The virtues and the economist

A series of exchanges on facebook about this comic with people trained in economics who seemed to me to miss the point of it entirely made me remember running across the abstract for this article, which I then dug back out and read and appreciated, and which I now recommend.

Lisa Herzog, "Higher and lower virtues in commercial society: Adam Smith and motivation crowding out," forthcoming, Politics, Philosophy, and Economics.

Abstract:

Motivation crowding out can lead to a reduction of ‘higher’ virtues, such as altruism or public spirit, in market contexts. This article discusses the role of virtue in the moral and economic theory of Adam Smith. It argues that because Smith’s account of commercial society is based on ‘lower’ virtue, ‘higher’ virtue has a precarious place in it; this phenomenon is structurally similar to motivation crowding out. The article analyzes and systematizes the ways in which Smith builds on ‘contrivances of nature’ in order to solve the problems of limited self-command and limited knowledge. As recent research has shown, a clear separation of different social spheres can help to reduce the risk of motivation crowding out and preserve a place for ‘higher virtue’ in commercial society. The conclusion reflects on the performative power of economics, arguing that the one-sided focus on models of ‘economic man’ should be embedded in a larger context.

My view about the cartoon itself, since Mike Munger misunderstood the punch line completely (hi, Mike!): The philosopher already knows the economist's arguments, having encountered them in week 2 of freshman intro moral philosophy under the names "Bentham" and "Sidgwick." That the economist is falsely assuming his ideas are new to the philosopher is made clear with the "fractions" joke.

The economist is violating lots of the official methodological pronouncements of economics, which is supposed to take preferences as exogenous and is not supposed to be a normative injunction to individual persons to maximize market value in all of their choices. It's supposed to be a way to model the decisions that are made among commensurable ends, whatever the decision process that goes into deciding what to value. So a good economist would have said, "ah, this is a question that comes before the questions I know how to answer; I need to put my toolkit away and see whether there's something interesting to learn here about how individuals do, or should, form priorities." And of course the economist is also violating the rule against engaging in interpersonal comparisons of utility; there's not even a pretense of showing Kaldor-Hicks efficiency (which itself is mighty dubious from the perspective of no-interpersonal-comparisons).

But the economist is talking like lots of people with some econ training talk, despite those methodological pronouncements. He's seeking aggregate welfare maximization, using only the welfare measures that are revealed in market prices. That this is a tail-swallowing rule for individuals to follow in making ethical choices was shown long ago by Bernard Williams. But it's also worth noting that it's Benthamite utilitarianism of just the sort that modern economics purports to have outgrown.

Hasana Sharp, Spinoza and the Politics of Renaturalization

Now in print.

There have been many Spinozas over the centuries: atheist, romantic pantheist, great thinker of the multitude, advocate of the liberated individual, and rigorous rationalist. The common thread connecting all of these clashing perspectives is Spinoza’s naturalism, the idea that humanity is part of nature, not above it.

In this sophisticated new interpretation of Spinoza’s iconoclastic philosophy, Hasana Sharp draws on his uncompromising naturalism to rethink human agency, ethics, and political practice. Sharp uses Spinoza to outline a practical wisdom of “renaturalization,” showing how ideas, actions, and institutions are never merely products of human intention or design, but outcomes of the complex relationships among natural forces beyond our control. This lack of a metaphysical or moral division between humanity and the rest of nature, Sharp contends, can provide the basis for an ethical and political practice free from the tendency to view ourselves as either gods or beasts.

Sharp’s groundbreaking argument critically engages with important contemporary thinkers—including deep ecologists, feminists, and race and critical theorists—making Spinoza and the Politics of Renaturalization vital for a wide range of scholars.

When last we looked in on biking at McGill

... just over a year ago, there was a big public forum at which sentiment was strongly (though not unanimously) against the environment-unfriendly categorical ban on bikes on McGill's downtown campus. Associate Vice-President Jim Nicell dismissed the forum as drawing an unbalanced crowd, though without saying what drove the selection process, and though for weeks beforehand the upcoming forum had been used to tell bikers that their concerns would get a public airing.

Further dialogue and consultation was promised.

Like I said: just over a year ago.

Hither and yon: University of Ottawa

October 5, University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law, Fauteaux Hall room 147B, 4-5:30 with reception to follow.

