THE OXFORD HANDBOOKS THE OXFORD HANDBOOK OF OF POLITICAL SCIENCE GENERAL EDlTOR: ROBERT E. GOODIN The Oxford Handbooks of Political Science is a ten-volume set of reference books offering authoritative and engaging critical overviews of all the main branches of political science. The series as a whole is under the General Editorship of Robert E. Goodin, with each volume being edited by a distinguished international group of specialists in their respective fields: POLITICAL THEORY POLITICAL THEORY Edited by John S. Dryzek, Bonnie Honig & Anne Phillips POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS R. A. W. Rhodes, Sarah A. Binder & Bert A. Rockman POLITICAL BEHAVIOR Russell f. Dalton & Hans-Dieter Klingemann COMPARATIVE POLITICS Caries Boix &- Susan C. Stokes JOHN S. DRYZEK BONNIE HONIG and ANNE PHILLIPS LAW & POLITICS Keith E. Whittington, R. Daniel Kelemen & Gregory A. Caldeira PUBLIC POLICY Michael Moran, Martin Rein & Robert E. Goodin POLITICAL ECONOMY Barry R. Weingast & Donald A. Wittman INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Christian Reus-$mit & DlIncan Snidal CONTEXTUAL POLITICAL ANALYSIS Robert E. Goodin & Charles Tilly POLITICAL METHODOLOGY /anet M. Box-Steffensmeier, Henry E. Brady & David Collier OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS This series aspires to shape the discipline, not just to report on it. Like the GoodinKlingemann New Handbook of political Science upon which the series builds, each of these volumes will combine critical commentaries on where the field has been together with positive suggestions as to where it ought to be heading. CONTENTS OXFORD UNIVERSITY PLESS Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 60p Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. About the Contributors xi It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, s..:holarship, and education by publishing worldwide in Oxford New York PART I INTRODUCTION I\uck[and Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Kara.:hi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto With offices in 1. I\rgentina Austcia Brazil Chile Crech Republic France Greece GUiltemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam Introduction JOHN S. DRYZEK) BONNIE HONIG & ANNE PHlLLIPS Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in cenain other countries PART 11 CONTEMPORARY CURRENTS Published in the United States by Oxford University Press inc .. New York © The several contributors 2006 Published in the United States by Oxford University Press fnc The moral rights of the author have been asserted Database right Oxford University Press (maker) First published 2006 All rights reserved. No part of this ruhlication may he reprodllced. stored in a retdeval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means. without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University ['ress, or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department. Oxford University Press. at the address above You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover and you must impose the same condition on any acquirer British library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Justice After Rawls RICHARD J. ARNESON 45 3· Power After Foucault WENDY BROWN 65 4· Critical Theory Beyond Habermas 85 2. WrLLIAM E. SCHEUERMAN 5· Feminist Theory and the Canon of Political Thought LlNDA ZERILLl 106 library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Typeset by SPI Publisher Services, Pondicherry, fndia Printed in Great Britain On acid-free paper by BiddIes Ltd., King's Lynn, Nortolk ISBN 0-19-927003-1 6. After the Linguistic Turn: Post -structuralist and Liberal Pragmatist Political Theory PAUL PATTON 125 978-0-19-927003-3 [3579108642 7· The Pluralist Imagination DAVID SCHLOSBERG 142 vi CONTENTS CONTENTS PART III PART V STATE AND PEOPLE THE LEGACY OF THE PAST 8. Theory in History: Problems of Context and Narrative 163 17· Constitutionalism and the Rule of Law J. G. A. POCOCK 175 18. Emergency Powers JOHN FEREJOHN & P ASQUALE P ASQUINO 333 Republican Visions ERIC NELSON 193 19· The People 349 Modernity and Its Critics JANE BENNETT 211 20. Civil Society and the State SIMONE CHAMBERS & JEFFREY KOPSTEIN 363 225 21. Democracy and the State MARK E. WARREN 382 JILL FRANK 11. 317 SHANNON C. STIMSON 9· The Political Theory of Classical Greece 10. vii MARGARET CANOVAN 12. The History of Political Thought as Disciplinary Genre JAMES FARR 22. Democracy and Citizenship: Expanding Domains PART IV POLITICAL THEORY IN THE WORLD 13· The Challenge of European Union 245 RICHARD BELLAMY PART VI JUSTICE, EQUALITY, AND FREEDOM 23· Impartiality 14· East Asia and the West: The Impact of Confucianism on Anglo- American Political Theory DANIEL A. BELL 262 423 SUSAN MENDUS 24· Justice, Luck) and Desert 15· In the Beginning, All the World was America: American Exceptionalism in New Contexts RONALD J. SCHMIDT, 400 MrcHAEL SAW ARD 436 SERENA OLSARETTI 281 JR. 25· Recognition and Redistribution 45 0 PATCBEN MARKELL 16. Changing Interpretations of Modern and Contemporary Islamic Political Theory ROXANNE L. EUBEN 297 26. Equality and Difference 470 JUDlTH SQUIRES 27· Liberty, Equality, and Property ANDREW WILLIAMS 488 viii CONTENTS CONTENTS ix 38. New Ways of Thinking about Privacy BEATE ROESSLER 28. Historical Injustice DUNCAN IVISON PART VII PLURALISM, MULTICULTURALISM, AND NATIONALISM 39. New Technologies, Justice, and the Body CEcILE FAB RE 713 40. Paranoia and Political Philosophy JAMES M. GLASS 29· Nationalism 529 DAVID MILLER PART X TESTING THE BOUNDARIES 30. Multiculturalism and its Critics 546 JEPF SPINNER-HALEV 31- Identity, Difference, Toleration 564 ANNA ELIsABETTA GALEOTTl 32. Moral Universalism and Cultural Difference 581 CHANDRAN KUKATHAS PART VIII CLAIMS IN A GLOBAL CONTEXT 33· Human Rights 41. Political Theory and Cultural Studies JODl DEAN 751 42. Political Theory and the Environment JOHN M. MEYER 773 43. Political Theory and Political Economy STEPHEN L. ELKIN 792 44. Political Theory and Social Theory CHRISTINE HELLlWELL & BARRY HINDESS 810 601 JACK DONNELLY 34· From International to Global Justice? PART XI OLD AND NEW 621 CHRIS BROWN 35· Political Secularism 636 RAJEEV BHARGAVA 36. Multiculturalism and Post-colonial Theory 656 45. Then and Now: Participant-Observation in Political Theory WILLIAM E. CONNOLLY 46. Exile and Re-entry: Political Theory Yesterday and Tomorrow ARLENE W. SAXONHOUSE PAUL GILROY Index PART IX THE BODY POLITIC 37· Politicizing the Body: Property, Contract, and Rights MOIRA GATENS 677 ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS Richard J. Arneson is Professor of Philosophy at the University of California, San Diego. Daniel A. Bell is Professor of Philosophy at Tsinghua University, Beijing. Richard Bellamy is Professor of Political Science at University College London. Jane Bennett is Professor of Political Science at Iohns Hopkins University. Rajeev Bhargava is Senior Fellow and Director of the Programme of Social and Political Theory, Centre for the Studies of Developing Societies, Delhi. Chris Brown is Professor of International Relations at the London School of Economics. Wendy Brown is Professor of Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley. Margaret Canovan is Emeritus Professor of Political Thought at Keele University. Simone Chambers is Associate Professor of Political Theory at the University of Toronto. William E. ConnoUy is Krieger-Eisenhower Professor of Political Science at Tohns Hopkins University. Jodi Dean is Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at Hobart and William Smith Colleges. Jack Donnelly is Andrew W. Mellon Professor in the Graduate School of International Studies, University of Denver. John S. Dryzek is Professor of Social and Political Theory, Political Science Program, Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University. Stephen L. Elkin is Professor of Government and Politics at the University of Maryland, and a Principal of the Democracy Collaborative. Roxanne L. Euben is Associate Professor of Political Science at Wellesley College. xii ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS xiii Cecile Fabre is Senior Lecturer in Political Theory at the London School of Economics. Eric Nelson is Assistant Professor of Government at Harvard University, and a junior fellow in the Harvard Society of Fellows. Tames Farr is Professor of Political Science at the University of Minnesota. Serena Olsaretti is University Senior Lecturer at the Faculty of Philosophy, and Teaching Fellow at St. John's College, Cambridge. Tohn Ferejohn is Carolyn S.G. Munro Professor of Political Science at Stanford University. Jill Frank is Associate ｐｲｾｦ･Ｕｳｯ＠ of Political Science at the University of South Pas quale Pasquino is Directeur de Recherche [Senior Fellow] at the CNRS-Centre de Theorie et Analyse du Droit, Paris, and Professor in Politics at New York University. Carolina, Columbia. Paul Patton is Professor of Philosophy at the University of New South Wales. Anna Elisabetta Galeotti is Professor of Political Theory in the Department of Humanities at the Universita del Piemonte Orientale. Anne Phillips is Professor of Gender Theory and holds a joint appointment in the Department of Government and the Gender Institute, London School of Economics. Moira Gatens is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Sydney. Beate Roessler is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Amsterdam. Paul Gilroy is Anthony Giddens Professor of Social Theory at the London School of Economics. Michael Saward is Professor of Political Science at The Open University. James M. Glass is a Professor in the Department of Government and Politics at the University of Maryland, College Park. Arlene W. Saxonhouse is the Caroline Robbins Collegiate Professor of Political Science and Women's Studies at the University of Michigan. Christine Helliwell is Reader in Anthropology, Faculty of Arts, Australian National University. William E. Scheuerrnan is Professor of Political Science at Indiana University, Bloomington. Barry Hindess is Professor of Political Science, Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University. David Schlosberg is Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Political Science at Northern Arizona University. Bonnie Honig is Professor of Political Science at Northwestern University and Senior Research Fellow, American Bar Foundation. Ronald J. Schmidt, Jr., is Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Southern Maine. Duncan Ivison is Associate Professor of PoLitical Science at the University of Toronto and a member of the Department of Philosophy at the University of Ieff Spinner-Halev is the Kenan Eminent Professor of Political Ethics at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Sydney. Judith Squires is Professor of Political Theory at the University of Bristol. Jeffrey Kopstein is Professor of Political Science at the University of Toronto. Shannon C. Stimson is Professor of Political Thought at the University of California, Berkeley. Chandran Kukathas is the Neal A. MaxweU Professor of Political Theory, Public Policy and Public Service, in the Department of PoLitical Science, University of Utah. Patchen MarkeU is Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago. Susan Mendus is Professor of Political Philosophy at the University of York. John M. Meyer is Associate Professor in the Department of Government and Politics at Humboldt State University. David Miller is Professor of Political Theory at the University of Oxford. Mark Warren holds the Harold and Dorrie Merilees Chair for the Study of Democracy in the Department of Political Science, University of British Columbia. Andrew Williams is Senior Lecturer in Philosophy, University of Reading. Linda Zerilli is Professor of Political Science at Northwestern UniversitY. PART I INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION JOHN S. DRYZEK BONNIE HONIG ANNE PHILLIPS "What's your Line of business, then?" ''I'm a scholar of the Enlightenment," said Nicholas. "Oh Lord!" the young man said. ''Another producer of useless graduates!" Nicholas felt despondent. (Lukes 1995: 199) IN The Curious Enlighten.ment of Professor Caritat-Steven Lukes' fictionalized round-up of contemporary political theory-the hapless professor has been kidnapped by the resistance movement and sent off to search for grounds for optimism. In Utilitaria, he is asked to give a lecture on "Breaking Free from the Past;" in Communitaria, on "Why the Enlightenment Project Had to Fail." Neither topic is much to his taste, but it is only when he reaches Libertaria (not, as one of its gloomy inhabitants tells him, a good place to be unlucky, unemployed, or employed by the state) that he is made to recognize the limited purchase of his academic expertise. At the end of the book, the professor still has not found the mythical land of Egalitaria. But he has 4 JOHN S. DRYZEK, BONNIE HONIG & ANNE PHILLIPS derived one important lesson from his adventures: in the pursuit of anyone ideal, it is disastrous to lose sight of all the others. This Handbook is not organized around categories such as utilitarianism, communitarianism, or libertarianism, and though it also notes the continuing elusiveness of egalitarianism, it does not promote any single ideal. The Handbook seeks, instead, to reflect the pluralism of contemporary political theory, a pluralism we regard as a key feature and major strength of the field. In this introduction, we clarify what we understand by political theory, identify major themes and developments over recent decades, and take stock of the contemporary condition of the field. We end with an explanation of the categories through which we have organized the contributions to the Handbook. 1 WHAT IS POLITICAL THEORY? Political Theory is an interdisciplinary endeavor whose center of gravity lies at the humanities end of the happily still undisciplined discipline of political science. Its traditions, approaches, and styles vary, but the field is united by a commitment to theorize, critique, and diagnose the norms, practices, and organization of political action in the past and present, in our own places and elsewhere. Across what sometimes seem chasms of difference, political theorists share a concern with the demands of justice and how to fulfill them, the presuppositions and promise of democracy, the divide between secular and religious ways of life, and the nature and identity of public goods, among many other topics. Political theorists also share a commitment to the humanistic study of politics (although with considerable disagreement over what that means), and a skepticism towards the hegemony sometimes sought by our more selfconsciously «scientific" colleagues. In recent years, and especially in the USA, the study of politics has become increasingly formal and quantitative. Indeed, there are those for whom political theory, properly understood, would be formal theory geared solely towards the explanation of political phenomena, where explanation is modeled on the natural sciences and takes the form of seeking patterns and offering causal explanations for events in the human world. Such approaches have been challenged-most recently by INTRODUCTION the Perestroika movement (Monroe 2oos)-on behalf of more qualitative and interpretive approaches. Political theory is located at one remove from this quantitative vs. qualitative debate, sitting somewhere between the distanced universals of normative philosophy and the empirical world of politics. For a long time, the challenge for the identity of political theory has been how to position itself productively in three sorts of location: in relation to the academic disciplines of political science, history, and philosophy; between the world of politics and the more abstract, ruminative register of theory; between canonical political theory and the newer resources (such as feminist and critical theory, discourse analysis, film and film theory, popular and political culture, mass media studies) neuroscience, environmental studies, behavioral science, and economics) on which political theorists increasingly draw. Political theorists engage with empirical work in politics, economics, sociology, and law to inform their reflections, and there have been plenty of productive associations between those who call themselves political scientists and those who call themselves political theorists. The connection to law is strongest when it comes to constitutional law and its normative foundations (for example, Sunstein 1993; Tully 1995, 2002; this connection is covered in our chapters by Stimson and by Ferejohn and Pasquino). Most of political theory has an irreducibly normative component-regardless of whether the theory is systematic or diagnostic in its approach, textual or cultural in its focus, analytic, critical, genealogical, or deconstructive·in its method, ideal or piecemeal in its procedures) socialist, liberal, or conservative in its politics. The field welcomes all these approaches. It has a core canon, often referred to as Plato to NATO, although the canon is itself unstable, with the rediscovery of figures such as Sophocles, Thucydides, Baruch Spinoza, and Mary Wollstonecraft, previously treated as marginal, and the addition of new icons such as Hannah Arendt, John Rawls, Michel Foucault, and Jiirgen Habermas. Moreover, the subject matter of political theory has always extended beyond this canon and its interpretations, as theorists bring their analytic tools to bear on novels, film, and other cultural artifacts, and on developments in other social sciences and even in natural science. Political theory is an unapologetically mongrel sub-discipline, with no dominant methodology or approach. When asked to describe themselves, theorists will sometimes employ the shorthand of a key formative influenceas in ''I'm a Deleuzean," or Rawlsian, or Habermasian, or Arendtian-although it is probably more common to be labeled in this way by others than to claim the description oneself. In contrast, however, to some neighboring producers 6 JOHN S. DRYZEK, BONNIE HONIG & ANNE PHILLIPS ofknowledge, political theorists do not readily position themselves by reference to three or four dominant schools that define their field. There is, for example, no parallel to the division between realists, liberals, and constructivists, recently joined by neoconservatives, that defines international relations theory. And there is certain Iy nothing like the old Marx-Weber-Durkheim triad that was the staple of courses in sociological theory up to the 1970S. Because of this, political theory can sometimes seem to lack a core identity. Some practitioners seek to rectify the perceived lack, either by putting political theory back into what is said to be its proper role as arbiter of universal questions and explorer of timeless texts, or by returning the focus of political theory to history. The majority, however, have a strong sense of their vocation. Many see the internally riven and uncertain character of the field as reflective of the internally riven and uncertain character of the political world in which we live, bringing with it all the challenges and promises of that condition. In the last two decades of the twentieth century, liberal, critical, and post-structuralist theorists have (in their very different ways) responded to the breakdown of old assumptions about the unitary nature of nation-state identities. They have rethought the presuppositions and meanings of identity, often rejecting unitary conceptions and moving towards more pluralistic, diverse, or agonistic conceptions in their place. These reflections have had an impact on the field's own self-perception and understanding. Happily for political theory, the process has coincided with a movement within the academy to reconceive knowledge as more fundamentally interdisciplinary. This reconsideration of the function and role of the boundaries of the academic disciplines may help others, as well as political theorists, to see the field's pluralism as a virtue and a strength, rather than a weakness in need of rectification. 