Introduction to Contemporary Political Theory
Publication Year: 2004
`This text provides an up to date account of how things currently stand in political philosophy, and will provide an excellent introduction for students from any background. It gives a lucid and careful account of the central controversies and sites of disagreement in political theory over the last thirty years and rather than sacrifice theoretical sophistication and nuance for the sake of clarity and accessibility, it admirably achieves both' - Catriona McKinnon, University of YorkThis comprehensive textbook provides a complete and accessible introduction to the main theorists and issues in contemporary political theory today. The text is organized into two major parts. The first, Contemporary Liberal Theory, outlines four distinct liberal theories of justice to introduce the work of Rawls, Nozick, Gauthier and Dworkin. The ...
- Front Matter
- Back Matter
- Subject Index
Part One: Contemporary Liberal Theory
- Chapter 1: Rawls and Justice as Fairness
- The Original Position
- Equal Opportunity
- Cohen's Egalitarian Critique
- The Principles That Apply to Individuals
- Who are the Least Advantaged?
- Beitz on Global Justice
- A Political Conception of Justice
- Chapter 2: Nozick and the Entitlement Theory of Justice
- The State: Is it Necessary?
- Wilt Chamberlain and the Entitlement Theory
- The Principle of Intial Acquisition
- The Principle of Rectification
- Conclusion: Self-Ownership and Private Property
- Chapter 3: Gauthier and Justice as Mutual Advantage
- Hobbes and the State of Nature
- Gauthier and the Compliance Problem
- What is a Rational Bargain?
- The Limits of Justice as Mutual Advantage
- Chapter 4: Dworkin on Equality
- Dworkin on Equality of Resources
- Welfare Reform and the Basic Income Proposal
- Political Equality and Democracy
- Against Luck Egalitarianism
Part Two: Alternative Traditions
- Chapter 5: Communitarianism
- Deontological Liberalism and the Unencumbered Self
- State Neutrality
- Walzer and Complex Equality
- Miller on Nationalism
- Chapter 6: Multiculturalism
- Introduction: The Politics of Recognition
- Kymlicka and the Rights of National Minorities
- Polyethnic Rights
- Barry against Multiculturalism
- Chapter 7: Deliberative Democracy
- Introduction: The Importance of Democracy
- Moving beyond the Aggregative Model of Democracy
- How Substantive are the Principles of Democracy?
- Retaining the Critical Edge of Deliberative Democracy
- Critically Assessing the Ideal of Deliberative Democracy
- Chapter 8: Feminism
- Liberal Feminism
- The Public/Private Dichotomy
- The Politics of Difference
© Colin Farrelly 2004
First published 2004
Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, this publication may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form, or by any means, only with the prior permission in writing of the publishers, or in the case of reprographic reproduction, in accordance with the terms of licences issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside those terms should be sent to the publishers.
SAGE Publications Ltd
6 Bonhill Street
London EC2A 4PU
SAGE Publications Inc.
2455 Teller Road
Thousand Oaks, California 91320
SAGE Publications India Pvt Ltd
B-42, Panchsheel Enclave
Post Box 4109
New Delhi 100 017
British Library Cataloguing in Publication data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN 0 7619 4907 0
ISBN 0 7619 4908 9 (pbk)
Library of Congress Control Number 2003110019
Typeset by C&M Digitals (P) Ltd., Chennai, India
Printed in Great Britain by TJ International, Padstow, Cornwall
[Page v]For Lori. Words cannot express my depth of gratitude.[Page vi]
Preface[Page ix]What is ‘Political Theory’?
I suppose the obvious place to begin a textbook entitled An Introduction to Contemporary Political Theory is to stipulate what I take to count as ‘contemporary’ and, more importantly, what counts as ‘political theory’. This is not as easy as it sounds. Let me begin with the second and more difficult of these two questions – that of defining what political theory is. I am hesitant to stipulate a concise, all-encompassing definition; any such definition is bound to alienate someone and thus result in the charge that my definition is not inclusive. There is no consensus among political theorists as to what, exactly, constitutes the discipline. When one surveys the journals in political theory and the books written by those who call themselves ‘political theorists’ one sees a variety of topics being addressed. These range from the history of political thought to analyses of political concepts like freedom, equality and democracy. Topics from such diverse traditions as feminism, socialism, anarchism and liberalism all fall under the general rubric of ‘political theory’. The fact that political theory is thriving as a discipline makes it all the more difficult to provide an inclusive definition of the discipline. The areas of enquiry that political theorists explore are constantly changing, and with this, our understanding of what qualifies as political theory.