John Hasnas (Georgetown University) - The depoliticization of law

Jacob T. Levy (McGill University) - Non-ideal constitutionalism

Scott Reid (Member of Parliament) - Examining of the roots of Canada's "Living Tree" doctrine

Pearson Chair at McGill University

The Katherine A. Pearson Chair in Civil Society and Public Policy

Applications are currently invited for The Katharine A. Pearson Chair in Civil Society and Public Policy tenable jointly in the Faculty of Arts (www.mcgill.ca/arts) and in the Faculty of Law (www.mcgill.ca/law), McGill University. The appointment is expected to be at the rank of Full Professor. The Katharine A. Pearson Chair in Civil Society and Public Policy was created through a generous gift from the McConnell Foundation.

The Faculties of Arts and of Law seek applications from scholars of international renown with impeccable academic credentials in Arts and in Law, and demonstrated interdisciplinary expertise. The purpose of the Chair is to contribute to the teaching and supervision of undergraduate and graduate students in the two faculties. The holder of the Chair will also be expected to assume leadership within a new Civil Society Program at McGill University, develop new research directions in civil society and foster research grant applications to sustain the Program.

The Civil Society Program will rest on a broad meaning of civil society as an analytic term for the social sciences and humanities. Moving beyond the now-standard opposition of civil society to the State, the Program will explore both formal non-governmental structures and organizations (the “community sector”), and informal associations, practices, beliefs and values that mediate between the self and the State. The Program will study the role of individuals and non-governmental institutional forms, groups, communities and organizations in the development of legal and public policy. It will explore innovative, pluralistic and adaptive approaches to governance in meeting local and global challenges posed by health, environment, personal and economic well-being, social diversity and equity in a context of declining public resources.

The Civil Society Program will draw on McGill University’s identity as a socially important institution in public life in Canada and a respected voice internationally. McGill’s embrace of the advantages of study in Montreal – bilingualism, bicultural and bijural institutions, a cosmopolitan urban setting – are understood as central to the success of this venture. It will focus on Canada as a laboratory for study and public action, and recognize that Canada represents, at its best, a model setting for teaching, research and public outreach on matters relating to civil society in the international community.

Applicants shall provide a letter of intent, a summary of research interests (including proposed research program), complete curriculum vitae, copies of three representative publications, and the names of at least three references to the Staff Appointments Committee by October 15, 2011. However, applications will be accepted until an incumbent for the Chair is found. Email applications are preferred (linda.coughin@mcgill.ca) but hard copy applications can also be mailed to:

Staff Appointments Committee
c/o Dean’s Office
Faculty of Law
McGill University
3644 Peel Street
Montreal, Quebec, Canada, H3A 1W9

All qualified applicants are encouraged to apply; however, Canadians and permanent residents will be given priority. McGill University is committed to diversity and equity in employment. It welcomes applications from indigenous peoples, visible minorities, ethnic minorities, persons with disabilities, women, persons of minority sexual orientations and gender identities and others who may contribute to further diversification.

GRIPP: Bonnie Honig

Friday September 16, 2011:

First workshop of the year for the Groupe de Recherche Interuniversitaire en Philosophie Politique [GRIPP]. Paper by Bonnie Honig, Sarah Rebecca Roland Professor of Political Science at Northwestern University and Research Professor at the American Bar Foundation.

“’Antigone versus Oedipus?’ Feminist Theory and the Turn to Antigone."

Ferrier 456, McGill, 2-4 pm. Attendees are expected to read the paper in advance.

Followed by beginning of the year Research Group on Constitutional Studies/ GRIPP reception, 4 pm, Ferrier reading room (428B).

Sometime this week...

on the basis of the traffic I receive passively from google hits and blogrolls and old links and so on, this blog will get its 250,000th visit, very close to the ninth anniversary of my first substantive post. This post itself might trigger the 250,000th visitor just by RSS subscriptions. (In a meaningless coincidence of round numbers, I'm also nearing the 500 mark on followers on twitter. [Update: the 500 mark hasbeen hit.])

