Workshops in Political Theory,
Sixth Annual Conference, Sept 2 - 4, 2009
Following the successful fifth annual series of Workshops held in Manchester, September 2008, at which a hundred and eighty papers were given by participants from over twenty countries, another conference is being held this year. These workshops reflect the wide diversity of interests and idioms within the discipline and give delegates plenty of time to discuss their papers in a relaxed setting as well as to attend other panels. Information about the panels from the last series can be obtained here: Workshops in Political Theory, Fifth Annual Conference.
If you are interested in giving a paper, please contact the appropriate workshop convenor as indicated below.
The workshops and convenors are as follows:
1 Politics, Morals and Economics in Adam Smith. Fotini Vaki (Ionian University, Corfu, fvaki@ionio.gr) and Raquel Lázaro (University of Navarre, Spain, rlazaro@unav.es)
On the occasion of the 250th anniversary of Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759), one of the more significant books of Adam Smith, this Workshops will aim at re-evaluating the significance of Smith's moral philosophy and moral psychology, the relationship between them, his other writings on economics, politics and jurisprudence, and the relevance of his thought to current research in these areas. Papers on any of these topics are welcome.
Although Adam Smith's name is usually cited in discussions about economics, Smith regarded himself as a moral philosopher. Economics was only one of the topics he felt compelled to respond to as a moral thinker. The moral encompasses two fields: ethics and jurisprudence. Smith addressed ethics in TMS while he explored the law, finance, government, etc., in Lectures of Jurisprudence and Wealth of Nations. His position on economics and politics cannot be separated from his reflections on moral psychology; the latter is the primary and most refined framework in which the former may be understood.
Smith acknowledged the significant roles played by politics, religion and moral throughout history in the shaping of social peace. However, historical events in Europe from the second half of the 16th century onwards - the decline in religious unity, the emergence of different forms of political absolutism - implied that neither religion nor politics (as a form of absolute power) on their own could guarantee the longed-for social harmony. As a result, Smith takes a different approach: the right moral behaviour of men is the ground of social peace; in so far as they foment moral conduct, politics, the law and religion play a subsidiary role. Economics is of pre-eminent significance in Smith's argument; given the passions and natural liberty of each human being, economics, as part of the moral dimension, in a commercial society may facilitate the peaceful exchange among all of the goods necessary for life. Smith's approach prompts further questions, of which he was aware and to which he sought to provide possible answers - a project which has been inherited by those who come after him.
2 Ethics in environmental health research and public health applications. Birgit Dumez (Center for Human Genetics, Leuven, Belgium, Birgit.Dumez@med.kuleuven.be ) and Casteleyn Ludwine, Center for Human Genetics, Leuven, Belgium, Ludwine.Casteleyn@health.fgov.be),
Ethics in environmental health research and public health applications
Background
Human Biomonitoring (HBM) is a technique that measures in blood, urine or other biological media the level of substances, its metabolites or specific effects in the human body. Within the field of environmental health HBM is an effective tool to assess human exposure to environmental pollutants and potential health effects of such pollutants and to evaluate and support coupled policy. It is increasingly considered as an essential tool in a strategy aiming to integrate health and environment. The development of required technology is in bursting expansion.
Particularities of the field
The legal data protection framework, as well as the ethical values and principles are mainly originating from clinical research, issuing a strong individualistic approach. When moving to the field of environmental and public health, the notion of public interest becomes more central. Healthy volunteers participating to research have no direct individual benefit. In principle, voluntary participation should be an act out of solidarity. Another particularity is that the uncertainty due to multiple interpretations of results complicates communication of results, on individual as well as on collective level. Furthermore in view of the transboundary nature of environmental matters, research is performed in international context. Differences in socio-cultural traditions come into play. And most importantly, the intrinsic aim of translation of HBM results into policy regulation is mostly lacking.
Why involvement of political theory?
Environmental health research in general and Human Biomonitoring with its many sensitive ethical issues in particular is typically situated at the crossroad between science, ethics and law.