However, having said that, I think it is accurate to say that what unites these diverse traditions under the rubric of ‘political theory’ is their concern for how we ought, collectively, to live together. More than forty years ago John Plamenatz described political theory as the ‘systematic thinking about the purposes of government’ (Plamenatz, 1960: 37) and I think this definition is just as apt today as it was then. I doubt a more inclusive definition could be constructed that would cover the vast array of concerns which contemporary political theorists have.
Political theory is thus a normative discipline, it is primarily concerned with how things ought to be as opposed to how things actually are. Of course this does not mean that theorists should not take seriously the realities of the current social and political arrangements. This is essential as one cannot determine what we should be aspiring towards if one does not know where we currently are and thus what the pros and cons of the current arrangement are. But political theorists do not engage in the descriptive or explanatory project that the political scientist engages in. The political scientist tackles questions like How is the American political system different from that of other countries?, or Who actually wields political power in America? Whereas the political theorist will ask Who should wield political [Page x]power in society and what ideals, principles and institutional arrangements best secure the diverse demands of justice? A diverse range of political arrangements can be, and have been, defended by reference to values such as justice, freedom, equality and democracy. The job of the political theorist is to bring some precision to these vague and contested concepts so that one can provide convincing arguments for the particular social arrangements they believe we should be aspiring towards. Ideas are powerful things, they exert great influence on the real world and help determine the fate of the lives of billions of people. So the political theorist has a very important role to play, one that has an influence on the real world of politics.
This textbook focuses exclusively on debates in contemporary political theory. Deciding on which topics and theorists to address in this book was not easy. I focus primarily on the central theories and debates of the past thirty years. The publication of John Rawls's A Theory of Justice marked a turning point in political theory and this textbook seeks to cover the main positions and issues that have been central to political theory since the publication of Rawls's influential book. That is not to say that articles and books written prior to the publication of A Theory of Justice are unimportant or outdated. Such an inference would clearly be mistaken. But when writing a textbook on contemporary theories and issues one must draw a line somewhere and I think it is fair to say that the post-A Theory of Justice line is the most practical one to impose.The Design of the Book
My approach to designing this textbook has been inspired by three concerns I believe instructors have when they put together a course in political theory. Firstly, they want to expose students to the main theoretical traditions, which will allow them to explore the diverse approaches theorists take to the issue of how society should be arranged. I believe this book accomplishes this. It covers the main positions in contemporary political theory – liberalism, communitarianism, multiculturalism, deliberative democracy and feminism. Rather than discuss and analyse these different theoretical positions in a very general and abstract form, I have sought instead to address specific theories and theorists in some detail. Thus I feel it is important to stress that the various labels one encounters in political theory, such as ‘liberalism’, ‘communitarianism’ and ‘feminism’, are just that – they are labels. They serve a pedagogical purpose but they should not be the main preoccupation. To design a textbook around contrived stipulated definitions of ‘liberalism’, ‘multiculturalism’, etc. would result in a book that not only grossly simplified contemporary debates but, I believe, such a book would be pretty boring to read (and write!). Instead of doing this, I often reinforce how these various traditions complement each other and point out, where appropriate, the common ground shared between alleged theoretical ‘opponents’ as well as the areas of genuine disagreement. Many liberals are [Page xi]deliberative democrats, for example, and many feminists are multiculturalists. So students should take the various ‘isms’ of the chapters with a pinch of salt and recognize that the complexities of contemporary political theory run much deeper than the simple category schema conveyed in the table of contents of this book.
The second concern behind the design of this book is that it is important for students (and instructors!) to develop the critical skills necessary to assess the different arguments theorists advance and to decide for themselves which of these positions they find most promising or problematic. I have sought to do this by incorporating boxed-text exercises in each chapter to help stimulate class discussion and further study on the issues addressed. I have also tried to give a ‘fair hearing’ to each of the positions covered in this book, so that students can decide for themselves what they think of the different arguments.