1.1 Relationship with Political Science Political theory's relationship to the discipline of political science has not always been a happy one. Since the founding of the discipline in the late nineteenth century, there have been periodic proclamations of its newly scientific character. The "soft" other for the new science has sometimes been journalism, sometimes historical narrative, sometimes case-study methods. It has also, very often, been political theory. Beginning in the 1950S, behavioral INTRODUCTION 7 revolutionaries tried to purge the ranks of theorists-and had some success at this in one or two large Midwestern departments of political science in the USA. The later impact of rational choice theory encouraged others, like William Riker (1982a: 753), to reject "belles letters, criticism, and philosophic speculation" along with ((phenomenology and hermeneutics!' For those driven by their scientific aspirations, it has always been important to distinguish the "true" scientific study of politics from more humanistic approaches-and political theory has sometimes borne the brunt of this. Political theorists have noted, in response, that science and objectivity are steeped in a normativity that the self-proclaimed scientists wrongly disavow; and theorists have not been inclined to take the description of political "science" at face value. They have challenged the idea that their own work in normative theory lacks rigor, pointing to criteria within political theory that differentiate more from less rigorous work. While resisting the epistemic assumptions of empiricism, many also point out that much of what passes for political theory is profoundly engaged with empirical politics: what, after all, could be more ((real", vital, and important than the symbols and categories that organize our lives and the frameworks of our understanding? The French have a word to describe what results when those elected as president and prime minister are representatives of two different political parties: cohabitation. The word connotes, variously, cooperation, toleration, sufferance, antagonism, and a sense of common enterprise. Cohabitation, in this sense, is a good way to cast the relationship between political theory and political science. 1.2 Relationship .with History History as a point of reference has also proven contentious, with recurrent debates about the extent to which theory is contained by its historical context (see Pocock and Farr in this volume), and whether one can legitimately employ political principles from one era as a basis for criticizing political practice in another. When Quentin Skinner, famous for his commitment to historical contextualism, suggested that early principles of republican freedom might offer a telling alternative to the conceptions of liberty around today, he took care to distance himself from any suggestion that "intellectual historians should turn themselves into moralists" (Skinner 1998: 118). He still drew criticism for abandoning the historian's traditional caution. 8 INTRODUCTION JOHN S. DRYZEK, BONNIE HONIG & ANNE PHILLIPS In an essay published in 1989, Richard Ashcraft called upon political theorists to acknowledge the fundamentally historical character of their enterprise. While contemporary theorists recognize the "basic social/historical conditions which structure" their practice, "this recognition does not serve as a conscious guideline for their teaching and writing of political theory:' Ashcraft continued: "On the contrary, political theory is taught and written about as if it were great philosophy rather than ideology" (Ashcraft 1989: 700). For Ashcraft, acknowledging the ideological character of political theory meant embracing its political character. The main objects of his critique were Leo Strauss and his followers, whom Ashcraft saw as seeking evidence of universally valid standards in canonical political theorists and calling on those standards to judge their works. For Straussians, the wisdom of the ancients and greats is outside history. Ashcraft also criticized Sheldon Wolin, who shared Ashcraft's displeasure with Straussians, on the grounds of their inadequate attention to politics (see Saxonhouse's contribution to this volume). Although Wolin acknowledged the historicity of the texts he had examined in his seminal Politics and Vision (1960), Ashcraft claimed that Wolin resisted the ('wholesale transformation" that would result, in both his view and Ashcraft's, from putting that historicity at the center of his interpretative practice. Wolin is famous for championing what, in the style of Hannah .Arendt, he termed «the political:" politics understood, not in its instrumental capacity (Harold Lasswell's (1961) "'Who gets what, when, and how' "), but rather in its orientation toward the public good coupled with a commitment to the "public happiness" of political participation. Contra Ashcraft, one might see Wolin's move to the political as a way of splitting the difference between a Straussian universalism and the thick contextualism of Ashcraft's preferred historicist approach. "The political" is a conceptual category, itself outside of history, that rejects the idea that politics is about universal truths, while also rejecting the reduction of politics to interests. "The political" tends to connote, minimally, some form of individual or collective action that disrupts ordinary states of affairs, normal life, or routine patterns of behavior or governance. There are diverse conceptions of this notion. To take three as exemplary: the political takes its meaning from its figuration in Wolin's work by contrast primarily with statism, constitutionalism, and political apathy; in Arendfs work by contrast with private or natural spheres of human behavior; and in Ranciere's (1999) work by contrast with the "police." 9 1.3 Relationship with Philosophy The most un-historical influence on political theory in recent decades has been John Rawls, whose work represents a close alliance with analytic philosophy. On one popular account, Rawls arrived from outside as political theory's foreign savior and rescued political theory from the doldrums with the publication in 1971 of A Theory of Justice (see Arneson in this volume). Rawls' book was an ambitious, normative, and systematic investigation of what political, economic, and social justice should look like in contemporary democracies. With the distancing mechanisms of a veil of ignorance and hypothetical social contract, Rawls followed Kant in looking to reason to adjudicate what he saw as the fundamental question of politics: the conflict between liberty and equality. Writing from within the discipline of philosophy, he returned political theory to one of its grand styles (Tocqueville's twovolume Democracy in America, also written by an outsider, would represent another). Much subsequent work on questions of justice and equality has continued in this vein, and while those who have followed Rawls have not necessarily shared his conclusions, they have often employed similar mind experiments to arrive at the appropriate relationship between equality and choice. The clamshell auction imagined by Ronald Dworkin (1981), where all the society's resources are up for sale and the participants employ their clamshells to bid for what best suits their own projects in life, is another classic illustration. Starting with what seems the remotest of scenarios, Dworkin claims to arrive at very specific recommendations for the contemporary welfare state. As the contributions to this volume demonstrate, one strand of current debates in political theory revolves around the relationship between the more abstracted or hypothetical register of analytic philosophy and approaches that stress the specificities of historical or contemporary contexts. Those working in dose association with the traditions' of analytic philosophy-and often preferring to call themselves political philosophers-have generated some of the most interesting and innovative work in recent decades. But they have also been repeatedly challenged. Co mm unitarians and post -structuralists claim that the unencumbered individual of Rawlsian liberalism is not neutral but an ideological premise with significant, unacknowledged political effects on its theoretical conclusions (SandeI1982; Honig 1993). Feminists criticize the analytic abstraction from bodily difference as a move that reinforces heteronormative assumptions and gender inequalities (Okin 1989; Pateman 10 INTRODUCTION JOHN S. DRYZEK, BONNIE HONIG &- ANNE PHILLIPS 1988; Zerilli and Gatens in this volume). As we indicate later in the introduc- tion, analytic liberalism has made some considerable concessions in this regard. rn Political Liberalism, for example, Rawls no longer represents his theory of justice as addressing what is right for all societies at all times, but is careful to present his arguments as reflecting the intuitions of contemporary liberal and pluralistic societies. lA Relationship with "Real World" Politics The way political theory positions itself in relation to political science, history, and philosophy can be read in part as reflections on the meaning of the political. It can also be read as reflections on the nature of theory, and what can-or cannot-be brought into existence through theoretical work. The possibilities are bounded on one side by utopianism. Political theorists have seemed at their most vulnerable to criticism by political scientists or economists when their normative explorations generate conclusions that cannot plausibly be implemented: principles of living, perhaps, that invoke the practices of small-scale face-to-face societies; the or principles of distribution that ignore the implosion of communism or the seemingly irresistible global spread of consumerist ideas (see Dunn 2000, for one such warning). There is an important strand in political theory that relishes the utopian label, regarding this as evidence of the capacity to think beyond current confines, the political theorises version of blue-sky science. Ever since Aristotle, however, this has been challenged by an insistence on working within the parameters of the possible, an insistence often called "sober" by those who favor it. At issue here is not the status of political theory in relation to political science, but how theory engages with developments in the political world. Some see it as failing to do so. John GunnelI (1986) has represented political theory as alienated from politics, while Jeffrey Isaac (1995) argues that a reader of political theory journals in the mid 1990S would have had no idea that the Berlin Wall had fallen. Against this, one could cite a flurry of studies employing empirical results to shed light on the real-world prospects for the kind of deliberative democracy currently advocated by democratic theorists (see for example the 2005 double issue of Acta Politica); or testing out theories of justice by reference to empirical studies of social mobility (Marshall, Swift, and Roberts 1997). Or one might take note of the rather large number of 11 political theorists whose interest in contemporary political events such as the formation of a European identity, the new international human-rights regime and the politics of immigration, the eschewal of the Geneva Convention at the turn of the twentieth century, or the appropriate political response to natural disasters leads them to think about how to theorize these events. Concepts or figures of thought invoked here include Giorgio Agamben's (1998) "bare life" of the human being to whom anything can be done by the state, Michel Foucault's (1979) "disciplinary power" that conditions what people can think, Carl Schmitt's (1985) "state of exception" wherein the sovereign suspends the rule of law, Ronald Dworkin's (1977) superhuman judge "Hercules," Jacques Derrida's (2000) "unconditional hospitality" to the other, or Etienne Balibar's (2004) "marks of sovereignty" which signal the arrogation to themselves by political actors in civil society of rights and privileges of action historically assumed by states. As is clear from the contributions in this Handbook, political theorists take their cue from events around them, turning their attention to the challenges presented by ecological crisis; emergency or security politics; the impact of new technologies on the ways we think about privacy, justice, or the category of the human; the impact of new migrations on ideas of race, tolerance, and multiculturalism; the implications of growing global inequalities on the way we theorize liberty, equality, democracy, sovereignty, or hegemony. In identifying the topics for this collection, we have been struck by the strong sense of political engagement in contemporary political theory, and the way this shapes the field. 1.5 Institutional Landscape Institutionally, political theory is located in several 'disciplines, starting of course with political science, but continuing through philosophy and law, and including some representation in departments of history, sociology, and economics. This means that the professional associations and journals of these disciplines are hospitable (if to varying degrees) to work in political theory. Among the general political science journals, it is quite common to find political theory published in Polity and Political Studies, somewhat less so in the American Journal of Political Science, British Journal of Political Science, and Journal of Politics. On the face of it, the American Political Science Review 12 TOHN S. DRYZEK, BON'NIE HONIG &; publishes a substantial number of political theory articles, but the majority of these have been in the history of political thought, with Straussian authors especially well represented. In philosophy, Ethics and Philosophy and Public Affairs are the two high-profile journals most likely to publish political theory. Some of the more theoretically inclined law journals publish political theory, and so do some of the more politically inclined sociology journals. Political theory's best-established journal of its own is Political Theory, founded in 1972. Prior to its establishment, the closest we had to a general political-theory academic periodical were two book series. The first was the sporadic Philosophy, Politics and Society series published by Basil Blackwell and always co-edited by Peter Laslett, beginning in 1956 and reaching its seventh volume in 2003. Far more regularly published have been the NOMOS yearbooks of the American Society for Political and Legal Philosophy, which began in 1958 and continue to this day. Recent years have seen an explosion in political theory journal titles: History of Political Thought; Journal of Political Philosophy; The Good Society; Philosophy, Politics and Economics; Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy; European Journal of Political Theory; Contemporary Political Theory; Constellations; and Theory and Event (an online journal). The Review ofPolitics has been publishing since 1939, although its coverage has been selective, with a Straussian emphasis for much of its history. Political theorists can often be found publishing in related areas such as feminism, law, international relations, or cultural studies. Journals that feature their work from these various interdisciplinary locations include differences; Politics, Culture, and Society; Daedalus; Social Text; Logos; Strategies; Signs; and Millennium. However, political theory is a field very much oriented to book publication (a fact which artificially depresses the standing of political theory journals when computed from citation indexes, for even journal articles in the field tend to cite books rather than other articles). All the major English-language academic presses publish political theory. Oxford University Press's Oxford Political Theory series is especially noteworthy. While the world of the Internet changes rapidly, at the time of writing the Political Theory Daily Review is an excellent resource that opens many doors. L Political theory is much in evidence at meetings of disciplinary associations. The Foundations of Political Theory section of the American Political Science Association is especially important, not just in organizing panels and I INTRODUCTION ANNE PH[LLlPS http://www.politicaltheory.info/ 13 lectures and sponsoring awards but also in hosting what is for a couple of hours every year probably the largest number of political theorists in one room talking at once (the Foundations reception). The field also has associations of its own that sponsor conferences: the Conference for the Study of Political Thought International, and the Association for Political Theory (both based in North America). In the UK, there is an annual Political Theory conference in Oxford; and though the European Consortium for political Research has tended to focus more on comparative studies, it also provides an important context for workshops on political theory. 2 CONTEMPORARY THEMES AND DEVELOPMENTS As befits a relentlessly critical field, political theory is prone to selfexamination. We have already noted controversies over its relationship to various disciplinary and interdisciplinary landscapes. Occasionally the selfexamination takes a morbid turn, with demise or death at issue: the most notorious example being when Laslett (1956) claimed in his introduction to the 1956 Philosophy, Politics and Society book series that the tradition of political theory was broken, and the practice dead. Even the field's defenders have at times detected only a faint pulse. Concerns about the fate of theory peaked in the 1950S and 1960s with the ascendancy of behavioralism in US political science. Such worries were circumvented, but not finally ended, by the flurry of political and philosophical activity in the USA around the Berkeley Free Speech movement (with which Sheldon Wolin 1969, and John Schaar 1970, were associated), the Civil Rights movement (Arendt 1959), and protests against the Vietnam war and the US military draft (Walzer 1967, 1970). At that moment, the legitimacy of the state, the limits of obligation, the nature of justice, and the claims of conscience in politics were more than theoretical concerns. Civil disobedience was high on political theory'S agenda. 2 Members of activist networks 2 See notably Marcuse's "Repressive Tolerance" contribution in Wolff, Moore, and Marcuse (1965), Pitkin (1966), Dworkin (1968), the essay on "Civil Disobedience" in Arendt (1969), and Rawls (1969). 