A more harmonized approach in ethical, social and legal aspects of HBM in the EU is needed for many reasons, not in the least to guarantee sound scientific results. Currently Ethics is perceived as a burden to many researchers and hinder sometimes important research initiatives. Moreover we may seriously question if the rules and guidelines applied provide a real protection of the human dignity of each participant. Discussions are ongoing at many instances but solutions remain unclear. Proposals for steps to solution need to be embedded in widely accepted political theories. This panel aims to bring the difficulties and limitations in current practices closer to the philosophical theory and to create a wide, supportive platform, including ethicists and political philosophers.
What is it about?
General discussion themes should relate to appropriateness of current bioethical frameworks for application in this particular field. If traditional bioethics shows substantial shortcomings, which values and principles should in that case give guidance? Other issues relate to the re-use of data, the storage of personal data and samples in bio-banks and the justification and authenticity of informed consent. The main question however, focuses on the translation of research results into political actions in order to prevent population from environmental hazard with potential health effects.
What input do we need?
The objective is to reflect on and confront political theories with their applicability to daily research and surveillance practices. Thereto, we invite political philosophers to discuss papers on their current perspective and views related to the themes presented above.
Which elements from diverse political approaches (utilitarianism, libertarianism, communitarian, etc... ) should be taken into account? How to concretely improve respect for human dignity, solidarity, social justice, democratic participation, and to what extent?
Such discussions could allow the introduction of additional arguments for and empower proposals for guidelines on European level in order to harmonize socio-ethical and legal aspects of environmental health research, thereby facilitating important research, whilst maximally protecting the rights and dignity of each European citizen. Such discussions will not only allow enriching scientific, but also philosophical debates related to public health applications.
3 Conflict and compromise. Peter Jones (Newcastle University p.n.jones@newcastle.ac.uk ) and Ian O'Flynn (Newcastle University, i.j.o'flynn@ncl.ac.uk)
Conflict and compromise
Compromise is ubiquitous in politics and is often regarded as essential to the conduct of political life, both domestically and internationally. Yet compromise has received remarkably little attention from normative political theo rists. In this workshop, we aim to do something to rectify that neglect by subjecting the phenomenon of compromise to analysis and examining the issues it raises. Here are some questions the workshop might address:
What is a 'compromise'? Is it just any outcome of bargaining?
How should compromise figure in our normative thinking? Is compromise something that comes into play only when our moral resources are exhausted or might it be itself the object of a moral imperative?
A readiness to compromise is often considered good, but what are the values and considerations that make it so, particularly in political life?
Compromising can also be thought bad, as in compromising one's integrity or one' s principles; so can we, and should we, set limits to the proper domain of compromise?
Are compromises subject to moral evaluation, as in the idea of a 'fair' or 'principled' compromise'? If so, what is it that makes a compromise fair or principled - its content, or the process by which it was reached?
How should compromise figure in our thinking on truth, right, justice, equality, reasonableness, recognition, difference, toleration, social cohesion, the public interest, modus vivendi, etc.?
Should we assign a special place to compromise in democratic politics, including deliberative democracy?
What are the institutional implications of seeking to promote compromise?
Are certain forms of thought - philosophies, ideologies, anti-ideologies - more hospitable than others to compromise? Do (some) religions, moralities, cultures, make compromise especially difficult?
How much discretion do we have to interpret or re-interpret conflicts in ways that make them amenable to compromise? Do some conflicts, by their very nature, preclude compromise - e.g. abortion? disputed national boundaries?
These questions are intended to be indicative rather than definitive of the workshop's concerns. Doubtless the subject of compromise raises many other issues and there are many different angles and perspectives from which it might be approached. We welcome proposals for papers dealing with any aspect of compromise and adopting any sort of approach.