On the one hand, nine years is a pretty long time to hit the quarter-million mark; Mike Munger was crowing about his million after seven years this summer. On the other hand, this blog started out with an expression of ambivalence (within a day of the independently-written and now much more famous ambivalent first post from that other fellow down the hall), went more or less full-steam ahead for about four months, then went dormant when I migrated to the Volokh Conspiracy for most of three years, and then stayed almost-dormant for a long time while I blogged there and while I took a couple years off from blogging altogether except for occasional posts like my mostly-annual roundups of new books in political theory. Just when I was really getting going again, The New Republic launched Open University, which was a noble experiment with some interesting stuff (I greatly enjoyed reading Daniel Bell's, including this post about the launch of the Kindle. But in the end OU turned out kind of strange: academics engaged in parallel play, with Richard Stern writing as a diarist, Cass Sunstein promoting and defending Barack Obama's campaign, Sandy Levinson discussing the constitutional crisis of the Bush administration, and so on. My occasional attempts to engage in occasional intra-blog conversations were less than wholly successful. And OU petered out in 2008.

For a while now, what I've mostly blogged here have been political theory news (conference announcements, fellowship announcements, book lists, occasional book reviews), interspersed with bits of coffee-blogging and geek-culture blogging. My last real sustained use of the blog to develop and express my own views was during the Taylor-Bouchard commission hearings and report. I've had a few rounds of flamewars (e.g. with the odd law professor from Wisconsin who shall not be named lest she reappear) and have no appetite for them. And all those worries in that very first post still occur to me.

Overall, I think I've really blogged here intensively for the initial four months, and then in 2007-2009. I've never really committed to a view about this space. I try to do a lot of what Larry Solum does in terms of professional-service blogging. I worry about mixing that kind of space with a really active expression of views, as is done by the equivalent figure in philosophy; but then every so often I've got strong views about an obviously bloggable subject and go to it. When I have just a few substantive sentences to say about something these days, I put 'em on facebook.

The big spike in readership I get when I return to substantive blogging is nice-- but so are the expressions of appreciation I get from students and colleagues for the book recommendations and conference announcements and so on.

So: a quarter-million visitors in about three and a half years of real blogging spread over nine years, plus a few more years here and there of... whatever it is I do here most of the time. That's not bad. More importantly, I seem to mostly have the readers I want to have. I appreciate the readers who've stuck with me through my wanderings and ambivalences and passing fancies about what to do here, as well as those who happen by for one reason or another; and I appreciate most (though not quite all) of my various blogospheric interlocutors over that time. Thanks!

Hither and yon, youtube edition

My talk at the Centre for Independent Studies in Sydney on "Rationalism, Pluralism, and Hayek's history of liberal thought" has been captured for the ages.

What I bought at APSA

Oxford Handbook of the History of Political Philosophy, George Klosko ed., OUP

Flanagan, Alcantra, and Le Dressay, Beyond the Indian Act: Restoring Aboriginal Property Rights, MQUP

Jonathan Quong, Liberalism Without Perfection, OUP

Avigail Eisenberg, Reasons of Identity, OUP (new in paperback)

Margaret Kohn and Keally McBride, Political Theories of Decolonization:
Postcolonialism and the Problem of Foundations, OUP

Farah Godrej, Cosmopolitan Political Thought, OUP

Catherine Zuckert. Political Philosophy in the 20th Century, CUP

Gregory Claeys, Imperial Sceptics, CUP

Gerald Gaus, The Order of Public Reason CUP

Stedman-Jones ed, Cambridge History of 19th century political thought, CUP

Floyd and Stears, Political Philosophy vs History?, CUP

Andrei Marmor, Philosophy of Law, PUP

Annabel Brett, Changes of State: Nature and the Limits of the City in Early Modern Natural Law, PUP

Isaac Nakhimovsky, The Closed Commercial State: Perpetual Peace and Commercial Society from Rousseau to Fichte, PUP

Duncan Kelly, The Propriety of Liberty, PUP

Jeremy Jennings, Revolution and thre Republic, OUP

Chad Rector, Federations, Cornell UP

(OUP= Oxford, CUP=Cambridge, PUP=Princeton)

ASPLP at APSA: Nomos: Federalism and Subsidiarity

2011 Annual Meeting of the American Society for Political and Legal Philosophy
“Federalism and Subsidiarity”
American Political Science Association
Saturday-Sunday, September 3-4, 2011, Seattle