14 JOHN S. DRYZEK, BONNIE HONIG & ANNE PHILLIPS read and quoted Hannah Arendt, Herbert Marcuse, and others in support of their actions and visions of politics. Throughout the 19605, the struggle over the fate of theory was entwined with questions about what counted as politics and how to find a politicaltheoretical space between or outside liberalism and Marxism. It was against this political and theoretical background that John Rawls was developing the ideas gathered together in systematic form in A Theory ofJustice (1971), a book devoted to the examination of themes that the turbulent 1960s had made so prominent: redistributive policies, conscientious objection, and the legitimacy of state power. Later in that decade Quentin Skinner and a new school of con textualist history of political thought (known as the Cambridge school) rose to prominence in the English-speaking world. Still other works of political theory from this period give the lie to the idea that political theory was in need of rescue or revivification. The following stand out, and in some cases remain influential: Leo Strauss's Natural Right and History (1953), Louis Hartz's The Liberal Tradition in America (1955), Kad Popper's The Poverty of Historicism (1957), Hannah Arendt's The Human Condition (1958) and On Revolution (1963), Sheldon Wolin's Politics and Vision (1960), Friedrich A. von Hayek's The Constitution of Liberty (1960), Michae1 Oakeshott's Rationalism in Politics (1962), James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock's The Calculus of Consent (1962), Judith Shklar's Legalism (1964), Herbert Marcuse's OneDimensional Man (1964), Brian Barry's Political Argument (1964), and Isaiah Berlin's Four Essays on Liberty (1969). 2.1 Liberalism and its Critics Looking at the field from the vantage point of the first years of the twentyfirst century, there is certainly no indication of political theory failing in its vitality: this is a time of energetic and expansive debate, with new topics crowding into an already busy field. For many in political theory, including many critics of liberal theory, this pluralistic activity obscures a more important point: the dominance that has been achieved by liberalism, at least in the Anglo-American world. In its classic guise, liberalism assumes that individuals are for the most part motivated by self-interest, and regards them as the best judges of what this interest requires. In its most confident variants, it sees the material aspects of interest as best realized through INTRODUCTION 15 exchange in a market economy, to the benefit of all. Politics enters when interests cannot be so met to mutual benefit. Politics is therefore largely about how to reconcile and aggregate individual interests, and takes place under a supposedly neutral set of constitutional rules. Given that powerful individuals organized politically into minorities or majorities can turn public power to their private benefit, checks across different centers of power are necessary, and constitutional rights are required to protect individuals against government and against one another. These rights are accompanied by obligations on the part of their holders to respect rights held by others, and duties to the government that establishes and protects rights. Liberalism so defined leaves plenty of scope for dispute concerning the boundaries of politics, political intervention in markets, political preference aggregation and conflict resolution mechanisms, and the content of rights, constitutions, obligations, and duties. There is, for example, substantial distance between the egalitarian disposition of Rawls and the ultra-individualistic libertarianism of Robert Nozick (1974).3 Liberalism's conception of politics clearly differs, however, from the various conceptions of the political deployed by Arendt, Wolin, Ranciere, and others, as well as from republican conceptions of freedom explored by Quentin Skinner (1998) or Philip Pettit (1997). In earlier decades, liberalism had a clear comprehensive competitor in the form of Marxism, not just in the form of real-world governments claiming to be Marxist, but also in political theory. Marxism scorned liberalism's individualist ontology, pointing instead to the centrality of social classes in political conflict. The market was seen not as a mechanism for meeting individual interests, but as a generator of oppression and inequality (as well as undeniable material progress). Marxism also rejected liberalism's static and ahistorical account of politics in favor of an analysis of history driven by material forces that determined what individuals were and could be in different historical epochs. Different versions of this were hotly debated in the 19705, as theorists positioned themselves behind the "humanist" Marx, revealed in his earlier writings on alienation (McLellan 1970),4 or the ''Althusserian" Marx, dealing in social relations and forces of production (Althusser 1969; Althusser and Balibar 1970). Disagreements between these schools were intense, although both proclaimed the superiority of Marxist over liberal 3 Other important works in the vast liberal justice literature include Gauthier (1986), Barry (1995), and Scanlon (1998). 4 See also the work of the US-Yugoslav Praxis group. and their now-defunct journal Praxis International. 16 JOHN S. DRYZEK, BONNIE HONIG & ANNE PHlLLIPS thought. In the period that followed, however, the influence of academic Marxism in the English-speaking world waned. The fortunes of Marxist theory were not helped by the demise of the Soviet bloc in 1989-91, and the determined pursuit of capitalism in China under the leadership of a nominaUy Marxist regime. Questions remain about liberalism's success in defeating or replacing this rival. One way to think of subsequent developments is to see a strand from both liberalism and Marxism as being successfully appropriated by practitioners of analytic philosophy, such as Rawls and G. A. Cohen (1978). Focusing strictly on Marxism vs. liberalism, however, threatens to obscure the presence of other vigorous alternatives, from alternative liberalisms critical (sometimes implicitly) of Rawlsianism, such as those developed by Richard Flathman (1992), George Kateb (1992), ]eremy Waldron (1993), and William Galston (1991), to alternative Marxisms such as those explored by Jacques Ranciere (1989) and Etienne Balibar and Immanuel Wallerstein (1991), and Nancy Hartsock (1983). Michael Rogin combined the insights of Marxism and Freudian psychoanalysis to generate work now considered canonical to American studies and cultural studies (though he himself was critical of that set of approaches; see Dean's essay in this Handbook). Rogin (1987) pressed for the centrality of race, class, property, and the unconscious to the study of American politics (on race, see also Mills 1997). Liberal theory's assumptions about power and individualism were criticized or bypassed from still other perspectives through the 1970S, 1980s, and 1990S, a fecund period during which political theorists had a wide range of approaches and languages from which to choose in pursuit of their work. In France, social theorists writing in the 1970S (in the aftermath of May 1968) included, most famously, Michel Foucault, whose re-theorization of power had a powerful influence on generations of American theorists. In Germany, a discursive account of politics developed by Jiirgen Habermas (for example, 1989, first published in German 1962) captured the imaginations of a generation of critical theorists committed to developing normative standards through which to assess the claims of liberal democratic states to legitimacy. The 19705 Italian Autonomia movement inspired new Gramscian and Foucaultian reflections on equality, politics, violence, and state power (Virno 2004). For much of this period, feminism defined itself almost as an opposite ofliberalism, drawing inspiration initially from Marxism, later from psychoanalytic theories of difference, and developing its own critique of the abstract individual. In Canada and at Oxford, Charles Taylor (1975) was INTRODUCTION 17 thinking about politics through a rereading of Hegel that stressed the importance of community to political autonomy, influencing Michael Sandel (1982) and many subsequent theorists of multiculturalism. Deleuze and Guattari combined post-structuralism and psychoanalyisis into a series of difficult ruminations on the spatial metaphors that organize our thinking at the ontological level about politics, nature, and life (1977; see also Patton in this volume). Ranging from Freudian to Lacanian approaches, psychoanalysis has provided political theorists with a perspective from which to examine the politics of mass society, race and gender inequalities, and personal and political identity (Butler 1993; Laclau 2006; Zizek 2001; Irigara 1985; Zerilli 1994; Glass in this volume). 2.2 Liberal Egalitarianism As the above suggests, alternatives to liberalism continue to proliferate, and yet, in many areas ofpolitical theory, liberalism has become the dominant position. Marxism has continued to inform debates on exploitation and equality, but in a shift that has been widely replayed through the last twenty-five years, reinvented itself to give more normative and analytic weight to the individual 1986; Cohen 1995, 2000). There has been a particularly sign(Roemer ＱＹＸｾ＠ ificant convergence, therefore, in the debates around equality, with socialists unexpectedly preoccupied with questions of individual responsibility and desert, liberals representing equality rather than liberty as the «(sovereign virtue" (Dworkin 2000), and the two combining to make liberal egalitarianism almost the only remaining tradition of egalitarianism. One intriguing outcome is the literature on basic income or basic endowment, which all individuals would receive from government to facilitate their participation in an otherwise liberal society (van Parijs 1995; Ackerman and Alstott 1999). For generations, liberalism had been taken to task for what was said to be its «formar' understanding of equality: its tendency to think that there were no particular resource implications attached to human equality. In the wa).<e of Rawls's "difference principle" (see Arneson in this volume) or Dworkin's "equality of resources" (see Williams in this volume), this now seems a singularly inappropriate complaint. At the beginning of the 19805, Amartya Sen posed a question that was to frame much of the literature on distributive justice through the next decade: equality of what? This generated a multiplicity 18 JOHN S. DRYZEK, BONNIE HONIG &; INTRODUCTION ANNE PHILLIPS of answers, ranging through welfare, resources, capabilities (Sen's preferred candidate), to the more cumbersome "equality of opportunity for welfare," and "equality of access to advantage."5 None of the answers could be dismissed as representing a merely formal understanding of equality, but all engaged with key liberal themes of individuality and responsibility. The subsequent explosion of liberal egalitarianism can be read as a radicalization of the liberal tradition. But the convergence between what were once distinctively liberal and socialist takes on equality can also be seen as demonstrating the new dominance ofliberal theory. Much of the literature on equality is nowresolute1y individualist in form, running its arguments through thought experiments designed to tease out our intuitions of equality, and illustrating with stories of differently endowed individuals, exhibiting different degrees of aspiration and effort, whose entitlements we are then asked to assess. It is not always clear what purchase this discourse of individual variation (with a cast of characters including opera singers, wine buffs, surfers, and fishermen) has on the larger inequalities of the contemporary world. "What," as Elizabeth Anderson has asked, "has happened to the concerns of the politically oppressed? What about inequalities of race, gender, class, and caste?" (Anderson 1999,288). In the course of the 1990S, a number of theorists voiced concern about the way issues of redistribution were being displaced by issues of recognition, casting matters of economic inequality into the shade (Fraser 1997; also Markell and Squires in this volume). There is considerable truth to this observation, but it would 'be misleading to say that no one now writes about economic inequality. There is, on the contrary, a large literature (and a useful web site. The Equality Exchange 6 ) dealing with these issues. The more telling point is that the egalitarian literature has become increasingly focused around questions of individual responsibility, opportunity, and endowment, thus less engaged with social structures of inequality, and less easily distinguishable from liberalism. 2.3 Communitarianism One central axis of contention in the 1980S was what came to be known as the liberal-communitarian debate (for an overview, see Mulhall and Swift 1996). , Keycontributions to this debate include Sen (1980, 1992); Dworkin (1981, 2000); Arneson (1989); and G. A. Cohen (1989). 6 http: flaran.univ·pau.fr/eefindex.html 19 Communitarians like Michael Sandel (1982), influenced by both Arendt and Taylor, argued that in stressing abstract individuals and their rights as the building blocks for political theory, liberalism missed the importance of the community that creates individuals as they actually exist. For communitarians, individuals are always embedded in a network of social relationships, never the social isolates that liberalism assumes, and they have obligations to the community, not just to the political arrangements that facilitate their own interests. This opposition between the liberal's stripped-down, rights-bearing individual and the communitarian's socially-embedded bearer of obligations seemed, for a period, the debate in political philosophy. But voices soon made themselves heard arguing that this was a storm in a teacup, a debate within liberalism rather than between liberalism and its critics, the main question being the degree to which holistic notions of community are instrumental to the rights and freedoms that both sides in the debate prized (Taylor 1989; Waizer 1990; Galston 1991). Liberalism, it is said, was misrepresented. Its conception of the individual was never as atomistic, abstracted, or selfinterested, as its critics tried to suggest. 2.4 Feminism In the 1980s, feminists had mostly positioned themselves as critics of both schools. They shared much of the communitarian skepticism about disembedded individuals, and brought to this an even more compelling point about the abstract individual being disembodied, as if it made no difference whether "he" were female or male (Pateman 1988; also Gatens in this volume). But they also warned against the authoritarian potential in holistic notions of community, and the way these could be wielded against women (e.g. Frazer and Lacey 1993). Growing numbers challenged impartialist conceptions of justice, arguing for a contextual ethics that recognizes the responsibilities individuals have for one another andlor the differences in our social location (Gilligan 1982; Young 1990; Mendus in this volume). Still others warned against treating the language of justice and rights as irredeemably masculine, and failing, as a result, to defend the rights of women (0 kin 1989). As the above suggests, feminism remained a highly diverse body of thought through the 1980s and 1990S; but to the extent that there was a consensus, it was largely critical of the liberal tradition, which was represented as overly 20 INTRODUCTION JOHN S. DRYZEK, BONN lE HONIG & ANNE PHILLIPS individualistic, wedded to a strong public/private divide, and insufficiently alert to gender issues. There has since been a discernible softening in this critique, and this seems to reflect a growing conviction that liberalism is not as dependent on the socially isolated self as had been suggested. Nussbaum (1999: 62) argues that liberal individualism "does not entail either egoism or normative self-sufficiency;" and while feminists writing on autonomy have developed their own distinctive understanding of {(relational autonomy:' many now explicitly repudiate the picture of mainstream liberal theory as ignoring the social nature of the self (see essays in MacKenzie and Stoljar 2000). Some of the earlier feminist critiques overstated the points of difference with liberalism, misrepresenting the individual at the heart of the tradition as more self-contained, self-interested, and self-centered than was necessarily the case. But it also seems that liberalism made some important adjustments and in the process met at least part of the feminist critique. It would be churlish to complain of this (when you criticize a tradition, you presumably hope it will mend its ways), but one is left, once again, with a sense of a tradition mopping up its erstwhile opponents. Some forms of feminism are committed to a radical politics of sexual difference that it is hard to imagine liberalism ever wanting or claiming (see Zerilli in this volume). But many brands of feminism that were once critical of liberalism have made peace with the liberal tradition. 2.5 Democracy and Critical Theory In the literature on citizenship and democracy, liberalism has faced a number of critical challenges, but here, too, some of the vigor of that challenge seems to have dispersed. Republicanism predates liberalism by two thousand years (see Nelson in this volume), and emphasises active citizenship, civic virtue, and the pursuit of public values, not the private interests associated more with the liberal tradition. Republicanism enjoyed a significant revival through the 1980s and 1990S as one of the main alternatives to liberal democracy (Sunstein 1990 ; Petth 1997); indeed, it looked, for a time, as if it might substitute for socialism as the alternative to the liberal tradition. Nowadays, ･ｶｾ＠ the republican Richard Dagger (2004: 175) allows that "a republican pohty must be able to count on a commitment to principles generally associated with liberalism, such as tolerance, fair play, and respect for the 21 rights of others;" this is not, in other words, a total alternative. Deliberative democracy also emerged in the early 1990S as a challenge to established liberal models that regarded politics as the aggregation of preferences defined mostly in a private realm 0. Cohen 1989). For deliberative democrats, reflection upon preferences in a public forum was central; and again, it looked as though this would require innovative thinking about alternative institutional arrangements that would take democracies beyond the standard liberal repertoire (Dryzek 1990). By the late 1990S, however, the very institutions that deliberative democrats had once criticized became widely seen as the natural home for deliberation, with an emphasis on courts and legislatures. Prominent liberals such as Rawls (1997, 771-2) proclaimed themselves deliberative democrats, and while Bohman (1998) celebrates this transformation as "the coming of age of deliberative democracy," it also seems like another swallowing up of critical alternatives. The recent history of critical theory-and more specifically, the work of Jiirgen Habermas-is exemplary in this respect. Critical theory's ancestry extends back via the Frankfurt School to Marx:. In the hands of Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno (1972; first published 1947) in particular, critique was directed at dominant forms of instrumental rationality that defined modern society. Habermas rescued this critique from a potential dead end by showing that a communicative conception of rationality could underwrite a more congenial political order and associated emancipatory projects. Habermas's theory of the state was originally that of a monolith under sway of instrumental reason in the service of capitalism, which had to be resisted. Yet come the 1990S, Habermas (1996) had redefined himself as a constitutionalist stressing the role of rights in establishing the conditions for open discourse in the public sphere, whose democratic task was to influence political institutions that could come straight from a liberal democratic textbook (see Scheuerman in this volume). 