4 Political Theory and the Darwinian Revolution. Graeme Garrard (Cardiff University, garrardg@hotmail.com )
5 'Age Discrimination'? Geoffrey Cupit (University of Waikato, New Zealand, CUPIT@waikato.ac.nz )
6 International Political Theory Peter Such (Cardiff University, SutchP@cardiff.ac.uk )
7 Liberal Realism: Political Theory in an Age of Insecurity. Derek Edyvane (Leeds University, d.j.edyvane@leeds.ac.uk ) and Matt Sleat (Sheffield University, m.sleat@sheffield.ac.uk )
Liberal Realism
Recent years have witnessed the growing prominence of a 'realist' challenge to liberal political thought. It is argued that academic liberalism (associated primarily with the figure of John Rawls) presupposes a set of background social conditions - economic affluence, social stability and consensus on liberal values - that are quite at odds with the realities of politics in the 21st Century. It is widely felt that there is something naïve in the liberal insistence on the primacy of liberty and fairness in conditions of insecurity and pronounced moral conflict. This workshop is concerned to explore the resources of liberalism to answer the realist challenge. In particular, we are interested to explore the possibility of a distinctively liberal form of realism. It is commonly supposed that liberal realism must be a contradiction in terms, that true realism necessitates an anti-liberal Machiavellian, or Hobbesian perspective. But that view neglects a very important strand of liberal thought, associated with the likes of Judith Shklar, Stuart Hampshire, Bernard Williams and John Gray, that has endeavoured to reinterpret liberalism as a meaningful and appealing response to the political realities of fear, insecurity and conflict. The prospect of a liberal realism is deeply appealing, but a central question persists: can liberal realism genuinely provide an affirmative alternative to the anti-liberal, realist critique on the one hand and the idealistic liberal target of that critique on the other? In short, is there a stable and meaningful space for the liberal realist to occupy? We would welcome papers relating to all aspects of this issue, in both its contemporary and historical dimensions.
8 Beyond Borders: Drawing New Lines around Political Order. Noel Parker (University of Copenhagen, NP@ifs.ku.dk ) and Nick Vaughen-Williams, Exeter University, N.Vaughan-Williams@exeter.ac.uk )
Drawing New Lines around Political Order
This workshop is prompted by the awareness that the relation between borders, territory and political order is becoming ever-more complex. Borders are not only found at territorially identifiable 'border crossings', but also, increasingly in non-territorial, ephemeral and/or impalpable forms: electronic, non-visible, and located in zones that defy a straightforwardly territorial logic. Examples include biometric identification to control movement and other technologies designed to track mobility such as social security data, records of financial transactions, spyware placing individuals in distinct groups of consumers, and the many other systems of surveillance.
It has become necessary, then, to rethink what the border might mean for political orders. How are borders to be determined and how are they sustained? What is the logic of their relationship to political orders, or to relationships between political orders called 'sovereign'? Can they still be constitutive of a political order? The workshop is intended to confront the challenges to political theory that these developments convey, opening up discussion of new ontologies, epistemologies and conceptualizations that can handle the political orders of our times.
9 Roundtable on Julia Kristeva and Political Thought. Birgit Schippers (St. Mary's University College, Belfast, b.schippers@smucb.ac.uk )
10 Children, families, and justice. Philip Cook (LSE, P.A.Cook@lse.ac.uk)
The status of children and the family raises questions central to the scope, currency, and principles of distributive justice. Important contributions in the recent literature on children and the family have addressed the rights of parents to found families, the scope of legitimate parental partiality, and the role of education in facilitating autonomy and promoting liberal values. This panel seeks to consider these recent developments and introduce new research that will advance discussion in this area. A particular focus of this panel is to integrate both ideal and non-ideal theory, and papers that consider both normative and policy related questions are particularly welcome. Papers are invited on topics including (but not restricted to):
Legitimate Parental Partiality
Educational Equality
Childhood, Education, and Autonomy
Culture and Religion in Schooling
Family Policy and Social Exclusion
Education and Social Mobility
Please submit an abstract of no more than 500 words to Philip Cook by 1st June.
11 Hobbes. Michael P. Krom (St. Vincent College, Pennsylvania, ichael.krom@stvincent.edu )
12 Feminist Theory. Janice Richardson (Exeter University, Janice.Richardson@exeter.ac.uk ) and Annelies Decat, University of Leuven Annelies.Decat@hiw.kuleuven.be)
13 Eurocentrism in Political Theory. Efe Can Gurgan (Koç University, egurcan@ku.edu.tr)
In parallel with what Samir Amin suggests, one could state that modern political theory is subject to a severe crisis. There is an "invasive cancer" that propagates Eurocentric prejudices distorting political theories.
