Justice Between Generations (podcast)

At the University of Oxford on September 17, 2011, Simon Caney, Mark Philp, and Adam Swift discussed the issue of intergenerational justice and asked questions like how do we allocate resources intergenerationally accross areas like welfare, pensions, higher education and environmental costs?

Podcast: "Justice Between Generations" [49 minutes]

See the program here [pdf].

Der Spiegel: "Habermas, the Last European"

In the German weekly "Der Spiegel" (November 21, 2011), Georg Diez writes about Jürgen Habermas's struggle for a democratic EU - "Schluss jetzt!"

An English translation of the article is available on "Der Spiegel"s international website:

"Habermas, the Last European: A Philosopher's Mission to Save the EU"

Excerpts:
"I'm speaking here as a citizen," he says. "I would rather be sitting back home at my desk, believe me. But this is too important. Everyone has to understand that we have critical decisions facing us. That's why I'm so involved in this debate. The European project can no longer continue in elite modus." (....) " I condemn the political parties. Our politicians have long been incapable of aspiring to anything whatsoever other than being re-elected. They have no political substance whatsoever, no convictions."

Habermas wants to get his message out. That's why he's sitting here [at a debate in Paris]. That's why he recently wrote an article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine newspaper, in which he accused EU politicians of cynicism and "turning their backs on the European ideals." That's why he has just written a book -- a "booklet," as he calls it -- which the respected German weekly Die Zeit promptly compared with Immanuel Kant's 1795 essay "Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch."

"Sometime after 2008," says Habermas over a glass of white wine after the debate, "I understood that the process of expansion, integration and democratization doesn't automatically move forward of its own accord, that it's reversible, that for the first time in the history of the EU, we are actually experiencing a dismantling of democracy. I didn't think this was possible. We've reached a crossroads."

The debate took place at the Goethe Institute in Paris on November 12. See my post here.

Charles Taylor on the "Post-Secular" (video)

On June 15, 2011, Professor Charles Taylor gave a lecture at Frankfurt University on "The Meaning of "Post-Secular".

The lecture is now available on video:
"The Meaning of "Post-Secular" (73 minutes).

Charles Taylor was introduced by Professor Matthias Lutz-Bachmann (11 minutes).

Eight Papers on Public Reason

Jonathan Quong (Manchester University):
"On The Idea of Public Reason" [pdf]

Gillian K. Hadfield (University of Southern California) & Stephen Macedo (Princeton University):
"Rational Reasonableness: Toward a Positive Theory of Public Reason" [pdf]

Stephen Macedo (Princeton University):
"Political Education and Public Reason"

Chad W. Flanders (Saint Louis University):
"The Mutability of Public Reason" [pdf]

Funda Gençoğlu Onbaşı (Baskent University):
"Democracy, Pluralism and the Idea of Public Reason: Rawls and Habermas in Comparative Perspective"

Wojciech Sadurski (University of Sydney):
"Reason of State and Public Reason"

Sean Ingham (Harvard University):
"When is Public Reason Possible?"

Mark Redhead (California State University):
"How Global Can Global Public Reason Be?"

IEP Entry on the Frankfurt School

Claudio Corradetti has posted an entry to "The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy" (IEP) on

"The Frankfurt School and Critical Theory"

Claudio Corradetti is Senior Researcher at The European Academy of Bozen/Bolzano (EURAC). He is the author of "Relativism and Human Rights. A Theory of Pluralistic Universalism" (Springer, 2009) and the editor of "Philosophical Dimensions of Human Rights" (Springer, forthcoming 2012) [see a preview here].

Paper on Rawlsian Liberalism Versus Libertarianism

Barbara H. Fried (Stanford Law School) has posted a new paper on SSRN:

"The Unwritten Theory of Justice: Rawlsian Liberalism Versus Libertarianism".

Forthcoming in Jon Mandle and David Reidy (eds.) - "The Blackwell Companion to Rawls" (Blackwell, 2012).

Abstract:
When A Theory of Justice was published in 1971, utilitarianism was the game to beat in political philosophy, and Rawls made clear his intention to beat it. The appearance of Nozick’s Anarchy, State and Utopia three years later singlehandedly enshrined libertarianism rather than utilitarianism in the popular imagination as the chief rival to Rawls’s two principles of justice. Ever since, Rawlsian liberalism has had two parallel lives in political theory. The first - the version Rawls wrote - is a response to utilitarian’s failure to take seriously the separateness of persons. The second - the unwritten version ‘received’ by its general audience - is a response to libertarianism’s failure to take seriously our moral obligations to the well-being of our fellow citizens. This article considers how, had he written the second version, Rawls might have dealt with libertarians’ critique of ‘justice as fairness’ as fundamentally illiberal, and how his two principles might have been transformed in the process.