2.6 Green Political Theory Green political theory began in the 19705, generating creative proposals for ecologically defensible alternatives to liberal capitalism. The center of gravity was left-libertarianism verging on eco-anarchism (Bookchin 1982), although (at least in the 1970S) some more Hobbesian and authoritarian voices were 22 TOHN S. DRYZEK, BONNIE HONIG &: ANNE PHILUPS raised (Ophuls 1977). All could agree that liberal individualism and capitalist economic growth were antithetical to any sustainable political ecology. In his chapter, Meyer charts the progress of "post-exuberant" ecological political theory, characterized by engagement with liberalism. Not all green theory has moved in this direction. For example, Bennett and Chaloupka (1993) work more in the traditions of Thoreau and Foucault, while Plumwood (2002) draws on radical ecology and feminism to criticize the dualisms and anthropocentric rationalism of liberalism. 2.7 Post-structuralism Post-structuralism is often seen as merely critical rather than constructive. This mistaken impression comes from a focus on the intersections between post-structuralist theory and liberal theory. Some post-structuralist theorists seek to supplement rather than supplant liberalism, to correct its excesses, or even to give it a conscience that, in the opinion of many, it too often seems to lack. Hence Patton's suggestion (in this volume) that the distance between post -structuralist and liberal political theory may not be as unbridgcable as is commonly conceived. And some versions ofliberal theory are more likely to be embraced or explored by post-structuralists than others: Isaiah Berlin, Richard Flathman, Jeremy Waldron, and Stuart Hampshire are all liberals whose work has been attended to in some detail by post-structuralist thinkers. But post -structuralists have also developed alternative models of politics and ethics not directly addressed to liberal theory. One way to canvas those is with reference to the varying grand narratives on offer from this side of the field. Post-structuralism is often defined as intrinsically hostile to any sort of grand narrative, a claim attributed to Tean-Francois Lyotard (1984). This claim is belied by a great deal of work in the field that does not so much reject grand narrative as reimagine and reiterate it (Bennett 2002). Post-structuralists do reject foundational meta-narratives: those that present themselves as transcendentally true, for which nature or history has an intrinsic purpose, or that entail a two-world metaphysic. Those post-structuralists who do use metanarratives tend to see themselves as writing in the tradition of social contract theorists like Hobbes, whose political arguments are animated by imaginary or speculative claims about the origins and trajectories of social life. Post-structuralists, however, are careful to represent their post-metaphysical INTRODUCTION 23 views as an "onto-story whose persuasiveness is always at issue and can never be fully disentangled from an interpretation of present historical circumstances" (White 2000,10-11; see also Ueleuze and Guattari 1977). What post -structuralists try to do without is not the origin story by means of which political theory has always motivated its readers, nor the wagers by way ofwhich it offers hope. Rather, post-structuralists seek to do without the ends or guarantees (such as faith, or progress, or virtue) which have enabled some enviable achievements (such as the broadening of human rights), but in the name of which cruelties have also been committed (in the so-called ('developing" world, or in the West against non-believers and non-conformistS)J These' ends or guarantees have sometimes enabled political theorists to evade full responsibility for the conclusions they seek, by claiming the goals or values in question are called for by some extra-human source, like god or nature. 3 POLITICAL THEORY AND THE GLOBAL TURN Liberalism has demonstrated an almost unprecedented capacity for absorbing its competitors, aided by the collapse of its rival, Marxism, but also by its own virtuosity in reinventing itself and incorporating key elements from opposing traditions. Yet this is not a triumphalist liberalism, of the kind proclaimed in Fukuyama's (1989) "end of history," which celebrated the victory of liberal capitalism in the real-world competition of politicaleconomic models. The paradox is that liberalism's absorption of some of its competitors has been accompanied by increasing anxiety about the way Western liberalism illegitimately centers itself. The much discussed shift in the work of Rawls is one classic illustration of this, for while the Rawls of A Theory of Justice (1971) seemed to be setting out "the» principles of justice that would be acceptable to any rational individual in any social context, the Rawls of Political Liberalism (1993) stressed the reasonableness of a variety of "'comprehensive doctrines," including those that could be non-liberal, and the Rawls of The Law of Peoples (1999) encouraged us to recognize the 7 On the role of progress in India, see Mehta (L999). On the fate of non-conformists in Rawls, for example, see Honig (1993). 24 JOHN S. DRYZEK, BONNIE HONlG & ANNE PHILLlPS "decency" of hierarchical, non-liberal societies that are nonetheless wellordered and respect a certain minimum of human rights. Having won over many erstwhile critics in the metropolitan centres, liberals now more readily acknowledge that there are significant traditions of thought beyond those that helped form Western liberalism. They acknowledge, moreover, that the grounds for rejecting these other traditions are more slippery than previously conceived. The critique of "foundationalism" (for example, Rorty 1989) used to arouse heated debate among political theorists. Many were incensed at the suggestion that their claims about universal justice, equality, or human rights had no independent grounding, and accused the skeptics of abandoning normative political theory (see, for example, Benhabib et al. 1995). In the course of the 19905, however, antifoundationalism moved from being a contested minority position to something more like the consensus. Post-structuralist critiques of foundationalism led to liberalism's late twentieth-century announcement that it is "postfoundational" (Rawls 1993; Habermas 1996)-although with no fundamental rethinking of the key commitments of liberal theory. In the wake, however, of Rawls and Habermas disavowing metaphysical support for their (clearly normative) projects, Western political theorists have increasingly acknowledged the historical contingency of their own schools of thought; and this is . generating some small increase in interest in alternative traditions. The awareness of these traditions does not, of itself, signal a crisis of confidence in liberal principles (arch anti-foundationalist, Richard Rorty, certainly has no trouble declaring himself a liberal), but it does mean that political theory now grapples more extensively with questions of moral universalism and cultural or religious difference (e.g. Euben 1999; Parekh 2000; Honig 2001). The explosion of writing on multiculturalism-largely from the 1990s-is particularly telling here. Multiculturalism is, by definition, concerned with the multiplicity of cultures: it deals with what may be radical differences in values, belief-systems, and practices, and has been especially preoccupied with the rights, if any, of non-liberal groups in liberal societies. The "problem" arises because liberalism is not the only doctrine on offer, and yet the way the problem is ｦｲ｡ｭ･､ｾｳ＠ a question of toleration, or the rights of minorities, or whether groups as well as individuals can hold rights-remains quintessentially liberal. Will Kymlicka (1995) famously defended group rights for threatened cultural communities on the grounds that a secure cultural context is necessary to individual autonomy, such that the very importance liberals attach to individual autonomy requires them to support multicultural INTRODUCTION 25 policies. His version of liberal multiculturalism has been widely criticized (see Spinner-Halev and Kukathas in this volume); and many continue to see liberalism as at odds with multiculturalism (for example, Okin 1998, 2002; Barry 2001). But in analyzing the "problem" of multiculturalism through the paradigm of liberalism, Kymlicka very much exemplifies the field of debate. Liberalism simultaneously makes itself the defining tradition and notices the awkwardness in this. Its very dominance then seems to spawn an increasing awareness of traditions other than itself. It is not entirely clear why this has happened now (liberalism, after ali, has been around for many years) but that useful shorthand, globalization, must provide at least part of the explanation. It is difficult to sustain a belief in liberalism as the only tradition, or in secularism as the norm, when the majority of the world's population is patently unconvinced by either (Gray 1995,1998). And although political theorists have drawn heavily on the liberal tradition in their explorations of human rights or global justice, the very topics they address require them to think about the specificity of Western political thought. Political theory now roams more widely than in the past, pondering accusations of ethno-centricity, questioning the significance of national borders, engaging in what one might almost term a denationalization of political theory. That description is an overstatement, for even in addressing explicitly global issues, political theory draws on concepts that are national in origin, and the assumptions written into them often linger into their more global phase. Terms like nation or state are not going to disappear from the vocabulary of political theory-but the kinds of shift Chris Brown (in this volume) discerns from international to global conceptions of justice are being played out in many corners of contemporary political thought. It is hard to predict how this will develop, although the combination of a dominant liberalism with a concern that Western liberalism may have illegitimately centered itself looks unstable, and it seems probable that pockets of resistance and new alternatives to liberalism will therefore gain strength in future years. It seems certain that moves to re frame political theory in a more self-consciously global context will gather pace. This is already evident in the literature on equality, democracy, and social justice, where there is increasing attention to both international and global dimensions. It is also becoming evident in new ways of theorizing religion. Religion has been discussed so far in political theory mainly in the context of the "problem" of religious toleration, with little attention to the internal structure of religious beliefs. But other dimensions are now emerging, including new ways of understanding 26 JOHN S. DRYZEK. BONNIE HONIG & ANNE PH[LLIPS the politics of secularism, and closer examination of the normative arguments developed within different religions. It seems likely that new developments in science (particularly those associated with bio-genetics) will provide political theorists with difficult challenges in the coming decade, especially as regards our understanding of the boundaries between public and private, and the prospects for equality. And while the prospect of a more participatory or deliberative democracy remains elusive, we can perhaps anticipate an increasing focus on the role of pleasure and passion in political activism. It is harder to predict what will happen in the continuing battle to incorporate issues of gender and race into mainstream political theory. The contributors to this Handbook include people who have played significant roles in the development of feminist political theory, but it is notable that few have chosen to make feminism andlor gender central to their essays. The optimistic take on this is that gender is no longer a distinct and separate topic. but now a central component in political thought. The more pessimistic take is suggested in the final comment of Linda Zerilli's chapter: that the attempt to think politics outside an exclusively gender-centered frame may end up reproducing the blind spots associated with the earlier canon of political thought. The likely developments as regards race are also unclear. We can anticipate that racial inequality will continue to figure in important ways in discussions of affirmative action or political representation. but the explosion of work on multiculturalism has focused more on culture or ethnicity, and political theory has not engaged in a thoroughgoing way with the legacies of colonialism or slavery. The essays in this Handbook suggest, however, that important new developments are under way. 4 POLITICAL THEORY AND POLITICAL SCIENCE: CURRENT TRAJECTORIES We noted earlier the sometimes difficult relationship between political theory and the rest of political science. We return to this here, but more with a view to areas of cooperation. In addition to its interdisciplinary locations, political theory has a place in the standard contemporary line-up of sub-fields in political science, alongside comparative politics, international relations. INTRODUCTION 27 public policy, and the politics of one's own country. Here and there, methodology, public administration, political psychology, and public law might be added; and truly adventurous departments may stretch to political economy and environmental politics. All these sub-fields have a theoretical edge that potentially connects with the preoccupations of political theory. These connections confirm the importance of political theory to the rest of political science. International relations has a well-defined sub-sub-field of international relations (IR) theory, and we have noted that this is defined largely in terms of the three grand positions of realism, constructivism, and liberalism. Confusingly, liberalism in IR is not quite the same as liberalism in political theory. In IR theory, liberalism refers to the idea that actors can co-operate and build international institutions for the sake of mutual gains; it is therefore linked to a relatively hopeful view of the international system. Realism, in contrast, assumes that states maximize security in an anarchy where violent conflict is an ever-present possibility. Constructivism points to the degree to which actors. interests, norms, and systems are social constructions that can change over time and place. Each of these provides plenty of scope for engagement with political theory-even if these possibilities are not always realized. Despite its differences, IR liberalism connects with the liberalism of political theory in their shared Lockean view of how governing arrangements can be established, and when it comes to specifying principles for the construction of just and legitimate international institutions. Realism is explicitly grounded in the political theory of Thomas Hobbes, interpreting the international system in Hobbesian "state of nature" terms. Thucydides has also been an important if contestable resource for realism (Monoson and Loriaux 1998). Constructivism has been represented (for example, by Price and ReusSmit 1998) as consistent with Habermasian critical theory. As Scheuerman (this volume) points out, critical theory has reciprocated, in that it now sees the international system as the crucial testing ground for its democratic prescriptions. Normative theory is currently flourishing in international relations, and many of the resources for this are provided by political theory (Cochran 1999), with postmodernists, Rawlsian liberals, feminists, and critical theorists making particularly important contributions. 8 8 See, for example, Pogge (2.002.), Lynch (1999). Connolly (1991). der Derian (ZOO1), Elshtain (z003). Walker (1993), Rawls (1999), and Habermas (ZOOla, 2001b). 