Thirdly, I believe that the most effective way of motivating students to engage in these abstract theoretical debates is to emphasize their practical significance. Political theorists study what they study because they believe the answers to the questions they examine have an important impact of what goes on in the real world. This book is inspired by this view of political theory. I believe theory does, and ought to, inform public policy and public debate in general and thus political theorists have an important contribution to make to a wide variety of practical issues. From the issues of global justice and welfare reform to minority rights and gender quotas for political representatives, this book links theoretical debates to practical issues of concern so that students see why political theory is important.
Part One of the book focuses on contemporary liberal theory. I know that some will have reservations about the extensive treatment liberalism receives here but let me attempt to alleviate these concerns. Firstly, as I mentioned above, I believe that the division of political theory into various ‘isms’ is largely artificial. That is, many theorists who are labelled ‘communitarians’ or ‘feminists’ also share many of the same commitments that liberals have, and vice versa. So the fact that I spend four chapters on liberalism does not mean that I think liberalism is four times as important as the positions covered in the second part of the book. Given that liberalism is the main target of criticism for the four traditions examined in Part Two, one actually gains a better understanding and appreciation of those arguments only after one is familiar with the different liberal theories they are critical of. So by spending half of the book on four liberal theories of justice one is covering the background necessary for introducing communitarianism, multicultural-ism, deliberative democracy and feminism. Once one has examined the different principles of justice liberals have advocated (for example, the difference principle, minimax relative concession, etc.) one can better appreciate the claims that liberalism fails to take seriously the importance of community, cultural membership and democracy; or that the distributive paradigm is ill-equipped to eliminate the oppression of women.
Furthermore, the inclusion of the four liberal theories of justice in Part One is useful because it permits one to cover some of the most important [Page xii]debates in contemporary political theory. By focusing on these four theories, I was able to address methodological issues (for example, the contrast between Rawls's method of reflective equilibrium and Gauthier's foundationalism) as well as effectively bring out the practical relevance of the abstract theoretical debates. A diverse range of applied topics are covered in the first part of the textbook, ranging from civil disobedience and global justice to the welfare state and campaign expenditures.
Many more applied topics are addressed in Part Two. For example, in the chapter on communitarianism the practical significance of the communitarian critique is illustrated by considering the issues of state neutrality and nationalism. In Chapter 6 we examine multiculturalist arguments for national minority rights and polyethnic rights. The practical significance of deliberative democracy is brought out by linking it with other themes addressed in the textbook, such as constitutionalism, and by considering the proposal for creating a new national holiday called Deliberation Day. And finally, in the chapter on feminism, we examine the practical significance of feminist internationalism, the feminist slogan ‘the personal is political’ as well as consider the argument for gender quotas for political representatives.
Writing this book has been a very enlightening experience. Writing a textbook forces one to emerge from their own entrenched theoretical perspective and to give an impartial and fair presentation of the positions that they might, in their other research, have attacked vigorously. I am happy to admit that working on this book has had a profound impact on my own political convictions. I am now much more critical of the theoretical tradition I align myself with and I have a much greater appreciation of the sophistication and insights of those whom I believed were my opponents. I suspect it is too much to hope that my readership will undergo a similar transformation but I do hope the textbook raises new questions for them to consider, presents familiar arguments in a new and interesting light and encourages them to engage in issues and traditions they perhaps have tended to ignore.
Taking on a project like this is a laborious task and I could not have written this book without the support of a number of people. I am grateful to the referees from Sage, who provided useful comments on both the initial designs of the book and on some of the chapters. I owe a special debt of gratitude to the referee who suggested that I also do Contemporary Political Theory: A Reader (as a companion volume to this textbook). Lucy Robinson and David Mainwaring from Sage have given me unwavering support and enthusiasm on both the textbook and the Reader and I am very grateful for this. Students on my courses at both the Universities of Birmingham and Manchester utilized drafts of some of the chapters of the textbook and I received useful feedback from them. I also benefited from the political theory reading groups I participated in at the Universities of Birmingham and Manchester, which helped me to stay abreast of the recent literature. I am particularly grateful to Hillel Steiner and Stephen De Wijze for many ‘lively’ and memorable debates about justice and the family that helped motivate me to get through the final stages of this book.