Saturday, September 3
pre-8:00 am: Coffee

8:00 – 9:45 AM Panel I: The City and Federalism
The Conference Center LL1

Principal Paper: “Cities, Subsidiarity, and Federalism”, Daniel
Weinstock, Philosophy, University of Montreal

Commentator: Loren King, Political Science, Wilfrid Laurier University
Commentator: Judith Resnik, Law, Yale University
Chair: Nancy Rosenblum, Political Science, Harvard University


1:45 PM: ASPLP Business Meeting
The Conference Center LL4


2:00-3:45 PM: Panel II: The Constitution and Federalism
The Conference Center LL4

Principal Paper: “Federalism and Subsidiarity, Perspectives from Law”,
Steven Calabresi, Law, Northwestern University

Commentator: Jenna Bednar, Political Science, University of Michigan
Commentator: Andreas Follesdal, Philosophy, University of Oslo
Chair: James E. Fleming, Law, Boston University

7:30-9:00 PM: Annual Reception
Washington State Convention Center 306


Sunday, September 4
pre-8:00 am: coffee

8:00-9:45 AM: Panel III: Against Dual Federalism.
Washington State Convention Center 618

Principal Paper: “Defending Dual Federalism: A self-defeating
enterprise”, Sotirios A. Barber, Political Science, Notre Dame.

Commentator: Ernest Young, Law, Duke University
Commentator: Michael Blake, Philosophy, University of Washington
Chair: Jacob T. Levy, Political Science, McGill University

Hither and yon, down under

Rationalism, Pluralism, and Hayek's History of Liberal Thought, The Centre for Independent Studies, Level 4, 38 Oxley St, St Leonards, Sydney 2065, 17 August 2011, 6:00 pm - 7:15 pm

Conference, Between Indigenous and Settler Governance, University of Western Sydney, 18-20 August 2011. Paper: "Indigenous Rights, Modern Political Concepts, and the State."

Visiting Fulbright Chair in the Theory and Practice of Constitutionalism and Federalism, McGill University, 2012-13

Application deadline: August 1
Stipend: $25,000 for one-semester or yearlong visitorship
Eligibility and how to apply
Call for applications

Associational freedom

H/T Eugene Volokh: Apilado v. North American Gay Amateur Athletic Alliance holds that a gay softball league has the First Amendment right to limit the number of straight players per team.

Summer 2011 APT Virtual Reading Group: Not for Profit by Martha Nussbaum

Posting this on behalf of APT:


This summer, the Association for Political Theory will host its first virtual reading group (VRG). The purpose of the virtual reading group is to create a space for a profession-wide discussion on topics of shared interest to political theorists and philosophers, a discussion that will culminate in a round-table discussion during the meeting itself. All members of APT are invited to participate, including those who will not be able to participate in the conference this year. Part of the purpose of the virtual reading group is to expand the reach of the high quality conversations among APT members beyond the physical space of the conference.

The 2011 APT Program Committee has selected Martha Nussbaum’s Not for Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities as the subject of discussion. We believe that the themes of the book connect to the professional, pedagogical, and political concerns that are of interest to many members of the organization, and we hope that Not for Profit will serve as a launching pad for a broader discussion in the profession.

APT members can participate in the VRG at http://aptvrg2011.blogspot.com/ , by submitting comments to the blog (please note that comments cannot be anonymous). Each week, from June 6-August 5, 2011, participants will discuss a new chapter of the book. All members of APT are invited to participate in virtual discussion. The VRG will culminate in a round-table session at the annual conference in October featuring Fred Dallmayr (University of Notre Dame) and Arlene Saxonhouse (University of Michigan). Both the virtual reading group and the round-table session will be co-chaired by Lisa Ellis and Peyton Wofford of Texas A&M University.

Our conversations will get started each week by a guest commentator who will post some reflections and provocations about the chapter. Then, APT members are invited to participate in the reading group by reading the relevant chapters and posting on the blog.

[APT membership is free; to join, visit http://apt.coloradocollege.edu/3c_1_Membership_Application.asp].