28 INTRODUCTION JOHN S. DRYZElC, BONNIE HONlG 8t ANNE PHILLlPS The connections between comparative politics and political theory are harder to summarize because many of the practitioners of the former are area specialists with only a limited interest in theory. Those comparativists who use either large-n quantitative studies or small-n comparative case studies are often more interested in simple explanatory theory, one source of which is rational choice theory. But there are also points of engagement with political theory as understood in this Handbook. The comparative study of social movements and their relationships with the state has drawn upon the idea of the public sphere in democratic political theory, and vice versa. Accounts of the role of the state in political development have drawn upon liberal constitutionalist political theory. More critical accounts of the state in developing societies have drawn upon Marxist theory. In the last two decades democratization has been an important theme in comparative politics, and this work ought to have benefited from a dialogue with democratic theory. Unfortunately this has not happened. Studies of democratization generally work with a minimalist account of democracy in terms of competitive elections, developed in the 1940S by Joseph Schumpeter (1942), ignoring the subsequent sixty years of democratic theory. Recent work on race and diaspara studies in a comparative context is perhaps a more promising site of connection, invoking Tocqueville (see also Bourdieu and Wacquant 1999; Hanchard 2003). And theorists working on multiculturalism and race have been especially attentive to comparative politics questions about the variety of governmental forms and their interaction with cultural difference (Carens 2000; Kymlicka 2001; Taylor 1994; Gilroy 2000). Methodology might seem the sub-field least likely to engage with political theory, and if methodology is thought of in terms of quantitative techniques alone, that might well be true. However, methodology is also home to reflection on what particular sorts of methods can do. Here, political theorists are in an especially good position to mediate between the philosophy of social science on the one hand, and particular methods on the other. Taylor (1979) and Ball (1987) point to the inevitable moment of interpretation in the application of all social science methods, questioning the positivist selfimage of many of those who deploy quantitative methods. The interdisciplinarity that characterizes so much political theory provides especially fruitful material for methodological reflection. Public policy is at the "applied" end of political science, but its focus on the relationship between disciplinary knowledge and political practice invites contribution from political theory; and many political theorists see 29 themselves as clarifying the normative principles that underpin policy proposals. From Rawls and Dworkin onwards, work on principles of justice and equality has carried definite policy implications regarding taxation, public expenditure on health, the treatment of those with disabilities, and so on. While it has rarely been possible to translate the theories into specific recommendations (Dworkin's hypothetical insurance market and Amartya Sen's theory of capabilities are often said to be especially disappointing in this respect), they are undoubtedly directed at public policy. Normative reasoning applied to public policy largely defines the content of Philosophy and Public Affairs, though this reasoning involves moral philosophy as much as or more than political theory.9 Political theorists working on questions of democracy and representation have also drawn direct policy conclusions regarding the nature of electoral systems or the use of gender quotas to modify patterns of representation (Phillips 1995). Policy evaluation and design are important parts of the public policy subfield, and both require normative criteria to provide standards by which to evaluate actual or potential policies. Again, political theory is well placed to illuminate such criteria and how one might think about handling conflicts between them (for example, when efficiency and justice appear to point in different directions). It is also well placed to explore the discourse aspects of public policy, an aspect that has been an especial interest of the Theory, Policy, and Society group of the American Political Science Association. Among the linkages this group develops are those between deliberative democratic theory and policy analysis, between the logic of political argument and interventions by analysts and advocates in policy processes, and between interpretive philosophy of social science and policy evaluation (Hajer and Wagenaar 2003). Cutting across all the sub-fields of political science in recent decades has been rational choice theory, grounded in microeconomic assumptions about the wellsprings of individual behavior. Indeed, to some of its practitioners, rational choice is what should truly be described as political theory. For these practitioners, rational choice theory is "positive" political theory, value free, and geared toward explanation, not prescription. This claim does "not hold up: as explanatory theory, rational choice theory is increasingly regarded as a failure (Green and Shapiro 1994). But many believe that it is very useful nevertheless. Game theory, for example, can clarify what rationality is in 9 See the compilations of Co hen, Nagel, and Scanion (1974a, 1974b, 1977); also Goodin (1982). 30 JOHN S. DRYZEK, BONNIE HONlG Se ANNE PHILLIPS particular situations (Johnson 1991), thereby illuminating one of the perennial questions in political theory. And despite the frequent description of rational choice theory as value free, it has provided for plenty of normative theorizing among its practitioners. Arch-positivist Riker (1982b) deploys Arrow's social choice theory to argue that democracy is inherently unstable and meaningless in the outcomes it produces, and uses this to back a normative argument on behalf of a minimal liberal democracy that allows corrupt or incompetent rules to be voted out-but nothing more. The conclusions of rational choice theory are often bad news for democracy (Barry and Hardin 1982); but it is possible to reinterpret this edifice in terms of critical theory, as showing what would happen if everyone behaved according to microeconomic assumptions. The political challenge then becomes one of how to curb this destructive behavioral proclivity (Dryzek 1992). There are many other connections between rational choice theory and political theory, exploratory as well as critical; we only touch on them in this Handbook because they will be more extensively reviewed in The Oxford Handbook of Political Economy, also in this series. Leading comparativist Ba Rothstein (2005) has expressed the worry that the empirical arm of the discipline has lost its moral compass. To use his running example, its «technically competent barbarians" would have no defense against lining up in support of a political force like Nazism, should that be expedient. Rothstein himself sees the remedy in political theory: (The good news is that, unlike other disciplines, I think we have the solution within our own field of research. This, I believe, lies in reconnecting the normative side of the discipline-that is, political philosophy-with the positive/empirical side" (2005, 10). Despite the likelihood of some resistance to this from both sides of the divide, the examples discussed above suggest that such connection (or reconnection) is indeed possible. 5 ORGANIZATION OF THE HANDBOOK We turn now to the way we have organized this Handbook. Part Il, "Contemporary Currents," assesses the impact, and considers the likely future trajectory, ofliterature that proved especially influential in framing debate through lNTRODUCTION 31 the last decades of the twentieth century and opening years of the twenty-first. The selection is not, of course, meant to sum up what political theory has been about over that period: if it did that, there would be little need for the remaining essays in the Handbook. We have included three figures-Rawls, Habermas, and Foucault-whose work has so shaped the field that it became possible for a time to label (although somewhat misleadingly) other political theorists by their adherence to one of the three. We have also included three thematic styles of theory-feminism, pluralism, and linguistic approaches-that have sought (successfully or not) to refocus debate in a different direction. The theorists and themes addressed in this section are ones that have particularly marked out this moment in political theory, and the chapters assess their continuing influence. Part Ill, ((The Legacy of the Past:' focuses on historical work in political thought. As James Farr notes in his chapter, the history of political thought has been a staple of university instruction since the end of the nineteenth century, long recognized as a branch of political theory. But the role and object of historical inquiry has been much debated in recent decades, and the idea that one should search the classical texts for answers to the perennial problems of political life has been subjected to especially searching critique. Some theorists have been happy to jettison any study of historical traditions, regarding it as a merely antiquarian exercise. But the greater attention now given to context-to what can and cannot be thought at any given period in history-has also enabled radically new readings of political thought. The essays in this section can give only a taste of the wealth of scholarship in this field, and have been selected with an eye to that continuing discussion about the legacy of the past and its relationship with the present. They include a met a-level discussion of the relationship between political theory and the discipline of history; a disciplinary history of the history of political thought; and essays on a number of historical traditions that have been subject to significant re-evaluation and reinterpretation in the recent literature. Questions of context are spatial as well as temporal, for even the most abstract of political theories cannot transcend its location, and the issues with which theorists become preoccupied reflect the histories and concerns of the worlds in which they live. The chapters in Part IV, «Political Theory in the World," make matters of location more explicit. They explore differences, misconceptions, and mutual influences between Western and non-Western political traditions, with the latter represented here by Confucianism and Islam, and look at how ideas of America on the one hand and Europe on the 32 JOHN S. DRYZEK, BONNIE HONIG & ANNE PHILLIPS other enter into and shape ideas of democracy, representation, and nation. This section should be understood as a gesture, but just that, towards decentering what has come to be known as Anglo-American theory. This Handbook of political theory is published in Oxford and written in the English language, but one modest objective, nonetheless, is to highlight the specificity of all work in political theory, and the way the questions addressed reflect particular histories and locations. The chapters in Part V, "State and People," combine historical analysis of the shifting understandings of state and people with normative explorations of democracy, constitutionalism, and representation. As the essays indicate, the last decades have been a time of very considerable innovation. For much of the twentieth century, democracy was conceptualized as a matter of universal suffrage (sometimes quaintly equated with one man one vote), competitive party elections, and the rule of law. The outstanding problems were not thought to be theoretical, but centered on how to spread this conception more widely; and much of the work on democracy (often comparative, or dealing with the conditions for democratization) was carried out by political scientists rather than theorists. This picture has since changed radically, with a complex of concerns about the nature and limits of constitutionalism, the exclusions practised under the name of democracy, and the possibilities of wider and deeper practices of popular controL As reflects the breadth of these debates, this is one of the largest sections in the Handbook. Part Vl, "Justice, Equality, and Freedom," evokes the combination of concerns that runs through the work of John Rawls, Ronald Dworkin, and the liberal egalitarian tradition: the idea, for example, that justice is a matter of treating people as equals rather than treating them equally; or that egalitarians must recognize individuals as responsible agents, accountable for their own choices. The chapters in this section reflect that legacy, but also problematize it by reference to arguments drawn from the feminist literature and work on recognition. They include essays on the relationship between equality and impartiality, and the relationship between treating people as equals and recognizing them as different; and address the questions about individual responsibility that became central to the literature on justice and equality through the last decades. The literature on historical injustice goes back further, but has drawn new sustenance from debates on reparations for slavery and the treatment of indigenous peoples. INTRODUCTION 33 Part VII, "Pluralism, Multiculturalism, and Nationalism," reflects areas of debate that have proved particularly fruitful over the last thirty years. As noted earlier in our introduction, it also reflects explorations of the implications and/or limits of the liberal tradition. The literature on multiculturalism has its precursor in a sociological literature on cultural pluralism, but as normative political theory dates from the 19805. Theoretical work on toleration or the right of nations to self-determination is not, of course, new. But the recent synthesis of liberalism with nationalism is more unexpected, as is the reframing of long-established liberal principles of toleration to take account of issues of identity as well as belief. This last point is part of what unites the chapters in this section. All engage with arguments that have been central to the liberal tradition, but in relation to the new questions that arise when people make claims on the basis of identity. The authors reach very different conclusions-including, at its most heretical, that the pursuit of justice may not be such a compelling concern. Part VIII, "Claims in a Global Context;' takes this from the national to the global level. It explores the debates that have developed between seemingly universal discourses of secularism or human rights and more relativist emphases on cultural difference; examines the connection between multicultural and post-colonial theory; and considers the challenges globalization presents to current conceptions of justice. Although justice has been at the heart of recent debates in normative political theory, the dominant conceptions have been very state-centered-and often very Western state-centered. The chapters in this section consider what happens in the move from national to global-and what theoretical possibilities become available if the center of gravity shifts from the Western to non-Western world. Part IX, "The Body Politic," takes what has long been employed as a metaphor for the political community at its face (or bodily) value, and uses it to engage with new areas of theoretical debate. These include the way the body itselfhas been politicized in the theoretical literature, including in the literature on selfownership; and the way the social "body" has been politicized, as in the discussion of crises and paranoia. A number of the chapters in this ｳｾ｣ｴｩｯｮ＠ begin with changes in the social world: the impact of global migration, for example, and the way this alters our understanding of the individual subject; the development of new medical technologies, and the dilemmas these present about organ transplants or genetic engineering; the developments in surveillance technology combined with radical changes in the relation between the sexes, and the challenge this poses to our understanding of the 34 INTRODUCTION JOHN S. DRYZEK, BONNIE HONlG & ANNE PHILLIPS relationship between public and private space. This reconceptualizing of the political space owes much to the influence of feminism, as do a number of the essays themselves. We have argued in our introduction that political theory is something of a mongrel sub-discipline, made up of many traditions, approaches, and styles of thought, and increasingly characterized by its borrowing from feminist and critical theory, film theory, popular culture, mass media, behavioral science, and economics. These tendencies will be evident throughout the chapters in the Handbook, but are most directly addressed in Part X, "Testing the Boundaries." Here, we include essays that set political theory in dialogue with work in cultural studies, political economy, social theory, and the envirorunent. The current academy confronts two opposing trends. One draws the boundaries of each discipline ever more tightly, sometimes as part of a bid for higher status, sometimes in the (not totaUy implausible) belief that this is the route to deeper and more systematic knowledge. Another looks to the serendipitous inspirations that can come through cross-disciplinary and interdisciplinary work; or more simply and modestly, realizes that there may be much to learn from other areas of study. It is hard to predict which of these will win out-and most likely, both will continue in uneasy combination for many years to come. The essays in this section reflect the importance we attach to the second trend. All the Handbooks in this series end with what is perhaps unhappily termed the "Old and New" section. In this case, it provides the opportunity for two highly influential but very different political theorists-Arlene Saxonhouse and William ConnoUy-to reflect on their experiences and perceptions of theory as it has changed, developed, improved, and/or worsened in the course of their careers. Where other contributors were asked to weave their own distinctive take on a topic into essays that would also work as overviews ofthe sub-field, our last contributors were encouraged to write from a more personal angle. 6 CONCLUSION Ours is not the first or only handbook of political theory. We believe this Oxford Handbook is distinctive in its exploration of political theory's edges as well as its several cores, its global emphasis, and its contemplation of the 35 challenges that contemporary social and technological change present to the field. Political theory is a lively, pluralistic. and contested field. and we invite readers to construct their own summary interpretations and embark on their own imaginative theorizing by sampling the wide variety of options on the palette that follows. REFERENCES ACKERMAN, B., and ALSTOTT, A. 1999. The Stakeholder Society. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. AGAMBEN, G. 1998. Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life, trans. D. HellerRoazen. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. AL THUSSER, 1. 1969. For Marx. London: Allen Lane. - - and BALIBAR, E. 1970. Reading Capital. London: Verso. ANDERSON, E. 1999. What is the point of equality? Ethics, 109: 287-337. ARENDT, H. 1958. The Human Condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. - - 1959. Reflections on Little Rock. Dissent, 6(1): 45-56. - - 1963. On Revolution. New York: Viking Press. - - 1969. Crises of the Republic. New York Harcourt. ARNESON, R. J. 1989. Equality and equal opportunity for welfare. Philosophical Studies, 56: 77-93· ASHCRAPT, R. 1989. Political theory and the problem of ideology. Journal of Politics, 42: 687-705· BALIBAR, E. 2004. We the People of Europe? Reflections on Transnational Citizenship, trans. J. Swenson. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. - - and W ALLERSTEIN, I. 1991. Race, Nation, Class: Ambiguous Identities. New York: Verso. BALL, T. 1987. Deadly hermeneutics: or Sinn and the social scientist. Pp. 95-112 in Idioms of Inquiry: Critique and Renewal in Political Science, ed. T. Ball. Albany: State University of New York Press. BARRY, B. 1964. Political Argument. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. - - 1995. Justice as Impartiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. - - 2001. Culture and Equality: An Egalitarian Critique of Multiculturalism. Cambridge: Polity. - - and HARDIN, R. (eds.) 1982. Rational Man and Irrational Society? Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage. BENHABIB, S.• BUTLER, J., CORNELL, D., and FRASER, N. 1995. Feminist Contentions: A Philosophical Exchange. New York: Routledge. BENNETT, J. 2002. The moraline drift. In The Politics of Moralizing, ed. J. Bennett and M. Shapiro. New York: Routledge. 36 TOHN S. DRYZEK, BONN(E HONIG & ANN'£ PHILLrPS - - and CHALOUPKA, W. (eds.) 1993. In the Nature of Things: Language, Politics and the Environment. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. BERLIN, 1. 1969. Four Essays on Liberty. Oxford: Oxford University Press. BOHMAN', J. 1998. The coming of age of deliberative democracy. Journal of Political Philosophy, 6: 399-423. BOOKCHIN, M. 1982. The Ecology of Freedom. Palo Alto, Calif.: Cheshire. BOURDIEU, P. and WACQANT, L. 1999. On the cunning of imperialist reason. Theory, Culture and Society, 16: 41-58. BUCHANAN, J. and TULLOCK, G. 1962. The CalcuLus of Consent. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. BUTLER, J. 1993. Bodies that Matter: On the Discursive Limits of "Sex." New York: Routledge. CARENS, J. 2000. Culture, Citizenship and Community: A Contextual Exploration of Justice as Evenhandedness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. COCHRAN, M. 1999. Normative Theory in International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. COHEN, G. A. 1978. Karl Marx's Theory of History: A Defence. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. - - 1989. On the currency of egalitarian justice. Ethics, 99: 906-44. - - 1995. Self-Ownership, Freedom and Equality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. - - 2000. If You're An Egalitarian, How Come You're So Rich? Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. COHEN, J. 1989. Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. Pp. 1.7-34 in The Good Polity: Normative Analysis of the State, ed. A. Hamlin and P. Pettit. Ox:ford; Basil Blackwell. COHE-N, M., NAGEL, T., and SCANLON, T. M. (eds.) 1974a. War and Moral Responsibility. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. - - - - - - 1974b. The Rights and Wrongs of Abortion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. - - - - - - 1977. Equality and Preferential Treatment. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. CONNOLLY, W. 1974. The Terms of Political Discourse. Lexington, Mass.: Heath. - - 1991. Democracy and territoriality. Millennium, 20: 463-84. DAGGER, R. 2004. Communitarianism and republicanism. Pp. 167-79 in Handbook of Political Theory, ed. G. F. Gaus and C. Kukathas. London: Sage. DELEUZE, G. and GUATTARI, F. 1977. Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. New York: Viking Press. DER DERIAN, J. 2001. Virtuous War: Mapping the Military-Industrial-MediaEntertainment Network. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. DERRIDA, J. 2000. Of Hospitality: Anne Dufourmantelle Invites Jacques Derrida to Respond, trans. R. Bowlby. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. DRYZEK, J. S. 1990. Discursive Democracy: Politics, Policy, and Political Science. New York: Cambridge University Press. INTRODUCTroN 37 _ _ 199 2 • How far is it from Virginia and Rochester to Frankfurt? Public choice as critical theory. British Journal of Political Science, 22: 397-417. DUNN, J. 2000. The Cunning of Unreason: Making Sense of Politics. New York: HarperCollins. . DWORKIN, R. 1968. On not prosecuting civil disobedience. New York ReVlew of Books, 10 (10 June). . . _ _ 1977. Taking Rights Seriously. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Umverslty Press. _ _ 1981. What is equality? Part 1: equality of welfare; Part II: equality of resources. . Philosophy and Public Affairs, 10 (3-4): 185-2 4 6 ; 283-345· _ _ 2000. Sovereign Virtue: The Theory and Practice of Equality. Cambndge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. ELSHTAIN, J. B. 2003. lust War against Terror: The Burden of American Power in a Violent World. New York: Basic Books. EUBEN, R. 1999. Enemy in the Mirror: Islamic Fundamentalism and the Limits of Modern Rationalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. FLATl-IMAN, R. 1992. Wilful Liberalism: Voluntarism and Individuality in Political Theory and Practice. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. . FOUCAULT, M. 1979. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Przson. New York: Vintage. .. . " . ." . FRASER, N. 1997. Justice Interruptus: Cnttcal Reflectwns on the PostsOCzallst Condition. New York: Routledge. FRAZER, E. and LACEY, N. 1993. The Politics of Community: A Feminist Critique of the Liberal-Communitarian Debate. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester. FUKUYAMA, F. 1989. The end of history? National Interest, Summer: 3-18 . GALSTON, W. 1991. Liberal Purposes: Goods, Virtues, and Diversity in the Liberal State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. GAUTHIER, D. 1986. Morals by Agreement. Oxford: Clarendon Press. GILLIGAN, C. 1982. In a Different Voice. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University ｐｲｾｳＮ＠ GILROY, P. 2000. Against Race: Imagining Political Culture Beyond the Color Lme. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press... ", GOODIN, R. E. 1982. Political Theory and Public Policy. Chicago: UniVerSIty of ChIcago Press. GRAY, J. 1995. Enlightenment's Wake. London: Routledge . ' _ _ 199 8. Endgames: Questions in Late Modern Political Thought. Cambndge: Poltty Press. GREEN, D. P. and SHAPIRO, L 1994. Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory: A Critique of Applications in Political Science. New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univers.ity Press; . , GUNNELL, J. G. 19 86 . Between Philosophy and Politics: The Alienatwn of Polttlcal Theory. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. HABERMAS, J. 1989. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, trans. T. Burger. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. . HABERMAS, J. 1996. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Dtscourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. _ _ 200la. The Postnational Constellation: Political Essays. Cambridge, Mass.: MlT Press. 38 JOHN S. DRYZEK, BONNIE HONIG & Why Europe needs a constitution. New Left Review, 11: 5-26. HATER, M. and WAGENAAR, H. (eds.) 2003. Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. HANCHARD, M. 2003· Acts of misrecognition: transnational black politics, antiimperialism and the ethnocentrisms of Pierre Bourdieu and Lolc Wacquant. Theory, Culture and Society, 20: 5-29. HARTsocK, N. 1983. Money, Sex and Power: Towards a Feminist Historical Materialism. New York: Longman. HARTZ, L. 1955. The Liberal Tradition in America. New York: Harcourt, Brace. HAYEK, F. A. VON 1960. The Constitution of Liberty. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. HONIG, B. 1993- Political Theory and the Displacement of Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. - - 2001. Democracy and the Foreigner. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. HORKHEIMER, M. and ADORNO, T. 1972. Dialectic of Enlightenment. New York: Herder and Herder. IRIGARAY, L. 1985. Speculum of the Other Woman, trans. G. C. Gill. Ithaca, NY: Cornel! University Press. ISAAc, J. C. 1995. The strange silence of political theory. Political Theory, 23: 636-52. JOHNSON, J. 1991. Rational choice as a re constructive theory. In The Economic Approach to Politics, ed F. Monroe. New York: HarperCollins. KATEB, G. 1992. The Inner Ocean: Individualism and Democratic Culture. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. KYMLICKA, W. 1995. Multicultural Citizenship. Oxford: Oxford University Press. - - 2001. Politics in the Vernacular: Nationalism, Multiculturalism, and Citizenship. Oxford: Oxford University Press. LACLAU, E. 2006. The Populist Reason. London: Verso. LASLETT, P. 1956. Introduction. In Philosophy, Politics and Society, ed P. LasIett. Oxford: Basil BlackwelL LASSWEI.L, H. D. 1961. Politics: Who Gets What, When and How. Cleveland, Ohio: World. LUKES, S. 1995. The Curious Enlightenment of Professor Caritat. London: Verso. LYNCH, C. 1999. Beyond Appeasement: Interpreting Interwar Peace Movements in World Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. LYONS, O. 1992. Exiled in the Land of the Free: Democracy, Indian Nations, and the US Constitution. Santa Fe, N. Mex: Clear Light. LYOTARD, J. F. 1984. The Postmodern Conditiotl: A Report on Knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. ｍａｾｋｅｎｚｉＬ＠ C. and STOLJAR, N. (eds.) 2000. Relational Autonomy: Feminist PerspectIves on Autonomy, Agency and the Social Self Oxford: Oxford University Press. McLELLAN, D. 1970. Marx Before Marxism. London: Macmillan. MARCUSE, H. 1964. One-Dimensional Man. Boston: Beacon Press. MARSHALL, G., SWIFT, A., and ROBERTs, S. 1997. Against the Odds? Social Class and Social Justice in Industrial Societies. Oxford: Clarendon Press. - - 200lb. INTRODUCTION ANNE PHILLIPS 39 MEflTA, U. S. 1999. Liberalism and Empire: A Study in Nineteenth-Century LiberaL Thought. Chicago; University of Chicago Press. MILLS, C. W. 1997. The Racial Contract.lthaca, NY: Cornell University Press. MONO SON, S. S. and LORIAUX, M. 1998. The illusion of power and the disruption of moral norms: Thucydides' critique of Periclean policy. American Political Science Review, 92: 285-97· MONROE, K. R. (ed.) 2005· Perestroika! The Raucous Rebellion in Political Science. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. MULHALL, S. and SWIFT, A. 1996. Liberals and Communitarians, 2nd edn. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. NOZICK, R. 1974. Anarchy, State and Utopia. New York: Basic Books. NUSSBAUM, M. 1999. The feminist critique of liberalism. Pp. 55-80 in Sex and Social Justice, ed. M. Nussbaum. Oxford: Oxford University Press. OAKESHOTT, M. 1962. Rationalism in Politics and Other Essays. London: Methuen. OKIN, S. M. 1989. Justice, Gender and the Family. New York: Basic Books. - - 1998. Feminism and multiculturalism: some tensions. Ethics, 108: 661-84. - - 2002. "Mistresses of their own destiny:" group rights, gender, and realistic rights of exit. Ethics, 112: 205-30. OPHULS, W. 1977. Ecology and the Politics of Scarcity. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman. PAREKH, B. 2000. Rethinking Multiculturalism: Cultural Diversity and Political Theory. London: Palgrave. PATEMAN, C. 1988. The Sexual Contract. Cambridge: Polity Press. PETTIT, P. 1997. Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press. PHILLIPS, A. 1995. The Politics of Presence: The Political Representation of Gender, Ethnicity, and Race. Oxford: Oxford University Press. PITKIN, H. 1966. Obligation and consent n. American Political Science Review, 60: 39-52. PLUMWOOD, V. 2002. Environmental Culture: The Ecological Crisis of Reason. New York: Routledge. POGGE, T. W. 2002. World Poverty and Human Rights: Cosmopolitan Responsibilities and Reforms. MaIden, Mass.: Basil Blackwell. POPPER, K. R. 1957. The Poverty of Historicism. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. PRICE, R. and REUS-SMIT, C. 1998. Dangerous liaisons? Critical international theory and constructivism. European Journal of International Relations, 4: 259-94· RANCIERE, J. 1999. Dis-agreement, trans. J. Rose. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. - - 1989. Nights of Labor: The Workers' Dream in 19th Century France, trans. J. Drury. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. RAWLS, J. 1969. The justification of civil disobedience. Pp. 240-55 in Civil Disobedience: Theory and Practice, ed. H. A. Bedau. New York: Pegasus. - - 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. - - 1993. Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press. 40 JOHN S. DRYZBK, BONNIE HONIG &; ANNE INTRODUCTION PHILLIPS - - 1997. The idea of public reason revisited. University of Chicago Law Review, 94: 765-807. - - 1999. The Law of Peoples. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. RIKER, W. H. 1982a. The two-party system and Duverger's Law: an essay on the history of political science. American Political Science Review, 76: 753-66. - - 1982b. Liberalism Against Populism: A Confrontation Between the Theory of Democracy and the Theory of Social Choice. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman. ROEMER, J. E. 1982. A General Theory of Exploitation and Class. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. - - (ed.) 1986. Analytical Marxism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ROGIN, M. 1987. Ronald Reagan the Movie and Other Episodes in Political Demonology. Berkeley: University of California Press. RORTY, R. 1983- Postmodern bourgeois liberalism. Journal of Philosophy, 80: 538-89. - - 1989. Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ROTHSTEIN. B. 2005. Is political science producing technically competent barbarians? European Political Science, 4(1): 3-13. SAND EL, M. 1982. Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. SCANLON) T. M. 1998. What l-Ve Owe to Each Other. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. SCHAAR, J. 1970. The Berkeley rebellion and beyond. In Essays on Politics and Education in the Technological Society, ed. J. Schaar and S. Wolin. New York: Vintage. SCHMITT, C. 1985. Political Theology: Four Chapters 011 the Concept of Sovereignty, trans. G. Schwab. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. SCHUMPETER, J. A. 1942. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York: Harper. SEN, A. 1980. Equality of what? In Tanner Lectures on Human Values, ed. S. McMurrin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. SEN, A. 1992. Inequality Re-Examined. Oxford: Oxford University Press. SHKLAR, J. 1964. Legalism. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. SKINNER, Q. 1998. Liberty Before Liberalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. STRAUSS, L. 1953. Natural Right and History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. SUNSTEIN, C. R. 1990. After the Rights Revolution. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. - - 1993. The Partial Constitution. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. TAYLOR, C. 1975. Hegel. New York: Cambridge University Press. - - 1979- Interpretation and the sciences of man. In Intelpretive Social Science: A Reader, ed. P. Rabinow and W. M. Bullivan. Berkeley: University of California Press. - - 1989. Cross-purposes: the liberal-communitarian debate. Pp. 159-82 in Liberalism and the Moral Life, ed. N. Rosenblum. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. - - 1994. The politics of recognition. In Multiculturalism and "The Politics of Recognition", ed. A. Gutmann. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 41 TULLY, J. 1995. Strange Multiplicity: Constitutionalism in an Age of Diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. _ _ 2002. The unfreedom of the modems in relation to the ideals of constitutional democracy. Modern Law Review, 65(2): 204-28. VAN PARITS, P. 1995· Real Freedom for All: What (If Anything) Can Justify Capitalism? Oxford: Oxford University Press. VIRNO, P. 2004. A Grammar of the Multitude. Cambridge. Mass.: Semiotext(e). WALDRON, J. 1993. Liberal Rights: Collected Papers 1981-1991. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. WALKER, R. B. J. 1993. Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. WALZER, M. 1967. The obligation to disobey. Ethics, 77: 163-75· _ _ 1970 . Obligations: Essays on Disobedience, War, and Citizenship. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. _ _ 1990. The communitarian critique of liberalism. Political Theory, 18: 6-23· WHITE, S. 2000. Sustaining Affirmation: The Strengths of Weak Ontology in Political Theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. WOLFF, R. P., MOORE, B., Jr., and MARcusE, H. 1965. Repressive Tolerance. Boston: Beacon Press. WOLIN, S. 1960. Politics and Vision. Boston: Litde, Brown. _ _ 19 6 9. Political theory as a vocation. American Political Science Review, 63: 1062-82. YOUNG. L M. 1990. Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ZERILLI. L. 1994. Signifying Woman: Culture and Chaos in Rousseau, Burke and Mill. Ithaca, NJ: Cornell University Press. ZIZEK, S. 2001. Did Somebody Say Totalitarianism? Five Interventions into the (Mis)use of a Notion. New York: Verso. CHAPTER 37 POLITICIZING THE BODY: PROPERTY, CONTRACT, AND RIGHTS MOIRA GATENS 1 BODY AS METAPHOR The human body has long been used as a source of metaphor for political theorists. The very notion of a "body politic" leans on the image of a unified and discrete entity that has commanding parts and obeying parts, that may be robust or ailing, strong or weak. One of the better known depictions of "the body political" in early modern political thought appears in Hobbes' Leviathan (1991), where he describes the sovereign in terms of a gargantuan "artificial man" whose body parts correspond to the various functions of government (see Leviathan, Introduction). Foucault drew attention to the central but problematic role of the body as metaphor in modern and 678 MOIRA GATENS contemporary political thought when he asserted that political theorists have yet to cut off the king's head (Foucault ＱＹＷＸｾ＠ 88-9)· Foucault's point is that theory lags behind history insofar as law and right continue to be caught up in the image of the power of a sovereign will commanding the body politic. Rather, the operation of contemporary relations of power "is not ensured by right but by technique, not by law but by normalization, not by punishment but by control" (Foucault 1978, 89). This view of power and politics involves a shift in metaphor from a unified and autonomous sovereign body to one based on complex networks of power relations characterized by decentralized, multiple, and dynamic connections. Foucault's influence on contemporary political thought may be figured in terms of a turn towards a contextual and materialist "history of bodies," in contrast to a shifting "history of ideas" about "natural bodies" and ((natural law." On his view, human bodies as well as political bodies are themselves mutable historical entities (Foucault 1978, 152). I will return to this notion below. As well as having supplied political theory with a rich source of metaphor, the human body also serves as the nexus where political conceptions of the "universal" and the "particular" meet. When grasped as part of nature, and so presumed to be governed by natural law, the human body is conceived as the basis for a universal conception of humanity and for those rights that all bear by nature. All share basic bodily needs-for water, food, shelter-and all are vulnerable-to violence, illness, or death. As Hobbes put it, in the absence of polity, '(the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongesf' and so all live in fear (Hobbes 1991, ch. 13). Guaranteed, if limited, political rights are preferable to unenforceable natural rights and so reason bids us to seek protection through enforceable covenants or contracts. Universal natural rights are thus transformed into particular historical and political rights whose precise form will vary from polity to polity, along with the attempts made by political theorists to justify them. For example, Hobbes' account of covenant, and the necessity for the absolute authority of the sovereign, do not square with Locke's account of the social contract as a limited device to protect the property that all should, but do not, enjoy by natural right. At the same time that the body underpins universalism it is also the site and support for the moral uniqueness of each particular individual, insofar as the experience of the needs, desires, and vulnerabilities of individuals are irreducibly "private." Cultural mores and traditions ensure that the "privacy" of individual experience is nevertheless imbued with specific local meanings that function to bind each individual to a particular community or polity. As Ignatieff has argued, "it is not the naked body we share in common, but the POLITICIZING THE BODY: PROPERTY, CONTRACT, AND RIGHTS 679 astoundingly different ways in which we decorate, adorn, perfume, and women, costume our bodies in order to proclaim our identities as ｭ･ｮｾ＠ members of this tribe or that community" (Ignatieff 2000, 41). In this way, the culturally and historically specific body is figured as the ground of difference as well as identity, of particularity as well as universality. "Humanity" is an abstraction, whereas individuals are always members of some particular group. Throughout the modern period, at least in the West, citizenship increasingly has become the means through which both the abstract rights of the individual and the need (to belong" to some particular group that recognizes such rights, are brought together. Different cultures (along with different religions) will conceptualize and distribute social and political burdens and entitlements to their members in a variety of ways. In this chapter the main focus is on the way in which these issues have been conceived in the West. (But see Sen (1997) for an account of some similarities and differences between "East" and ((West" in relation to conceptions of rights and responsibilities.) 