Barbara F. Fried is Professor of Law at Standford Law School, Stanford University.

New book by Michel Rosenfeld on Pluralism

Law, Justice, Democracy, and the Clash of Cultures

by Michel Rosenfeld

(Cambridge University Press, 2011)

320 pages



Description

The Cold War ideological battle with universal aspirations has given way to a clash of cultures as the world concurrently moves toward globalization of economies and communications and balkanization through a clash of ethnic and cultural identities. Traditional liberal theory has confronted daunting challenges in coping with these changes and with recent developments such as the spread of postmodern thought, religious fundamentalism, and global terrorism. This book argues that a political and legal philosophy based on pluralism is best suited to confront the problems of the twenty-first century. Pointing out that monist theories such as liberalism have become inadequate and that relativism is dangerous, the book makes the case for pluralism from the standpoint of both theory and its applications. The book engages with thinkers, such as Spinoza, Kant, Hegel, Rawls, Berlin, Dworkin, Habermas, and Derrida, and with several subjects that are at the center of current controversies, including equality, group rights, tolerance, secularism confronting religious revival, and political rights in the face of terrorism.

Content [preview]

Part I. Liberal Justice and Fleeting Specters of Unity

1. Reframing Comprehensive Pluralism: Hegel versus Rawls
2. Equality and the Dialectic Between Identity and Difference
3. Human Rights and the Clash Between Universalism and Relativism

Part II. E Pluribus Unum?

4. Spinoza's Dialectic and the Paradoxes of Tolerance
5. The Clash Between Deprivatized Religion and Relativized Secularism
6. Dworkin and the One Law Principle

Part III. Can Pluralism Thrive in Times of Stress?

7. Rethinking Political Rights in Times of Stress
8. Derrida's Deconstructive Ethics of Difference Confronts Global Terrorism
9. Habermas's Discourse Ethics of Identity and Global Terror
10. Conclusion: the Hopes of Pluralism in a More Unified and More Fragmented World

Michel Rosenfeld is Professor of Law, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University. He is Co-Editor (with Andrew Arato) of "Habermas on Law and Democracy: Critical Exchanges" (University of California Press, 1998).

Related papers by Michel Rosenfeld:
* The Rule of Law and the Legitimacy of Constitutional Democracy (pdf, 2001)
* Spinoza's Dialectic and the Paradoxes of Tolerance (2003)
* A Pluralist Theory of Political Rights in Times of Stress (2005)
* Habermas's Call for Cosmopolitan Constitutional Patriotism in an Age of Global Terror (2006)
* Derrida's Ethical Turn and America (2006)
* Equality and the Dialectic Between Identity and Difference (2006)
* Unveiling the Limits of Tolerance (2010) [w. Susanna Mancini]

See also a panel discussion between Michel Rosenfeld, Jeremy Waldron, Tracy Higgins and Ruti Teitel on "What is Human Rights? Universals and the Challenge of Cultural Relativism" (pdf, 1999).

Reviews of Habermas's Book on Europe

Reviews of "Zur Verfassung Europas" (Suhrkamp Verlag, November 2011) by Jürgen Habermas:

* Alexander Cammann - "Der Traum von der Weltinnenpolitik"
(Die Zeit, November 10, 2011)

Summary:
"Als "Buch der Stunde" feiert Alexander Cammanns Jürgen Habermas' hier versammelten jüngsten Interventionen zum Thema Europa, die auch zu den aktuellsten Debatten einige nützliche Stichwörter zu bieten scheinen. Eines davon ist die Formel "postdemokratischer Exekutivföderalismus", eine von Habermas seit längerem benannte Tendenz der europäischen Institutionen, die sich jetzt in der Bewältigung der akuten Krisen Bahn bricht. Dagegen setzt Habermas den Zustand der "transnationalen Demokratie", den es erst zu erreichen gilt. Bewundernd konstatiert Cammann, dass Habermas hier keineswegs nur an Europa, sondern gleich an die ganze Welt denkt. Auch Kritikpunkte hat Cammenn: Der Vordenker des "Strukturwandels der Öffentlichkeit" hat zum Internet offenbar nichts zu sagen, und auch der Euro spiele in seine Erwägungen kaum eine Rolle. Trotzdem: Cammann liest dieses Buch als das Vermächtnis einer Generation." [From Perlentaucher.de]

* Eckhard Fuhr - "Utopischer Realismus"
(Die Welt, November 12, 2011)
[See extract in English here.]