June 6-10: Chapter One, “The Silent Crisis”
Invited commentator: John Seery, Pomona College

June 13-17: Chapter Two, “Education for Profit, Education for Democracy”
Invited commentator: Eric MacGilvray, The Ohio State University

June 20-24: Chapter Three, “Educating Citizens: The Moral (and Anti-Moral) Emotions”
Invited commentator: Lawrie Balfour, University of Virginia

June 27-July 1: Chapter Four, “Socratic Pedagogy: The Importance of Argument”
Invited commentator: Ryan Balot, University of Toronto

July 11-15: Chapter Five, “Citizens of the World”
Invited commentator: Roxanne Euben, Wellesley College

July 18-22: Chapter Six, “Cultivating Imagination: Literature and the Arts”
Invited commentator: Ed Wingenbach, University of Redlands

July 25-29: Chapter Seven, “Democratic Education on the Ropes”
Invited commentator: Bruce Douglass, Georgetown University

August 1-5: Wrap-up and conclusion

Please contact Lisa Ellis (ellis@politics.tamu.edu ) or Peyton Wofford (peytonwofford@politics.tamu.edu ) of Texas A&M University if you have questions.

We look forward to a great discussion this summer!

Hither and yon: Paris

May 31, "Rationalism, Pluralism, and Freedom, "Analyses Normatives contemporaines" series, Centre de Recherche Sens, Ethique, Société (CERSES).

Lost revisited

Apparently today is the one-year anniversary of the series finale of Lost, an event I've spent the last twelve months trying to purge from my memory. Here's why.

Toldja so.

The Canadian Philosophical Association is proud to announce the winners of its 2011 biennial Book Prize

Winners:
Avery Kolers, Land, Conflict, and Justice: A Political Theory of Territory (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press) 2009.

Territorial disputes have defined modern politics, but political theorists and philosophers have said little about how to resolve such disputes fairly. Is it even possible to do so? If historical attachments or divine promises are decisive, it may not be. More significant than these largely subjective claims are the ways in which people interact with land over time. Building from this insight, Avery Kolers evaluates existing political theories and develops an attractive alternative. He presents a novel link between political legitimacy and environmental stewardship, and applies these ideas in an extended and balanced discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. The result is the first systematic normative theory of territory, and an impressive example of applied philosophy. In addition to political theorists and philosophers, scholars and students of sociology, international relations, and human geography will find this book rewarding, as will anyone with wider interests in territory and justice.

Arthur Ripstein, Force and Freedom: Kant's Legal and Political Philosophy (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press) 2009.


In this masterful work, both an illumination of Kant's thought and an important contribution to contemporary legal and political theory, Arthur Ripstein gives a comprehensive yet accessible account of Kant's political philosophy. Ripstein shows that Kant's thought is organized around two central claims: first, that legal institutions are not simply responses to human limitations or circumstances; indeed the requirements of justice can be articulated without recourse to views about human inclinations and vulnerabilities. Second, Kant argues for a distinctive moral principle, which restricts the legitimate use of force to the creation of a system of equal freedom. Ripstein's description of the unity and philosophical plausibility of this dimension of Kant's thought will be a revelation to political and legal scholars. In addition to providing a clear and coherent statement of the most misunderstood of Kant's ideas, Ripstein also shows that Kant's views remain conceptually powerful and morally appealing today. Ripstein defends the idea of equal freedom by examining several substantive areas of law—private rights, constitutional law, police powers, and punishment—and by demonstrating the compelling advantages of the Kantian framework over competing approaches.

Of course, readers of some political theory blogs were told that Kolers' book is excellent some seven months ago.

Congratulations are in order!

Going to live forever.

I especially appreciate how many of these studies find that the health benefits occur primarily among drinkers of 5-6 or more cups a day.

Political theory at CPSA

Here's this year's lineup of theory panels at CPSA, as organized by Colin Farrelly and Loren King. Of special interest: Carole Pateman's plenary address, and the workshop on "Global justice and global governance":

This workshop explores the themes of global justice and global governance. What obligations and duties do we have to non–nationals? Which principles and (existing or possible) global institutions are best suited to address the diverse concerns that arise in the world today? And which historical figures in the canon of political theory (e.g. Aristotle, Hobbes, Kant, etc.) offer ideas and concepts that can help us address the challenges of today’s interdependent and complex world?

Over the course of the workshop we will examine these themes, and related issues, from all areas of political theory: normative analysis, history of political thought, applied theory. From cosmopolitanism and nationalism, to concerns of global health, immigration and international institutions, we aim to bring theory to bear on practical concerns that arise in an era of globalization.