2 BODY AND "PROPERTY-IN-PERSON" A distinctive element in the history of early modern Western views is to conceive of (at least certain kinds of) human beings as possessors of natural rights, including the right to their own persons (understood by some to be equivalent to self-ownership). It is the possession of these rights that entitle individuals to enter a social contract in which largely ineffectual (because unenforceable) natural rights are exchanged for, or transformed into, protected political rights. Locke's theory oe(property in the person" provides one such influential account. Locke's commitment to a Christian world-view is crucial to understanding his views on the moral status of human beings, along with the inborn capacity for reason (see Waldron 2002). Without rationality, people would be unable to discern the natural law that, ultimately, grounds political rights and social justice. Although Locke includes under the general term "property," an individual's "life, liberty and estate" (see Locke 19 67, Second Treatise, ch. 9), it is the narrower notion of "property in the person" that underpins this more general term. In chapter 5 of the same text he writes: (Though all the earth and all inferior creatures be common to all men, yet 680 MOIRA GATENS every man has a property in his own person; this nobody has any right to but himself." From this natural title to one's own person flow rights to freedom, to possessions and, with the invention of money, the right to accumulate wealth. The admixture of an individual's labor with nature transforms what was held in common into private property, thereby "exclud[ing] the common right of other men." The invention of money allows the extension of legitimate proprietorship to "the grass my horse has bit" and "the turfs my servant has cut" (Locke 1967, ch. 5, § 27, 28). Although God gave the world to all men in common, extensive proprietorship is thus reserved for "the industrious and rational" (Locke 1967, ch. 5). As Section 3 will show, some theorists take Locke's account of property to have had dire consequences for those whose capacities for "industry" or reason were deemed inferior or absent. In contemporary political theory, various schools of thought have taken Locke's notion of "property in the person" in quite different directions. The otherwise opposed approaches of libertarianism and Marxism both base their arguments about legitimate and illegitimate entitlements to property on distinctive interpretations of Lockean self-ownership. Nozick, for example, finds justification for his libertarian principles of justice in Locke's theory of property (Nozick 1974). Marxist accounts of the injustice of exploitative wage-labor derive from the idea that the worker "owns" his capacity to transform nature through labor and so should be entitled to the products of that labor. In Nozick's case, Locke's theory of property is used to argue against the redistribution of social goods because this would involve the theft of what rightly belongs to those who have produced them. In the Marxist case, only the socialization of (non-human) property can prevent the exploitation and alienation of the wage-laborer who, in a capitalist economy, owns nothing but the capacity to labor. More recently, G. A. Cohen has drawn attention to the problems associated with the very idea of self-ownership, and the role it plays in contemporary capitalist societies. He argues that, if the values of equality and freedom are to be realized, we need to move beyond the idea of self-ownership. Instead, we need to develop a new ethos of «mutual service" amongst citizens in the economy as well as in political relations (Cohen 1995). Although the details of these contemporary debates cannot be treated adequately in this chapter, 1 the issue of property in the person will reappear in a different context in the following section. See Will Kymlicka (2002., chs. 4 and 5) for a very clear and comprehensive account of the complex role of Lockean notions of property in both libertarian and Marxist accounts. 1 POLrTICIZING THE BODY: PROPERTY, CONTRACT, AND RIGHTS 681 C. B. Macpherson has pointed out that "Locke's deduction starts with the . individual and moves out to society and the state" (Macpherson 1962, 269). On his view, the "possessive individualism" of early modern liberal political thought failed to take any account of the social conditions and relations necessary in order for such conceptions to appear plausible. 2 Part of the problem is that Locke, and his contemporaries, paid little attention to the ways in which the rights and property of "possessive individuals" depended on the subordination of certain others (women, the propertyless, the colonized, the enslaved). The very coherence of the notion of owning one's "person," arguably, depended upon the existence of others who were politically constituted as the property of someone other than his or her own "person:' Distinctions between individuals-of sex, race, class, age, ability, and the like-pose a series of problems for the modern conception of the freely contracting individual. Who may enter the contract? How are rights and obligations to be distributed across the political body? Who is to count as a person? Are all "status" identities to be abrogated in favor of the modern "abstract individual" and "contract?" 3 BODY AS SOURCE OF "STATUS:" THE "SOMATIC NORM" Many feminists have argued that Western political theory is imbued with a masculine bias insofar as the notion of the "individual" implies a norm that favors white, propertied, Western men (see, for example, Young 1990; Phillips 1993; Benhabib 2003). But cross-cultural work shows that even in relation to those who have been marginalized by Western political theory (for example, Third World peoples, indigenous groups), the pattern of a privileged ｭ｡ｳ｣ｾﾭ line norm that excludes women is repeated within these groups. So the universal category, "individual," is not only particularized from culture to culture, but intracultural designations also construct some bodies as 2 Admittedly, Macpherson's views on modern political thought have been widely disputed. See, for example, Tully (1993). However, his general argument about "property in the person" has had a marked influence on Pateman's conception of property in the person (see Section 3). 682 MOIRA GATENS "naturally" subordinate or inferior: for example "women" as opposed to "men". The category "person" suffers from related problems. For example, English law did not recognize all human individuals as "persons." The law of coverture meant that women did not count as "persons" at law. These exclusions are important to the issue of property in the person because of the pivotal role that notion has played in grounding rights claims and in the formation of juridical and other institutions. It is only those who enjoy legally and politically sanctioned rights over their "persons" who are entitled to freedom. In Sir Henry Maine's famous words, the modern period inaugurated a new "movement from status to contract" (Maine 1917, 100). But did it? For those bodies that fell outside the norm the response to this question must be equivocal. The abstract individual, assumed by modern contractual society, is not a posture that all may easily adopt (Gatens 1991, 34-47). Sexual and racial distinctions-widely perceived as differences in naturaL kinds-appear to be status identities that function to predetermine one's place in the polity. In The Racial Contract, Charles Mills (1997) has employed the apposite term "somatic norm" to convey the way in which bodies may be normalized, excluded (or included as different, but inferior), within racist, sexist, and colonial contexts. Mills builds on Carole Pateman's work in The Sexual Contract (1988). In this work Pateman argues that the main institutional ties of modern civil societies, namely, citizenship, employment, and marriage, "are constituted through contract" (Pateman 1988, 180). She reads Locke's quarrel with Sir Robert Filmer over whether patriarchal rule is conventional or natural in a novel and provocative way. Locke's defeat of Filmer's "natural" (or divinely ordained) patriarchalism, she argues, should not be taken as the definitive defeat of patriarchy itself. Rather, the "sons" defeated the "fathers," thereby instituting modern patriarchy, which is fraternal in form. The social contract, which is supposed to theorize the advent of modern civil societies, tells only part of the story. Modern contractual society, Pateman argues, cannot be understood until the sexual contract is exposed as the necessary underside of the fraternal social contract. The sexual contract provides one missing part of the story and exposes the dependence of modern political and civil society on the subordination of women as wives and mothers in the private sphere. Her thesis puts under scrutiny terms central to modern political theory: "property in the person," the "individual," "freedom," and "contract" are each subjected to a rigorous analysis. The importance of The Sexual Contract, for present purposes, lies with its proffered critique POLITICIZING THE BODY: PROPERTY, CONTRACT, AND RIGHTS of the notion of property in the person and its putative role in securing the freedom of the "modern" individual. Pateman acknowledges the important work of previous socialist and feminist political theorists, as well as the paradoxical nature of socialist and feminist demands for rights. In the modern period such rights, unavoidably, are based in the questionable notion of self-ownership that is, in turn, often associated with autonomy. How are women or workers to struggle against their subordination without arguing for the right to the "possession" and control of their bodies and capacities (Pateman 1988, 13)? However, the endorsement of the modern "political fiction" of property in the person is to the ultimate detriment of women and workers. In spite of Locke's claim, property in the person does not and cannot underpin the freedom of the individual. Rather, this political fiction is what makes possible specifically modern, contractual forms of subjection: "[clontract always generates political right in the form of relations of domination and subordination" (Pateman 1988,8). As she repeatedly stresses, contract in its modern form typically is an exchange of obedience in return for protection (Pateman 1988, 61-2,1378). The worker is subjected to the capitalist through the wage contract and women are subjected to men through the marriage contract. 3 There is a further crucial feminist dimension to Pateman's account. The fiction of property in the person, she maintains, was never intended to be applicable to women. Women's equivocal inclusion in civil society is not through citizenship or labor contracts but rather through the marriage contract which constructs her as "civilly dead:' that is, as deprived of the legal status of "person." Although the "natural" powers of the father over the sons historically gave way to conventional relations between brothers in the fraternal polity, the power of men over women and the family retained its supposed foundation in nature. Unlike men, women are incorporated into civil society not as "persons," or individuals, but as women (Pateman 1988, 181). Women's bodies lack the necessary features of the abstract individual and so women cannot enter civil society on the same footing as men. Thus, the sexual contract becomes the device through which women's bodies, and their capacities, become politicized. Ironically, this politicization is achieved 3 According to Pateman, modern contractarianism "displaces" the sexual contract onto the marriage contract. "Only the marriage contract-the contract into which women must enter. women who lack the standing of owners-includes the explicit commitment to obey. If the promise of universal freedom heralded by the story of an original contract is not to appear fraudulent from the start. women must take part in contract in the new civil order" (Pateman 1988, 181). 684 MOTRA GAT ENS through the "naturalization" of women's subjection to men. On the early modern contractarian view, women are constructed as being ('naturally deficient in a specific political capacity, the capacity to create and maintain political right" (Pateman 1988, 96). The politicized female body-paradoxically politically constituted as part of nature; paradoxically included in and excluded from civil society-is neither self-owned nor capable of providing the basis for women's freedom to contract on equal terms with men. Although Pateman does not conclude that sexual difference is therefore a status distinction that contractual society is impotent to transform, the point stands that sexual difference remains problematic from the perspective of contemporary conceptions of self-ownership that were considered in Section 2. Why should the history ofconceptions otcrights," "persons," and "contract" matter to contemporary political theory? Women are no longer denied the status of persons at law, so why should past ideas and institutional arrangements be of interest apart from their value to the history of ideas? Pateman argues that inattention to the historical contexts in which certain political conceptions took hold can blunt the critical edge of contemporary political theorizing. Cohen's critique of self-ownership, for example, is ineffective against contractarianism because he fails to note the difference between the concepts of ('property in the person" and "self-ownership." An adequate critique of libertarianism (or contractarianism) requires attending to the conceptual, legal, and moral distinctions between self-ownership and property in the person. Two of the major institutions of contemporary contractual society-employment and marriage-C<developed in tandem" and crucially depended on the "political fiction" of property in the person for their development (Pateman 2002, 32-4). As Pateman writes: "When the individual is conceived as an owner of property in the person, rights are seen in proprietary terms. The major mark of private property is that it is alienable, so it is legitimate to alienate the right to self-government, at least in the (private' sphere of economic enterprises" (Pateman 2002, 49). Contractarianism thus creates relationships where the fiction of property in the person allows the illusion that a person's capacities and skills can be separated from the "person." The ability to labor, in other words, is falsely conceived as able to be "hired out" without compromise to the integrity of the individual. On Pateman's view, contemporary debates over self-ownership have been highjacked by moral philosophy with the result that such debates fail to note the political problem posed by contemporary marital and economic relations, namely that the "marriage market" and the labor market are markets in POLITICIZING THE BODY; PROPERTY, CONTRACT, AND RIGHTS 685 property in the person. These markets, which deal in the "renting of persons," are incompatible with a genuinely egalitarian and democratic understanding .of the third major social institution: citizenship. The fiction of property in the person, along with the alienability of proprietorial rights, is what allows relationships of domination and subordination, in the "private" spheres of family and employment, to appear legitimate. On this view, attending to the concept of property in the person, and its historical and institutional vicissitudes, exposes why contractarian society is incompatible with democratic citizenship. Like Pateman, Mills insists on the continuing relevance of past political constructions of bodies that were marked as «different:' Reworking Pateman's argument on the sexual contract, he states that the racial contract is a contract between whites for the global subordination of non-whites. The modern political story of freedom, contract, and consent is not a story for, or about, those whom it racialized as inferior. It is white men who leave the (hypothetical) state of nature and it is women and non-whites who (actually) come to be identified with nature, thus justifying their political subordination. In a manner that resonates with much feminist political critique, Mills argues that in the racialized polity non-whites are conceptualized as "carrying the state of nature around with them, incarnating wildness and wilderness in their person" (Mills 1997,87; emphasis original). Like the sexual contract, the racial contract depends on "a politics of the body:" "[t]here are bodies impolitic;' and such bodies "are judged incapable of forming or fully entering into a body politic" (Mills 1997, 53; emphasis original). Mills' account of the white male body as a "somatic norm," implicit in modern political theory, shows the dependence of the free abstract individual on excluded others in at least two senses. First, as Orlando Patterson's work suggests, the Western political conception of freedom derives from the phenomenon of slavery: conceived as subhuman "the slave establishes the norm for humans" (Mills 1997, 58; emphasis original). Second, the somatic norm allows the positing of race as a biological or natural category through its concealment of the sociopolitical construction of the norm. Put differently, "whiteness is not really a color at all but a set of power relations" (Mills 1997, 127). On MillS' account the racial contract does not subject only bodies to a norm but also space itself (Mills 1997, 41-3). Space and sex and race are "normalized" by white fraternal patriarchal bodies politic. The private sphere, colonized land, or civil society, are not neutral but politicized spaces that serve to confirm the status of the "impolitic" or "politic" bodies of those who occupy them. 686 MOIRA GA TENS It is significant that neither Paternan nor Mills see the abolition of sexual to lie ｾｩｴｨ＠ worn.en and racialized groups achieving and racial ､ｩｾ｣ｲｭｮ｡