* Uwe Justus Wenzel - "Europäische Doppelbürgerschaft"
(Neue Zürcher Zeitung, November 15, 2011)

Summary:
"Uwe Justus Wenzel findet den utopischen Vorstoß, den Jürgen Habermas in seinem Essay zum Befinden der Europäischen Union macht, offensichtlich erfrischend, insbesondere in einer Zeit, in der sich die Politik vor allem um "Schadensbegrenzung" müht. Der Philosoph kritisiert darin nämlich nicht nur "scharfsinnig" die "intergouvernementale Aushöhlung" der Demokratie, stellt der Rezensent fest. Habermas imaginiert auch ein mögliches "transnationales demokratisches Gemeinwesen", in dem das verfassungsgebende Subjekt sowohl als Staatsbürger als auch als europäischer Bürger agiert, so Wenzel. Auch die "delikate" dialektische Argumentation des Autors, dass zwar die Nationalstaaten unabdingbar für die Europäische Union seien, allerdings die Staatsbürger als Unionsbürger sich von den "Organisationskernen der Mitgliedsstaaten" abzulösen im Begriff seien, trifft beim Rezensenten auf Interesse. Wenzel sieht Habermas Betrachtung Europas als exemplarisch für eine utopische "Weltbürgergemeinschaft" an, was er offensichtlich überaus anregend findet." [From Perlentaucher.de]

* Micha Brumlik - "Ein neues Narrativ wider die Skepsis"
(Die Tageszeitung, November 17, 2011)

Summary:
"Angesichts der Europakrise brandaktuell findet Micha Brumlik Jürgen Habermas' Essay "Zur Verfassung Europas", das nicht nur polemisch mit dem grassierenden "Exekutivföderalismus" ins Gericht geht, sondern zugleich die Utopie eines "Weltparlaments" entwirft, in der die EU lediglich eine Zwischenstation ist. Allerdings gibt es für den Rezensenten eine tiefe Kluft zwischen der Idee und der Realität, die auch Habermas' Rückgriff auf Kants "Weltbürgerrecht" und die von jüngeren Staatstheoretikern vertretene Vorstellung von möglichen Verfassungen ohne Staat nicht überbrückt werden kann. Überhaupt stellt es in den Augen Brumliks eine entscheidende Schwachstelle in Habermas Darlegungen dar, dass er seine Ideen so völlig losgelöst von der Realität der EU-Bürger entwickelt, die somit gänzlich abstrakt bleiben. Zuletzt fragt der Rezensent noch, ob die europäische Idee nicht auch ziemlich "überfrachtet" wird, wenn man sie lediglich als Vorstufe zu einer Weltgemeinschaft betrachtet, die sich global auf die Menschenrechte und den Frieden verständigen soll." [From Perlentaucher.de]

* Stefan Müller-Doohm - "Europas Rolle in einer zukünftigen Weltgesellschaft"
(Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, November 21, 2011)

Summary:
"Demokratische Selbstbestimmung der Bürger, so lautet das ferne Ziel der umfangreichen Interventionen zum Thema Europa, die Jürgen Habermas in seinem neuen Buch anstellt, wie Stefan Müller-Doohm uns mitteilt. Die lebenslange Beschäftigung des Autors mit Europa und seiner Verfassung beleuchtet der Rezensent für uns noch einmal kursorisch, um dann auf das den Themenkomplex bilanzierende Buch und den in seinem Zentrum, zwischen einer Dokumentation verschiedener publizistischer Vor- und Beiträge, stehenden politik- und rechtswissenschaftlichen Essay zu kommen. In insgesamt vier vom Rezensenten aufgeführten Punkten (z.B. Erweiterung, Gleichgewicht der Mächte) nähert sich Habermas seine Idee von Europa. Den Kern seiner Auseinandersetzung aber erkennt Müller-Doohm in der Kritik an mangelnder regulativer Gestaltung und an den Restriktionen staatlicher Politik." [From Perlentaucher.de]