Monday May 16, 10:30am- 12 noon
G2(b): Workshop/Atelier: Global Justice and Global Governance/Justice internationale et gouvernance mondiale: Arendt, Hegel and International Hierarchy
Chair/Président: Colin Farrelly (Queen’s) Room/Salle BA-209

Jacob Schiff (Toronto), From Global Justice and Global Governance to Global Judgment and Global Action: Rereading Hannah Arendt for International Relations

Alexander Lanoszka (Princeton), Beyond Simple Benevolence and Malevolence: Sharpening the Theoretical Differences between Various International Hierarchical Relations

Christopher David LaRoche (Toronto), Why Liberal Peace Theorists Should Stop Reading Kant (And Start Reading Hegel)

Monday May 16, 1:30 pm - 3:00 pm
G3(b): Workshop/Atelier: Global Justice and Global Governance/Justice internationale et gouvernance mondiale : Cosmopolitanism I
Chair/Président: Loren King (WLU) Room/Salle BA-209

David Wiens (Michigan), The Statist Implications of Cosmopolitan Commitments

Leah Bradshaw (Brock), Cosmopolitanism and Citizenship

Kathryn Walker (Montréal), The Problem with Transnational Approaches to Global Justice

Tuesday May 17 8:45 am - 10:15 am
G5(b): Workshop/Atelier: Global Justice and Global Governance/Justice internationale et gouvernance mondiale: Property and Territory


Chair/Président: Charles Jones (UWO) Room/Salle BA-209

John Boye Ejobowah (WLU), On Ownership Rights to Natural Resources

Rhoda Howard–Hassman (WLU), Reconsidering Property Rights: A Safeguard Against State–induced Famine

Nicholas Troester (Princeton), Putting the 'Jus' in Jus Post Bellum: Humanitarian Crises and their Aftermath

Tuesday May 17, 10:30 am - 12 noon
G6(b): Workshop/Atelier – Global Justice and Global Governance/Justice internationale et gouvernance mondiale: Health and Human Rights

Chair/Président: John Boye Ejobowah (WLU) Room/Salle BA-209

Lesley Jacobs (York), The Globalization of Human Rights to Health: Domestic Public Health Policy Dialogue With International Law and International Institutions

Kathryn Walker (Montréal), Is Rooted Cosmopolitanism Bad for Women?

Lynda Lange (Toronto), Can T. Pogge be Defended Against Feminist Criticism of His Philosophy of Human Rights?

Wednesday 10:30 am- 12 noon
G10(b): Workshop/Atelier: Global Justice and Global Governance/Justice internationale et
gouvernance mondiale: Cosmopolitanism II – Author Meets Critics for Richard Vernon’s
Cosmopolitan Regard (Cambridge University Press, 2010)

Chair/Président: Simon Caney (Oxford) Room/Salle BA-209

Charles Jones (UWO), Motivation and Jurisdiction

Neil Hibbert (Saskatchewan), Particularizing Obligation

Steven Lecce (Manitoba), Iterative Contractualism? Global Justice and the Social Contract
Discussant/Commentateur: Richard Vernon (UWO)

Wednesday 1:30 pm - 3:00 pm
G11(b): Workshop/Atelier – Global Justice and Global Governance/Justice internationale et gouvernance mondiale: Federalism and Terrority

Chair/Président: Neil Hibbert (Saskatchewan) Room/Salle BA-209

Thomas Hueglin (WLU), Federalism and Democratic Governance

Burke Hendrix (Franklin & Marshall College), What Are the Outer Boundaries of Aboriginal Sovereignty?

Margaret Moore (Queen’s), Global Justice and Territorial Rights

Helder De Schutter (K.U. Leuven), European Federalism


Wednesday May 18, 3:15pm- 4:45 pm
G12: Workshop/Atelier: Global Justice and Global Governance/Justice internationale et
gouvernance mondiale: Plenary Session on Global Justice and Global Governance
Chairs/Présidents: Colin Farrelly (Queen’s) / Loren King (WLU)
Room/Salle BA-209

Simon Caney (Oxford), What is a Fair Distribution of Greenhouse Gas Emissions?