ｴｯ＠ self-ownershIp. For Paternan, thIS would mvolve the ultimate commodificati.on, alienation, and exploitation of all aspects of human life. As her critiCIsms of the prostitution and surrogacy contracts make clear, the freedom ｾｯ＠ contract in such contexts would socially entrench, and so further legitimIze, the destructive political fiction of property in the person (Pateman 1988, ch. 7). Both theorists gesture beyond conceiving persons in terms of property toward what they see as a more sustainable and equitable form of individuality that values autonomy conceived in terms other than selfownership. However, in contrast to Pateman, Mills does not see contract, as such, to be the central problem. On this point his thesis is closer to Susan Moller Okin's account of "gender" than to Pateman's account of sexual difference (Mills 1997,136-7, n. 9). Just as Okin envisions a future in which gender is irrelevant to social and political status (Okin 1989), Mills aims "to eliminate race ... altogether" (Mills 1997, 126-7). Again unlike Pateman's analysis of sexual difference, Mills understands the racial contract to be an historically contingent organization of bodies that could have been otherwise. Furthermore, his ((demystification" of the racial contract, which he presents as a kind of "ideologiekritik" (Mills 1997, 129), ultimately aims at the "voluntarization" of race (Mills 1997, 126-7). I will return to this issue in the following section. More recently, Nirmal Puwar has taken up the notion of the somatic norm to show how the specificity of raced and sexed embodiment constrains one's ability to occupy putatively "neutral" public space. Building on the work of both Pateman and Mills, she presents the body as a thoroughly politicized entity that may be both enabled and constrained through the social practices and public spaces that help constitute it. By analysing contemporary examples of "bodies out of place" (e.g. black bodies and women's bodies in parliament) Puwar shows "the ways in which bodies have been coupled with and decoupled from specific occupational spaces" (Puwar 2004, 78). Puwar's research casts new light on the issue of the universal and the particular. The particularity of the purportedly «(universal" body of the social contract theorists is put under the spotlight in a way that emphasizes the constructed privilege of the "unmarked" white male body and its ability to naturalize its exclusive right to be master of political spaces. POLITICIZING THE BODY: PROPERTY, CONTRACT, AND RIGHTS 4 6 87 BODY AND "AFFECT" ................................. ...................................................................................................................._.- ...................................... ｾ＠ It may be thought that the notion that the body is constructed, normalized, or "materialized" in different ways across history and culture introduces a kind of contingency into political praxis. If subjects are constructed and reconstructed acroSS space and time, what is to prevent a radical voluntarism with regard to political identities? If identity is understood to be contingently constructed, what is to prevent individuals from "choosing" new identities? Is it this notion of "choice" that underpins Mills' idea of "voluntarizing" race? When Okin advocates the abolition of gender is she suggesting that this could be achieved through choice? Are the historically and politically constituted privileges of "whiteness" or "maleness" able to be cast off by mere acts of will? This question forms the focus of recent work on the body, affect, and "micropolitics." If the Foucauldian approach to identity formation as an ongoing process that involves innumerable micropolitical power relations is granted, then work on and through the body, as a form of political praxis, seems viable, but such work cannot be reduced to a simple-minded voluntarism. Citing Nietzsche and Foucault as inspiration, William Connolly has stressed the ethical and political importance of micro political (as well as macropolitical) praxis through what he calls the "relational arts of the self" (Connolly 1999, 143-53). Although this «(art" cannot be reduced to mere acts of will, it is a political practice open to those prepared to cultivate their critical capacities and reflect on the means through which identity is constructed and reconstructed. Recommending an "ethos of engagement" with different others, characterized by "generosity and forbearance," Connolly endorses "[ w] orking on yourself in relation to the cultural differences through which you have acquired definition. Doing so to render yourself more open to responsive engagement with alternative faiths, sensualities, gender practices, ethnicities, and so on" (Connoliy 1999, 146). Connolly does not limit his analysis to intersubjective relations. He also notes the need to work on the intrasubjective, or the infrasensible self, arguing that the "cultivation of sensibility" is necessary if we are to alter the structure of habitual affects as well as the cognitive self (Connolly 2002, 129-37). Whether such practices are vulnerable to accusations of self-indulgence on the part of the politically privileged (Connolly argues they are not), or to 688 MOIRA GATENS criticism on the grounds of presenting an implausible political voluntarism, are live questions in the work of contemporary theorists of "body politics" (see, for example, Rothenberg 2000). One response is to point out that the contingency of the histories that have constructed present identities need not imply that such identities are therefore arbitrary. Furthermore, past historical contingencies may come to constitute present material necessities (an idea that should be familiar to theorists of both "path dependency" and "genealogical analysis"). This view of things, however, does not amount to the supposition that a Foucauldian approach to the materiality of power disallows human agency (Patton 1998). Rather, a Foucauldian approach may reveal those aspects of contemporary subjectivity that are unstable or aporetic thus providing possibilities for ethical and political experimentation and transformation. Such experimentation cannot be reduced to political voluntarism since it involves attentiveness to and careful genealogical analysis of the possibilities for change that are immanent to the "present." 5 BEYOND SELF-OWNERSHIP? INTERDEPENDENCE AND AUTONOMY In Sections 3 and 4 the notion of the historical, social, and political construction of certain kinds of body through power relations was considered. This contemporary micropolitical approach is far removed from the assumptions of the modern contractarian theorists where bodies, rights, and law were conceived in ahistorical, naturalistic terms. Human history does not float around bodies, temporarily covering them with the attire of this or that period; rather, the capacities, form, and very materiality of the human body are themselves historically configured. Yet, in these contemporary accounts, the body continues to play a liminal role in the articulation of the distinctions between particularity and universality; autonomy and dependence; and identity and difference. Arguably, however, contemporary "body politics" theory is better equipped to show how these distinctions need not lead to irresolvable paradox. One is neither simply an historical construction nor an ahistorical self-owning individual. Rather, one's autonomy, identity, and POLITICIZING THE BODY: PROPERTY, CONTRACT, AND RIGHTS 689 particularity are always inextricably bound up with specific historical, social, and political practices. Moreover, relations of interdependence are universal . (in the sense of being natural to the human condition). On this approach it is not a question of "either/or" (identity or difference) but rather of "and" (for example, conceiving of identity through difference, or of autonomy through interdependence). This view is particularly prevalent in much contemporary feminist political theory.4 An example of this type of approach is Martha Nussbaum's work on human capabilities that, while presenting a universalistic theory of human being and entitlement, nevertheless attempts to be attentive to the particular cultural contexts in which human beings invariably dwell. Nussbaum moves away from the association between autonomy and self-ownership characteristic of much contemporary political theory. Although there is debate over the ultimate success of the capabilities approach, and the claim that "certain human abilities exert a moral claim that they should be developed" (Nussbaum 2000, 83), one element of its exposition is especially pertinent here. The central human functional capabilities that Nussbaum lists (see Nussbaum 2000,78-9) are described as «combined capabilities:' A person's ability to labor, for example, is not understood as a "given" property of that person. Rather, each "internar capability (for example, to work, or to reason) of any human being always assumes the presence of appropriate "external" conditions for its realization (Nussbaum 2000, 84-5). And these external conditions will necessarily affect the particular way in which any given "internal" capability will be expressed or realized. Human capabilities are inevitably a combination of latent human capacities and specific economic, cultural, and political circumstances. For example, the capacity for autonomy, or self-determination, is dependent on appropriate social contexts, certain kinds of ongoing relations with others, and so on, if it is to be actualized and maintained. But this does not imply that each human capability will be realized in precisely the same way in all contexts. The particular realization of a universal human capability necessarily will be culturally specific. This is one consequence of closely tying the realization of the internal capabilities of an individual to the specificity of external conditions, which include that individual's cultural context. It also highlights the way in which any human power, ability, or capacity is necessarily relationally realized. Any given capacity of an individual 4 Many examples of this kind of feminist work in political theory come to mind. For example, Kittay (1999) on dependence and independence; Nedelsky (1993) on conceiving rights in relational terms; Friedman (2003) on relational autonomy; and Hirschmann (2002) on freedom. 690 MOIRA GATENS therefore-to labor, to create-cannot be viewed in terms of that individual's "personal property." I cannot claim "ownership" of my self or my capacities precisely because they require a social and cultural context before they can be developed or expressed. In spite of her preference for "capabilities talk" rather than the more contentious "rights talk," Nussbaum concedes that "the best way to think about rights is to see them as combined capabilities" (Nussbaum 2000,98; emphasis original). Although Nussbaum does not put it this way, her account may be viewed as a relational, embodied, and historically contextualized account of rights. Moreover, it is an account that shows why political theory needs to go beyond the notion of self-ownership. 6 RIGHTS AND CITIZENSHIP It was suggested in Section 1 that notions of the universal and the particular are increasingly brought together in contemporary political life through practices of citizenship. Rights are neither "natural entitlements" nor alienable bits of «personal property" but rather denote specific historical and cultural ways of regulating human interactions. Conceived in this manner, the notion of "human right" is not at odds with the materialist, historical, and embodied approach, outlined above. However, it does suggest that if any individual's "human rights" are to be secure then the rights of all individuals must also be secured. Human rights, to be effective, must be globally distributed. Some political theorists argue that the growing multidimensional (ecological, economic, political) interdependence of all the cultures and nations of the world, calls for a universal system of human rights to be underwritten by cosmopolitan governance (e.g. Held 2002). However, if this project is conceived in terms of the imposition of a fixed "list" of "universal rights" that must be implemented uniformly in every cultural and political context, then it will fail (Gatens 2004). Such a plan would directly contradict the previous analysis of the materiality of the body and the powers through which it is constituted in specific times and places. It acknowledges the ideal of achieving universal justice but fails to attend to the variety of contexts in which justice may be realized. Moreover, ideals of global justice run the risk of continuing a politics of Western cultural imperialism. POLITICIZING THE BODY: PROPERTY, CONTRACT, AND RIGHTS 691 Rather, political theory and praxis must acknowledge the ongoing and openended nature of negotiations between different historically constituted iden.tities and polities. For this reason, national or local practices of citizenship are likely to remain the crucial mechanisms through which rights are implemented (or struggled for). To suggest this is to acknowledge cultural difference as a deep, historical, and embodied difference rather than a superficial or merely "ideological" difference. There is another reason to exercise caution in relation to the idea of a fixed list of universal human rights implemented through "cosmopolitan citizenship" and regulated by global governance. Hannah Arendt's post-Second World War reflections on those bodies that fell outside the protection of any particular body politic provide sombre materials for considering the complex questions raised by the politics of "rights talk," self-ownership, and "the body" today. Universal human lights that have been "merely proclaimed" but not "politically secured" are of no use to a hwnan being once she has lost her polity and been reduced to a naked body (Arendt 1968,447)· Ironically, the most intensely politicized bodies are often those that are denied any secure specific political membership. Arendt's reflections on "the decline of the nation-state and the end of the rights of man" (Arendt 1968,267-302) act as a sharp reminder to political theorists not to lose sight of those actually existing human bodies that extant bodies politic treat differentially: exploiting, excluding, even destroying some, and an this, often enough, for the purported protection of those who are deemed "proper" citizens of "properly constituted" polities. As Benhabib reminds us: "No human is illegal" (Benhabib 2004, 221). To become a human being "in general" is "to belong to the human race in much the same way as animals belong to a specific animal species:" it is to be reduced, in other words, to a naked body (Arendt 1968,302). Such reduction involves "the loss of the entire social texture" into which all are born and which provides each with "a distinct place in the world" (Arendt 1968, 293; emphasis added). Being human is not (only) about being a member of a genotype or species; it is above all about membership in some particular culture, locatable in place and time. "The survivors of the extermination camps, the inmates of concentration and internment camps, and even the comparatively happy stateless people could see ... that the abstract nakedness of being nothing but human was their greatest danger" (Arendt 1968, 300; emphasis added). Citizenship, the right "to belong;' and stateless persons raise urgent questions for political theory today. In the absence of robust institutional 692 MOIRA GATENS embodiment, rights quickly reduce to "mere proclamations" and the citizen to "a naked human body." The critiques of the rights-bearing individual of contractarianism considered here offer a different vision of rights and their importance. Above all, rights create relationships between human beings. They manage and distribute human powers and capacities for action and for being acted upon. Understanding human being and human societies in relational terms draws attention not only to the complex and always particular ways in which we become human, but also to what we must do in order to preserve our humanity. REFERENCE ARENDT, H. 1968. The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: Harvest, Harcourt. BENHABIB, S. 2003. The Claims of Culture: Equality artd Diversity in the Global Era. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. - - 2004. The Rights of Others: Aliens, Residents and Citizens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. COHEN, G. A. 1995. Self-ownership, Freedom and Equality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CONNOLLY, W. 1999. Why I am not a Secularist. Minneapolis; University of Minnesota Press. - - 2002. Neuropolitics: Thinking, Culture, Speed. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. FOUCAULT, M. 1978. The History of Sexuality: Volume 1. London: Alien Lane. FRIEDMAN, M. 2003. Autonomy, Gender, Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. GATENS, M. 1991. Feminism and Philosophy: Perspectives on Difference and Equality. Cambridge: Polity Press. - - 2004. Can human rights accommodate women's rights? Towards an embodied account of social norms, social meaning, and cultural change. Contemporary Political Theory, 3 (3). HELD, D. 2002. Law of states, law of peoples. Legal Theory, 8: 1-44. HIRSHMANN, N. 2002. The Subject of Liberty: Towards a Feminist Theory of Freedom. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. HOBBES, T. 1991. Leviathan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. IGNA TIEPF, M. 2000. The Rights Revolution. Toronto: House of Anansi Press. KITTAY, E. 1999. Love's Labor: Essays on Women. Equality and Dependency. New York: Routledge. KYMLICKA, W. 2002. Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. POLITICIZING THE BODY: PROPERTY, CONTRACT, AND RIGHTS 693 LOCKE, J. 1967· Two Treatises of Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. MACPHERSON, C. B. 1962. The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism: Hobbes to Locke. Oxford: Oxford University Press. MAINE, H. 1917. Ancient Law. London: Dent and Sons. MILLS, C. 1997. The Racial Contract. Ithaca, NY: CorneD University Press. NEDELSKY, J. 1993. Reconceiving rights as relationship. Revue d'etudes constitutionnelles, 1: 1-26. NOZICK, R. 1974. Anarchy, State, and Utopia. New York: Basic Books. NUSSBAUM, M. 2000. Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. OK£N, S. M. 1989. Justice, Gender and the Family. New York: Basic Books. PATEMAN, C. 1988. The Sexual Contract. Cambridge: Polity Press. ｾＭ 2002. Self-ownership and property in the person: democratization and a tale of two concepts. Journal of Political Philosophy, 10: 20-53· PATTON, P. 1998. Foucault's subject of power. In The Later Foucault, ed. J. Moss. London: Sage. PHILLIPS, A. 1993. Democracy and Difference. Cambridge: Polity Press. Puw AR, N. 2004. Space Invaders: Race, Gender and Bodies out of Place. Oxford: Berg. ROTHENBERG, P. 2000. Invisible Privilege: A Memoir about Race, Class and Gender. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press. SEN, A. 1997. Human rights and Asian values. New Republic, 217: 33-40. TULL Y, J. 1993. An Approach to Political Philosophy: Locke in Contexts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. W ALDRON, J. 2002. God, Locke and Equality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. YOUNG, I. M. 1990. Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.