* Tomasz Kurianowicz - "Das Volk ist klüger"
(Der Tagesspiegel, November 25, 2011)

* Gustav Seibt - "Unser inneres Brüssel"
(Süddeutsche Zeitung, November 26, 2011)

* Conrad Lay - "Nationalstaaten bürgen für ein Niveau an Gerechtigkeit und Freiheit" (Deutschlandsfunk, November 28, 2011) [Audio mp3: here]

* Johanna di Blasi - "Jürgen Habermas kritisiert den postdemokratischen Europakurs"
(Hannoversche Allgemeine, November 28, 2011)

* Arno Orzessek - "Wie lässt sich transnationale Demokratie verwirklichen?" (Deutschlandradio Kultur, December 1, 2011)

* Ronald Pohl - "Als die Bürger das Handeln erlernten"
(Der Standard, December 18, 2011)


See my previous post on Habermas's book here (with links to some of the essays).

An English version of the book is coming out next year on "Polity Press", entitled "The Crisis of the European Union: A Response."

Discussion with Habermas in Paris

On Saturday November 12, Jürgen Habermas talks with Heinz Wismann at the Goethe Institute in Paris.

Further information here.

Habermas on Europe's Post-democratic Era

Article by Jürgen Habermas in The Guardian (November 10, 2011):

Europe's post-democratic era
The monopolisation of the EU by political elites risks reducing a sense of civic solidarity that's crucial to the European project

Excerpt
"Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy appear to have settled some sort of compromise between German economic liberalism and French statism with a completely different intent. If I am not mistaken, they want to extend the executive federalism of the Lisbon treaty into an outright intergovernmental rule by the European Council.

Such a regime would make it possible to transfer the imperatives of the markets to the national budgets without proper democratic legitimation. This would involve using threats of sanctions and pressure on disempowered national parliaments to enforce nontransparent and informal agreements. In this way, the heads of government would transform the European project into its opposite. The first transnational democracy would become an especially effective, because disguised, arrangement for exercising a kind of post-democratic rule."

Paper on the Rawlsian Law of Peoples

Wagner Artur Cabral has posted a new paper on SSRN:

"The Rawlsian Law of Peoples and the Cosmopolitist Critique"

Abstract:
In 2001 John Rawls published a little book called The Law of Peoples, that was originally supposed to be a chapter for Justice as Fairness: a Restatement, a revision and re-organization of his theory. Although it was expected in vivid anticipation, the book has generated controversy. While that may not seem surprising to Mr. Rawls – most of his theories were subject of intense debate, that being one of the reasons why they are so relevant to the Academy – the international part of the Justice as Fairness theory was received with astonishment by both his students and his “loyal opposition”. Rawlsian Law of Peoples works under a different Original Position, with restricted principles of justice and several other traits that simply seemed a completely modified setting than that of Justice as Fairness, as it were designed to reduce differences in a national legal context of basic institutions and goods. This paper tries to summarize the main criticisms that the Law of Peoples has received, specifically from a series of scholars that could be considered as defenders of Cosmopolitanism, given their commitment to the idea of an order of global justice. And hearing those voices of dissent, it tries to address the claim that this new theory of International Law is actually contradictory to Rawls’ Theory of Justice itself. At last, it will try to give suggestions of how the Law of Peoples should be different, for it to follow the principles of egalitarianism displayed throughout Justice as Fairness as a whole.

Wagner Artur Cabral is graduate in Law at the Federal University of Minas Gerais, Barzil. The paper is a summary of the main points covered by the author’s graduate thesis, presented in August 2011.

Fabienne Peter on Democratic Legitimacy

At "New Books in Philosophy", Robert Talisse interviews Fabienne Peter about her book "Democratic Legitimacy" (Routledge, 2008, paperback 2011):

Interview: “Democratic Legitimacy” [53 minutes]

See also Fabienne Peter's entry on "Political Legitimacy" in "Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy".

Fabienne Peter is Associate Professor at the Department of Philosophy, Warwick University.

