.
The dualist and complex role of the state in Spanish labour and employment relations in an age of ‘flexibility’
Miguel Martínez Lucio
2008; Jessop, 2002: 42; for a further discussion, see MacKenzie and Martínez
Lucio, 2014). To this extent, the question of coordination of such levels and
different approaches in public policy and state agencies politically and organisationally is one we need to be alert to (Crouch, 1993). What is more, the state
intervenes not just in social spaces but also in ideological ones where specific
issues, sensibilities and even national debates develop and configure the nature
and impact of state policies (Locke and Thelen, 2006). Within these social and
The idea of toleration as the appropriate response to difference has been central to liberal thought since Locke. Although the subject has been widely and variously explored, there has been reluctance to acknowledge the new meaning that current debates offer on toleration. This book starts from a clear recognition of the new terms of the debate, reflecting the capacity of seeing the other's viewpoint, and the limited extent to which toleration can be granted. Theoretical statements on toleration posit at the same time its necessity in democratic societies, and its impossibility as a coherent ideal. There are several possible objections to, and ways of developing the ideal of, reasonable tolerance as advocated by John Rawls and by some other supporters of political liberalism. The first part of the book explores some of them. In some real-life conflicts, it is unclear on whom the burden of reasonableness may fall. This part discusses the reasonableness of pluralism, and general concept and various more specific conceptions of toleration. The forces of progressive politics have been divided into two camps: redistribution and recognition. The second part of the book is an attempt to explore the internal coherence of such a transformation when applied to different contexts. It argues that openness to others in discourse, and their treatment as free and equal, is part of a kind of reflexive toleration that pertains to public communication in the deliberative context. Social ethos, religious discrimination and education are discussed in connection with tolerance.
Bordering intimacy is a study of how borders and dominant forms of intimacy, such as family, are central to the governance of postcolonial states such as Britain. The book explores the connected history between contemporary border regimes and the policing of family with the role of borders under European and British empires. Building upon postcolonial, decolonial and black feminist theory, the investigation centres on how colonial bordering is remade in contemporary Britain through appeals to protect, sustain and make family life. Not only was family central to the making of colonial racism but claims to family continue to remake, shore up but also hide the organisation of racialised violence in liberal states. Drawing on historical investigations, the book investigates the continuity of colonial rule in numerous areas of contemporary government – family visa regimes, the policing of sham marriages, counterterror strategies, deprivation of citizenship, policing tactics, integration policy. In doing this, the book re-theorises how we think of the connection between liberal government, race, family, borders and empire. In using Britain as a case, this opens up further insights into the international/global circulations of liberal empire and its relationship to violence.
, Selden, Herbert of Cherbury and John Locke) which might be
considered unorthodox in the wrong company, but which also were a staple of
many clerical libraries. Owning copies of the Gospel of Nicodemus, the works of
Hermes Trismegisticus, and Claude Berigard’s Circulus Pisanus did not
necessarily imply a bent towards heresy or heterodoxy, since they were works
that cropped up in other scholarly libraries with unremarkable frequency.
What can be said then about any man from his books? It has been a commonplace of historical studies to try to deduce the intellectual
The reception of Christianity not mysterious, 1696–1702
written. That work was
Christianity not mysterious, published without Toland’s name or details of
either publisher or bookseller between December 1695 and June 1696. Draft
‘papers’ had possibly been sent to John Locke in late March 1695, via his
friend John Freke.5 Reports about Toland’s work were widespread in Oxford
through the year.6 Advertisements for the work appeared in the Post-Man in
late December 1695. By early June the book was being attacked from London
pulpits for its ‘most arrogant and impudent treatment of God and the Holy
Scriptures’.7 By late June 1696
epistemological or metaphysical underpinnings. But if belief matters, in what sense
exactly does it matter, and what kind of defence of ‘impartialist liberalism’
can be generated from the contention that belief matters?
One way of answering this question may be found by turning to the philosophy of John Locke. In Political Liberalism, Rawls refers approvingly to
Locke’s defence of toleration, and it is not difficult to see the parallels
between that defence and Rawls’s own endorsement of epistemological
restraint: both writers eschew a defence of toleration grounded in
In this theory, usually associated with Hobbes and Locke in
particular, a contract (sometimes called ‘consent to
government’) is said both to authorise a government to make laws and
to bind subjects to strict obedience. Actually the theories of Hobbes and
Locke are not quite so simple as this.
Locke argues that, at a certain point (that is, upon reaching the
age of adulthood and then by staying
sphere, intrusion on which is a violation of individual prerogatives. The
origins of this attitude are usually and probably rightly traced to the
political theory of John Locke (1632–1704), who founded his ideas upon
a duty, given by God, of preserving one’s self (and secondarily
others), and therefore of protecting all the rights (revealingly known by
Locke as ‘Property’) by which that preservation was assured.
There seem to
controversy; it merely gives it a powerful emotional charge.
Further difficulties have arisen as
philosophers have tried to establish the rational basis of human rights.
John Locke, for example, argued that human rights are
‘God-given’, but modern secularisation has lessened the impact
of this assertion. Man’s claim to special treatment among living
things by virtue of his capacity for moral choice, his intellectual