[Page xiii]I also owe a special debt of gratitude to my family. I wish to thank my parents for their support over the years. During the time I worked on this book my two sons, Connor and Dylan, were born. Balancing the demands of work and family has proved to be an enormous challenge, a challenge that I could not even entertain tackling if it were not for the support of my wife, Lori, to whom this book is dedicated. Without her unfailing support not one word of it would have been written.[Page xiv]
Bibliography[Page 177]2002) ‘Deliberation Day’, Journal of Political Philosophy, 10 (2): 129–152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9760.00146and (1999) ‘What is the Point of Equality?’, Ethics, 109 (2): 287–337. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/et.1999.109.issue-2(1989) ‘Equality and Equal Opportunity for Welfare’, Philosophical Studies, 56: 77–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00646210(1990) ‘Primary Goods Reconsidered’, Nous, 24: 429–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2215774(2000) ‘Perfectionism and Politics’, Ethics, 111 (1): 37–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/et.2000.111.issue-1(1989) Theories of Justice. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.(1995) ‘John Rawls and the Search for Stability’, Ethics, 105 (4): 874–915. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/et.1995.105.issue-4(2001) Culture and Equality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.(1999) ‘Democratic Deliberation: The Problem of Implementation’, in StephenMacedo (ed.), Deliberative Politics: Essays on Democracy and Disagreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.(1979) Political Theory and International Relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.(1996) ‘An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation’, in D.Wootton (ed.), Modern Political Thought. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company.(1987) ‘Social Contract Theory's Fanciest Flight’, Ethics, 97 (4): 750–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/et.1987.97.issue-4(1982) Marx and Justice: The Radical Critique of Liberalism. London: Methuen.(1990) ‘Justice as Reciprocity versus Subject-centered Justice’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 19 (3): 227–52.(1975) The Limits of Liberty. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.(1986) ‘Can Ownership be Justified by Natural Rights?’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 15 (2): 156–77.(1989) ‘On the Currency of Egalitarian Justice’, Ethics, 99 (4): 906–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/et.1989.99.issue-4(1992) ‘Incentives, Inequality, and Community’, in GrethePeterson (ed.), The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, 13. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press.(1995a) Self-Ownership, Freedom and Equality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511521270(1995b) ‘The Pareto Argument for Inequality’, Social Philosophy and Policy, 12: 160–85.(1997) ‘Where the Action Is: On the Side of Distributive Justice’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 26 (1): 3–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/papa.1997.26.issue-1(2000) If You're An Egalitarian, How Come You're So Rich?Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.([Page 178]1996) ‘Procedure and Substance in Deliberative Democracy’, in SeylaBenhabib (ed.), Democracy and Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.(1997) Civic Virtues. Oxford: Oxford University Press.(1998) On Democracy. New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press.(1985) Just Health Care. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.(1988) ‘The Visible Hand of Morality’, The Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 18: 357–84.(1982) ‘Nozick's Entitlement Theory’, in J.Paul (ed.), Reading Nozick: Essays on Anarchy, State and Utopia. Oxford: Blackwell.(1996) What Americans Know About Politics and Why it Matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.and (2000) ‘The Family and Political Justice – The Case for Political Liberalisms’, Journal of Ethics, 4: 257–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1009855117726(2000) Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, and Contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.(1985) A Matter of Principle. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.(1990) A Bill of Rights for Britain. London: Chatto and Windus.(1995) ‘Constitutionalism and Democracy’, European Journal of Philosophy, 3 (1): 2–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ejop.1995.3.issue-1(1996) Freedom's Law: The Moral Reading of the American Constitution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.(2000) Sovereign Virtue. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.(1986) ‘Comment on Van der Veen and Van Parijs’, Theory and Practice, 15: 709–22.(1998) ‘Liberalism, Equality and Fraternity in Cohen's Critique of Rawls’, Journal of Political Philosophy, 6: 99–112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9760.00048(1977) ‘Distributive Justice: Nozick on Property Rights’, Ethics, 87 (2): 142–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/et.1977.87.issue-2(1999) ‘Justice and a Citizen's Basic Income’, Journal of Applied Philosophy, 16 (3): 283–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/japp.1999.16.issue-3(1997) The Voice of the People. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.(1995) ‘Recognition or Redistribution? A Critical Reading of Iris Young's Justice and the Politics of Difference’, Journal of Political Philosophy, 3 (2): 166–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jopp.1995.3.issue-2(2002) ‘Liberalism and the Accommodation of Group Claims’, in PaulKelly (ed.), Multiculturalism Reconsidered. Cambridge: Polity Press.(1999) ‘Diversity, Toleration and Deliberative Democracy: Religious Minorities and Public Schooling’, in StephenMacedo (ed.), Deliberative Politics: Essays on Democracy and Disagreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.(1986) Morals by Agreement. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.(1988) ‘Ethical Universalism and Particularism’, Journal of Philosophy, 85 (6): 283–302. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2026720(1995) ‘Justice Across the Spheres’, in DavidMiller and MichaelWalzer (eds), Pluralism, Justice and Equality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.(1996) Democracy and Disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.and ([Page 179]2002) ‘Deliberative Democracy Beyond Process’, Journal of Political Philosophy, 10 (2): 153–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9760.00147and (1990) Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.(1993) Justification and Application: Remarks on Discourse Ethics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.(1996) Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.(2001) ‘Constitutional Democracy: A Paradoxical Union of Contradictory Principles?’, Political Theory, 29 (6): 766–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0090591701029006002(2000) Justice is Conflict. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.(1986) Hobbes and the Social Contract Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.(1988) ‘Can We Agree on Morals?’, Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 18: 331–56.(1988) ‘Bargain for Justice’, Social Philosophy and Policy, 5 (2): 65–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0265052500000066(1975) ‘Can the Maximin Principle Serve as a Basis for Morality? A Critique of John Rawls's Theory’, American Political Science Review, 69: 594–606. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1959090(1996) Leviathan, edited by RichardTuck. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.(1978) A Treatise of Human Nature, edited by L.A.Selby-Bigge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.(1983) Feminist Politics and Human Nature. Sussex: The Harverster Press.(1998) Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.(1982) ‘An Internal Critique of Nozick's Entitlement Theory’, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 63: 371–80.(1986) Hobbesian Moral and Political Theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.(1997) ‘What Sort of Political Equality Does Deliberative Democracy Require?’, in JamesBohman and WilliamRehg (eds), Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.and (1989a) Liberalism, Community and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.(1989b) ‘Liberal Individualism and Liberal Neutrality’, Ethics99 (4): 883–905. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/et.1989.99.issue-4(Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.(1995a)Kymlicka, Will (ed.) (1995b) The Rights of Minority Cultures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.2000) The Multiculturalism of Fear. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/0198297122.001.0001(1977) ‘On Rectification in Nozick's Minimal State’, Political Theory, 5 (2): 233–46.(1988) Two Treatises of Government, edited by PeterLaslett. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.(1981) After Virtue. London: Duckworth.(2001) Community, Solidarity and Belonging. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.([Page 180]1998) Utilitarianism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.(1981) Philosophy and Ideology in Hume's Political Thought. Oxford: Clarendon Press.(1988) ‘The Ethical Significance of Nationality’, Ethics, 98 (4): 647–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/et.1988.98.issue-4(1995) On Nationality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.(1992) Liberals and Communitarians. Oxford: Blackwell.and (1982) ‘Libertarianism without Foundations’, in J.Paul (ed.), Reading Nozick: Essays on Anarchy, State and Utopia. Oxford: Blackwell.(1988) The Libertarian Idea. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.(1988) ‘Economic Rationality and Morality’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 17 (2): 149–66.(1974) Anarchy, State and Utopia. New York, NY: Basic Books.(1999) Sex and Social Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.(2000) Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.(1989) Justice, Gender and the Family. New York, NY: Basic Books.(2000) ‘Liberty, Equality and the Rights of Cultures: The Marching Controversy at Drumcree’, The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 2 (1): 26–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjpi.2000.2.issue-1(2003) Libertarianism Without Inequality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/0199243956.001.0001(2000) Rethinking Multiculturalism: Cultural Diversity and Political Theory. Basingstoke: Palgrave.