On Habermas's article on EU crisis

Comments on Jürgen Habermas's article on the EU crisis (FAZ, November 5, 2011):

* Gunter Hofmann - "Die Demokratie muss auf die Füße gestellt werden" (Cicero, November 8, 2011)

* Harald Jähner - "Eine Herzensangelegenheit"
(Frankfurter Rundschau, November 8, 2011)

* Gabor Steingart - "Angriff auf die Marktwirtschaft"
(Handelsblatt, November 8, 2011)

* Jan Fleischhauer - "Unter Apokalyptikern"
(Spiegel Online, November 7, 2011)

* Bernd Ulrich - "Wir haben die Wahl"
(Die Zeit, November 10, 2011)

* Rainer Hank - "Kurszettel gegen Stimmzettel"
(Franfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, November 11, 2011)

* Ernst-Joachim Mestmäcker - "Der Schamfleck ist die Geldverachtung"
(Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, November 18, 2011)

* Georg Diez - "Schluss jetzt!"
(Der Spiegel, November 21, 2011)
[English translation: "Habermas, the Last European"]

New book on Habermas's Political Philosophy

Mimesis and Reason
Habermas's Political Philosophy

by Gregg Daniel Miller

(State University of New York Press, 2011)

199 pages


Description

Complicating the standard interpretation of Habermas as a proceduralist, Mimesis and Reason uncovers the role that mimesis, or imitation, plays as a genuinely political force in communicative action. Through a penetrating examination of Habermas’s use of themes and concepts from Plato, George Herbert Mead, and Walter Benjamin, Gregg Daniel Miller reconstructs Habermas’s theory to reveal a new, postmetaphysical articulation of reason that lays the groundwork for new directions in political theory.

Content

Introduction

1. Reason and Mimesis [pdf]
2. Mimesis in Communicative Action: Habermas and Plato
3. The Subject in Communicative Action: Habermas and George Herbert Mead
4. The Experience of Mimesis: Habermas and Walter Benjamin

Coda: Habermas and the Affective Bond of Understanding

Review

"Moving beyond the impasse of mimesis versus communicative rationality, an alternative that pitted Adorno against Habermas, Gregg Daniel Miller opens up a new vista in the continuing effort to develop a viable Critical Theory for the twenty-first century. Drawing on the insights of Mead and Benjamin, he imaginatively and persuasively etablishes a point d'appui for rational critique that entents well beyond wan proceduralism without regressing to a discredited metaphisics."
- Martin Jay, University of California, Berkeley

Gregg Daniel Miller is Lecturer at the University of Washington. In 2006, Gregg David Miller was awarded the Western Political Science Association's Best Dissertation Award for "Mimesis in Communicative Action: Habermas and the Affective Bond of Understanding."

Neues Buch von Charles Taylor & Jocelyn Maclure

Laizität und Gewissensfreiheit

von Charles Taylor & Jocelyn Maclure

(Suhrkamp Verlag, 2011)

148 Seiten




Kurzbeschreibung

Der Kopftuchstreit in Deutschland und Frankreich, der Mord an Theo van Gogh in den Niederlanden, der Karikaturenstreit in Dänemark: die politische Dimension religiöser Haltungen ist in den letzten Jahren allgegenwärtig. Der Philosoph Charles Taylor gilt als einer der besten Kenner der modernen Religionsgeschichte und als Experte in Sachen Multikulturalismus. Zusammen mit seinem kanadischen Kollegen Jocelyn Maclure versucht er, eine Antwort auf die Frage zu finden, wie sich eine politische Gemeinschaft gegenüber religiösen Mehrheiten und Minderheiten verhalten sollte. Im Zentrum der Untersuchung steht die Frage der religiösen Neutralität des Staates, die in der Moderne unter dem Begriff des Laizismus diskutiert wird. Mit ihr ist das Problem der individuellen Religions- und Gewissensfreiheit aufs engste verbunden. Taylor und Maclure zeigen eindrucksvoll, daß alleine eine »liberal-pluralistische Politik«, die Religion nicht prinzipiell aus der öffentlichen Sphäre ausschließt, unter den Bedingungen heutiger multikultureller Gesellschaften geeignet ist, ein friedliches Zusammenleben und das fundamentale Recht der freien Religionsausübung und Gewissensfreiheit zu gewährleisten.