Virginia Held (CUNY), Care, Justice, and International Law

Hither and yon: Theorizing the Commonwealth

Volkswagen Fellowship Symposium: "Theorizing the Commonwealth"
Wednesday, May 18, 2011 - 9:00am
Room 133, Barker Center
Harvard University


9:00 am
Welcome

9:10 am
Hans Beck
McGill University
Federalism in Ancient Greece: Theories of the Unthinkable

9:55 am
Emma Dench
Harvard University
The Roman Empire: Theory and Practice

Coffee Break

11:00 am
Theo Christov
Northwestern University
The Republican Idea of Europe in the 18th Century

11:45 am
Detlef von Daniels
Universität Witten/Herdecke
Rudiments of Federalism in Kant

12:30 pm
Pierpaolo Polzonetti
University of Notre Dame
Omnes viae ‘Romam’ ducunt: The American Revolution in Mozart’s Vienna

1:15 pm
Lunch Break

2:30 pm
Jacob T. Levy
McGill University
The Accidental Innovation: From Ancient Constitutionalism to Modern Federalism

3:15 pm
James Tully
University of Victoria
On the Idea of a Commonwealth Today

Coffee Break

4:20 pm
Glyn Morgan
Syracuse University
The Failure of the European Alternative

5:05 pm
Alexander Somek
University of Iowa
The Cosmopolitan Constitution

Pre-registration: Detlef von Daniels, detlef.vondaniels@uni-wh.de

Hither and yon

Spatiality and Justice
Interdisciplinary Investigations on a Political Philosophy of the City
Montréal, 5 – 7 May 2011
Le Meridien Versailles
1808 Sherbrooke West
Metro Guy-Concordia

Thursday May 5th

8:45 Introductory remarks
Daniel Weinstock, CRÉUM,
Canada Research Chair in Political Philosophy


Justice, Cities and Spatiality I
Chair: Daniel Weinstock, CRÉUM,
Canada Research Chair in Political Philosophy

9:00 Patrick Turmel, Université Laval
Urban Justice and Equality

9:45 Nik Luka, McGill University
Justice, Public Space and Public Life

10:30 Cofee break

11:00 Larissa Smith & Tara Mrejen, McGill University
Autonomous Cities?

11:45 Martin Blanchard, CRÉUM
Housing, Justice and Philosophy: First Steps


Justice, Cities and Spatiality II
Chair : Victor Muñiz-Fraticelli, McGill University

14:00 Frank Cunningham, University of Toronto
Urban Citizenship

14:45 Avner de-Shalit, Hebrew University Jerusalem
Justice Within the City

15:30 Cofee break

16:00 Loren A. King, Wilfrid Laurier University
Claiming Lefebvre's Right: Urban Civilization and the Moral Salience of Everyday Life

16:45 Marie-Claude Prémont, ENAP
Les litiges post-fusion



Friday May 6th
Cities, Justice and Diversity
Chair: Hoi Kong, McGill University

9:00 Margaret Kohn, University of Toronto
What is Wrong With Gentriication?

9:45 Daniel Weinstock, CRÉUM, Canada Research Chair in Political Philosophy
The Ethics and Politics of Commemorative Space

10:30 Cofee break

11:00 Victor Muñiz-Fraticelli, McGill University
Big-City Values: The Normative Autonomy of Cities

11:45 Thad Williamson, University of Richmond
The City's Right to Capital: Property, Justice, and the Climate Crisis

12:30 Lunch

Power and Democracy in Urban Politics
Chair: Patrick Turmel, Université Laval

14:00 John Forester, Cornell University
Participatory Urban Planning, Mediated Negotiations, and the Construction of (Im)possibility

14:45 Clarissa Rile Hayward, Washington Univ. in Saint Louis
What's Wrong with the Mall? Power and Publicity in Democratic Politics

15:30 Cofee break

16:00 Hoi Kong, McGill University
Deliberative Municipalities

16:45 Roger Keil, York University
The Rise of the Suburbs and the Challenge of Metropolitan Governance

Saturday May 7th
Cities and Nation-States
Chair: Pierre-Yves Néron, CRÉUM

9:00 Richard Schragger, University of Virginia School of Law
Reviving the Regulatory City

9:45 Margeaux Ruellan, Université Paris IV-Sorbonne
L’espace public, un espace de démocratie ?

10:30 Cofee break

11:00 Laury Bacro, Université de Montréal
La banlieue française et l'émergence de la culture rap: comment un territoire urbain délimité inlue-t-il dans le processus de formation de l'identité et d'une pensée de la contestation ?