(1997) Republicanism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.(1995) The Politics of Presence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.(2001) ‘Feminism and Liberalism Revisited: Has Martha Nussbaum Got it Right?’, Constellations, 8 (2): 249–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cons.2001.8.issue-2(1960) ‘The Use of Political Theory’, Political Studies, 8: 37–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/post.1960.8.issue-1(1967) The Republic of Plato, translated by FrancisCornford. Oxford: Oxford University Press.(1989) Realizing Rawls. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.(1994) ‘An Egalitarian Law of Peoples’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 23 (3): 195–224. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/papa.1994.23.issue-3(1998) Ethnicity, Law and Human Rights: the English Experience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.(1985) ‘Justice as Fairness: Political Not Metaphysical’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 14 (3): 223–52.(1993) Political Liberalism. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.(1999) A Theory of Justice,(2nd edn.Oxford: Oxford University Press.1999) The Law of Peoples. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.(2001) Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.(1987) ‘Foundationalism in Political Theory’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 16 (2): 115–37.(1996) Democracy's Discontent. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.(1998) Liberalism and the Limits of Justice,([Page 181]2nd edn.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.1997) ‘Against Deliberation’, Political Theory, 25 (3): 347–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0090591797025003002(1989) ‘Deception and Reasons to be Moral’, American Philosophical Quarterly, 26: 113–22.(1992) Inequality Reexamined. Oxford: Oxford University Press.(1999) Democratic Justice. New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press.(1999) Contemporary Ethics: Taking Account of Utilitarianism. Oxford: Blackwell.(1997) Beyond Neutrality: Perfectionism and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609169(1989) ‘The Liberalism of Fear’, in NancyRosenblum (ed.), Liberalism and the Moral Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.(1996) Reason and Rhetoric in the Philosophy of Hobbes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511598579(1994) An Essay on Rights. Oxford: Blackwell.(1985) Philosophical Papers, Vol. 1: Human Agency and Language; Vol. 2: Philosophy and the Human Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.(1990) Sources of the Self. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.(1993) ‘The Politics of Recognition’, in A.Gutmann (ed.), Multiculturalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.(1995) Philosophical Arguments. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.(1995) Strange Multiplicity: Constitutionalism in an Age of Diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.(1991) ‘Why Surfers Should be Fed: The Liberal Case for an Unconditional Basic Income’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 20 (2): 101–31.(1995) Real Freedom for All. Oxford: Oxford University Press.(1997) ‘Interview’, Imprints: a Journal of Analytical Socialism, 1 (3): 5–22.(1995) ‘Minority Cultures and the Cosmopolitan Alternative’, in WillKymlicka (ed.), The Rights of Minority Cultures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.(1998) ‘Judicial Review and the Conditions of Democracy’, Journal of Political Philosophy, 6 (4): 335–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9760.00058(1983) Spheres of Justice. New York, NY: Basic Books.(1999) ‘Deliberation, and What Else?’, in StephenMacedo (ed.), Deliberative Politics: Essays on Democracy and Disagreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.(1970) ‘Politics as a Vocation’, in H.H.Gerth and C.W.Mills (eds), From Max Weber. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.(1997) ‘Liberal Equality, Exploitation, and the Case for an Unconditional Basic Income’, Political Studies, XLV: 312–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/post.1997.45.issue-2(1995) ‘Commentary’, in MarthaNussbaum and JonathanGlover (eds), Women, Culture and Development: A Study of Human Capabilities. Oxford: Clarendon Press.(1991) Robert Nozick: Property, Justice and the Minimal State. Cambridge: Polity Press.(1995) A Vindication of the Rights of Women. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.([Page 182]1986) ‘The Ideal of Community and the Politics of Difference’, Social Theory and Practice, 12 (1): 1–26.(1990) Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.(1996) ‘Communication and the Other: Beyond Deliberative Democracy’, in SeylaBenhabib (ed.), Democracy and Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.(1999) ‘Justice, Inclusion, and Deliberative Democracy’, in StephenMacedo (ed.), Deliberative Politics: Essays on Democracy and Disagreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.(2000) Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.(2002) ‘Deliberative Democracy and Constitutional Review’, Law and Philosophy, 21: 467–542.(