Inhalt

Einleitung

I. Die Laizität denken

1. Moralischer Pluralismus, Neutralität und Laizität
2. Die Prinzipien der Laizität
3. Die Regime der Laizität
4. Öffentlichkeit und Privatsphäre
5. Religiöse Symbole und Rituale in der Öffentlichkeit
6. Die liberal pluralische Laizität am Beispiel Quebec

II. Die Gewissenfreiheit denken

7. Die rechtliche Verpflichtung zu vernünftigen Ausnahme-regelungen
8. Sind religiöse Überzeugungen "kostspielige Präferenzen"?
9. Die subjektive Auffassung der Religionsfreiheit und die Individualisierung des Glaubens
10. Begünstigt die rechtliche Verpflichtung zu vernünftigen Ausnahmeregelungen die Religion?
11. Die vernünftigen Grenzen der Gewissenfreiheit

Schlußbemerkung: Die Zukunft der Laizität

Rezensionen:
* Plädoyer für den neutralen Staat (Tageszeitung, 4. November 2011)
* Lob der Vielfalt (Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 3. November 2011)
* Im Grunde leuchtet die Welt (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 2. November 2011)

Originalausgabe:
* Laïcité et liberté de conscience (Éditions du Boréal, 2010)

Englische Ausgabe:
* Secularism and Freedom of Conscience (Harvard University Press, 2011)

Habermas on the EU crisis - a new comment

In "Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung" (November 5, 2011), Jürgen Habermas has published a new comment on the crisis of the EU:

"Rettet die Würde der Demokratie"
Papandreou hält dem zerrissenen Europa den Spiegel vor.
Ein Kommentar zu Frank Schirrmachers „Demokratie ist Ramsch" (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, November 1, 2011).

In his comment, Habermas describes the tension between democracy and capitalism and he refers to an article by Wolfgang Streeck on "The Crisis of Democratic Capitalism" in "New Left Review" Sep-Oct 2011. Wolfgang Streeck's paper was given as the 2011 Max Weber Lecture at the European University Institute, Florence, in April 2011. See the paper here [pdf].

Update:
See comments on Habermas's article here.
And an English summary here.

An English translation of Frank Schirrmachers's article: "Democracy has junk status" (PressEurop).

Honneth lecture in NYC on November 19

Professor Axel Honneth talks about "Markets and Morals" at The New School for Social Research, New York, on November 19, 2011.

The lecture is arranged by the excellent journal "Constellations - An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory".

Further information here.

Axel Honneth is Jack C. Weinstein Professor of the Humanities, Department of Philosophy, Columbia University.

(Thanks to Ertug Tombus, Columbia University, for the pointer!)

Symposium in New York on Political Theology

Hannah Arendt Reiner Schurmann Symposium on "Political Theology" at The New School of Social Research, New York:

Friday, November 4

Seyla Benhabib - Carl Schmitt's Critique of Kant: Sovereignty and International Law
Andreas Kalyvas - The Fallacies of Political Theology
Richard J. Bernstein - Is Politics "Practicable" Without Religion?
Simon Critchley - Fictional Force: How the Many are Governed by the Few

Saturday, November 5

Talal Asad - Reflections on the Uprising of Egypt
Gil Anidjar - Hemo Politicus
Bernard Flynn - Lefort and the Concept of Political Theology
Stathis Gourgouris - Every Religion is Idolatry

Further information here.

Paper on the Rawls-Habermas debate

Now available at London School of Economics's eprint:

James Gledhill:
"Procedure in Substance and Substance in Procedure: Reframing the Rawls–Habermas debate" [pdf]

Published in: J. G. Finlayson & F. Freyenhagen (eds.) - Habermas and Rawls: Disputing the Political (Routledge, 2011), pp. 181-199.

Excerpt from Habermas's comment on Gledhill's paper
"In his "Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy", Rawls already demonstrates unmistakable sympathy for Hegel's philosophy of right because it respects the ethical rootedness of persons in the existing institutions of civil society and because it treats this embeddedness of morality in ethical life as the main focus of the theory of justice. James Gledhill chooses this perspective as the point of departure for his highly instructive comparison. He reveals a new facet of Rawls to me, for until now I had not regarded him as the better Hegelian. My reconstructive approach, which Gledhill understands quite well, originates, after all, in a Hegelian-Marxist appropriation of Kant's moral and legal philosophy; generally such an approach is supposed to be better suited to ground the political theory of justice in a social theory than strickley normative approaches. That may be true. But from such a normative point of view, Rawls's theory contains a relatively strong Hegelian element, at least according to James Gledhill's interpretation of how the "Original Position" is shaped." (Finlayson & Freyenhagen, p. 293)

James Gledhill is Fellow in Political Theory, Government Department, London School of Economics.