The McCoy Family Center for Ethics in Society at Stanford Postdoctoral Fellowship Opportunities for 2012-2013
For 2012-2013, we seek up to four new postdoctoral fellows. We welcome candidates with substantial normative research interests from diverse backgrounds including philosophy, the social sciences, and professional schools. We are especially interested in candidates with research interests in inequality, human rights, immigration, and environmental justice, but we welcome all applicants with strong normative interests that have some practical implications. Fellows will teach one class, participate in a Political Theory Workshop, interact with undergraduates in the Ethics in Society Honors Program and help in developing an inter-disciplinary ethics community across the campus.
The appointment term is September 1, 2012 - August 31, 2013; however, the initial term may be renewed for an additional year. Applicants must have completed all requirements for their PhD by June 30, 2012. Candidates must also be no more than 3 years from the awarding of their degree (i.e., September 2009).
Stanford University is an equal opportunity employer and is committed to increasing the diversity of its faculty. It welcomes applications from women and members of minority groups, as well as others who would bring additional dimensions to the university's research and teaching missions. Salary is competitive.
The application deadline is January 11, 2012 (5:00pm Pacific Standard Time).
To access the online application system, click here.
For more information on the Center and our fellowship program, click here.
For inquiries, please contact Joan Berry: joanberry@stanford.edu
Sunday, October 02, 2011
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.
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.
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.
Friday, September 30, 2011
Hasana Sharp, Spinoza and the Politics of Renaturalization
Now in print.
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.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
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.
... 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.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
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
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
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
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.
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.
Thursday, September 15, 2011
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).
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).
Saturday, September 10, 2011
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!
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!
Monday, September 05, 2011
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.
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.
Friday, September 02, 2011
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)
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)
Monday, August 29, 2011
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
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
Thursday, August 11, 2011
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."
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."
Monday, July 25, 2011
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
Application deadline: August 1
Stipend: $25,000 for one-semester or yearlong visitorship
Eligibility and how to apply
Call for applications
Friday, June 03, 2011
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.
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!
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
We look forward to a great discussion this summer!
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Hither and yon: Paris
May 31, "Rationalism, Pluralism, and Freedom, "Analyses Normatives contemporaines" series, Centre de Recherche Sens, Ethique, Société (CERSES).
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.
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.
Friday, May 20, 2011
Toldja so.
The Canadian Philosophical Association is proud to announce the winners of its 2011 biennial Book Prize
Of course, readers of some political theory blogs were told that Kolers' book is excellent some seven months ago.
Congratulations are in order!
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!
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Friday, May 13, 2011
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":
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
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
Thursday, May 05, 2011
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
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
Tuesday, May 03, 2011
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?
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!
to graduating senior political theorist and RGCS student fellow Mylène Freeman, newly elected NDP MP for the Quebec riding of Argenteuil--Papineau--Mirabel!
Monday, April 18, 2011
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.
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.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
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"
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"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)