11:45 Jacob T. Levy, McGill University
Cities: The Birth of Intermediacy and the Problem of Territory

12:30 Group discussion: What Have We Learned?

Congratulations...

to graduating senior political theorist and RGCS student fellow Mylène Freeman, newly elected NDP MP for the Quebec riding of Argenteuil--Papineau--Mirabel!

The Tory-PQ Alliance

The Parti Quebecois is riding high in the polls at the moment, though a provincial election is a long way off. And it seems to be filled with enthusiasm and vigor at the moment, coming off its convention this weekend-- though I can't say that I find the 93% vote in support of Pauline Marois to be quite so impressive as it's being made out to be. It sends the signal "in the face of a possible victory in the medium-term future, we are capable of acting as a basically unified and functional organization and not undermining our leader for no good reason." That's better than the PQ has sometimes done in the past, but it's not a dazzling accomplishment.

I fear that the real boost to the PQ's fortunes right now is coming from elsewhere: the Harper campaign.

To a first approximation, the median Quebec voter wants recognition as a distinct society, an advantageous fiscal relationship with Ottawa, and *not* to secede, have a vote on secession, or back into secession by a forced confrontation. That translates into a preference for voting for the Bloc as a substitute for voting for the PQ. The Bloc and the PQ are allies, of course-- but they are also rivals, in that the Bloc's success in extracting concessions at the center undermines the PQ's claim of urgency within the province. Voting for the Bloc thus becomes the safety valve, releasing nationalist-secessionist pressure and dampening fervor for the PQ and for secession.

As far as I'm concerned, this is a healthy dynamic. I don't like the Bloc; but I view them as a desirable feature of the Canadian political system, keeping pressure on the center to accommodate Quebec, and thereby keeping federation tolerable for Quebec.

But that dynamic only works if the Bloc is perceived to carry some weight in Ottawa. A Harper majority, and especially a Harper majority won on the basis of a nationwide attack on Quebec secessionist sentiment as manifested in support for the Bloc, will leave the average francophone Quebec voter with a sense of not having a voice, of having the desire to be maitres chez nous delegitimized in Canadian politics. Even if Harper doesn't win his majority, he's contributed to that delegitimation by making the thought of a de facto coalition with the Bloc anathema.

That can only be good for the PQ, two years out.

Hither and yon, Montreal edition: today at ISA

1:45 PM (TC61)

Cosmopolitanism, Institutions, and Non-Ideal Theory

Room: Parlor Suite 2020, Fairmont


Chair: Catherine Lu (McGill University)

Discussant: Daniele Archibugi (National Research Council)

Luis Cabrera. "Is There a Duty to Support Unjust Institutions above the State?"

Ryoa Chung. "Soft Law, Soft Power and Smart Politics in the NonIdeal World: A Pragmatic Approach to Cosmopolitanism."

Jacob Levy. "Contra Politanism: Against the Moral Teleology of Political Forms"

Laura Valentini. "On the Duty to Create Just Global Institutions: Dilemmas of Non-Compliance"

March 18: Federalism, Security, Democracy, and the European Alternative

Federalism, Security, Democracy, and the European Alternative
Friday March 18
McGill, Ferrier 456, 840 Dr Penfield

Cosponsored by the Research Group on Constitutional Studies, McGill University
and
The Maxwell European Union Center, Syracuse University


1. 9:00-10:15: Federalism and Its Levels

Jacob T. Levy, "Federalism contra Subsidiarity"
Frank Pasquale, "Federalism in an Age of Fusion Centers"
Jason Sorens, “The New Economics of Ethnofederalism”

Break 15 Minutes

2. 10:30-11-45: Has Europe failed?

Daniele Archibugi, “Cosmopolitanism at Europe's Borders”
Cassiano Hacker-Cordon, “Europe’s Struggles and Global Justice”
John Hall,”Europe: "Banalities of Success"
Glyn Morgan, “The Failure of Europe’s Constitutional Alternative”


Break 15 minutes

3. 12:00-2:00: Security, Justice, and Democracy (Lunchtime Session)

Glen Newey, “Security’s Sake”
Laura Valentini, “Justice and democracy"
Patti Lenard, "Security, Justice and Democracy"