As Amin puts it, Eurocentism constitutes "a distortion from which majority of dominant social theories suffer". It functions spontaneously, "often in the gray areas of seemingly obvious facts and common sense". It advocates that the history of Europe is exceptional. In addition, it implies the homogenization through imitation and catch up. From Amin's perspective, Eurocentrism is common to both vulgar Marxism and mainstream political theories.
As opposed to what Eurocentrism advocates, the expansion of capitalism generated "a new polarization in the world scale". Accordingly, the North/South contradiction is becoming more and more sharper. To overcome the "Eurocentric cancer", one should first of all understand that "Center/Periphery polarization must be placed at heart of the analysis and not in the margin".
Therefore, this workshop encourages contributions that would attempt to identify the problematic of Eurocentism in political theory (in mainstream theories such as the modernization theory, as well as in Marxism).
We invite you to send 250-300 word proposals for 20-30 minute papers on topics including but not limited to:
Definitions and Manifestations of Eurocentrism in Political Theory
Critique of Eurocentrism
International Relations and Eurocentrism
No rth and South Categorisation in Political Theory
Imperialism, Neo-Colonialism and Eurocentrism
Globalisation and Eurocentrism
Democratic Theory and Eurocentrism
Critique of the Multiculturalism in Political Theory
Critique of the Modernization Theory in terms of Eurocentrism
Critique of the Neo-Liberal Theory in terms of Eurocentrism
Human Rights Theory and Eurocentrism
Development Theory and Eurocentrism
Eurocentric Challenges for Political Theory
Critique of Eurocentric Marxist Perspectives
Gramsci, Lenin, Mao and Eurocentrism
Deadline for submission of paper proposal: April 6, 2009
Panel and Paper Proposals can be submitted by email to:
Efe Can GÜRCAN (egurcan@ku.edu.tr)
The Center for Research on Globalization and Democratic Governance (GLODEM), Koç University, home.ku.edu.tr/~glodem
Koç University, Rumelifeneri Yolu, 34450, Sariyer, Istanbul, Turkey.
14 When Should Philosophy be Practical: On Ideal and Non-Ideal Theory. Robert Jubb (University of Oxford Robert, robert.jubb@stcatz.ox.ac.uk) and
James Gledhill,. (London School of Economics. j.s.gledhill@lse.ac.uk)
Two, perhaps competing, critiques of the prevailing post-Rawlsian methodological paradigm of political philosophy have recently become prominent in the literature. The first of these claims that such philosophising does not offer sufficient practical guidance, while the second argues that it involves acquiescing in too many of the injustices which characterise our world. Both raise questions of the relationship that we should expect our political philosophising to bear to practical possibility by asking how far from and in what relationship to the realities we are faced with political philosophy should stand. The distinction between ideal and non-ideal theory purports to offer a conceptual framework for addressing this question. However, despite increasing work in this area, definitions of ideal and non-ideal theory, and the nature of the relationship between them, are not yet settled. This panel would aim to further explore that distinction and set up a potentially fruitful dialogue between a number of different approaches to the question of what role, if any, the bounds of political possibility should play in the understanding of normative ideals. Of particular interest is the relationship between ideal and non-ideal theory. Is ideal theory necessary for non-ideal theory? Is non-ideal theory necessary for ideal theory? What relations do the demands of justice in each bear to the demands of justice in the other? By pursuing these questions we hope to further understand the relationship between what is possible and we ought to do.
15 Marxism. Mark Cowling (University of Teesside, c.m.cowling@tees.ac.uk)
16 Anarchism. Ruth Kinna (Loughborough University, r.e.kinna@lboro.ac.uk)
17 Green Political Theory. Stijn Neuteleers (Leuven University, Stijn.Neuteleers@econ.kuleuven.be) and Corey Maciver, Oxford University, corey.maciver@nuffield.ox.ac.uk)
18 Human Enhancement and Justicet. David Hunter (University of Keele, d.hunter@peak.keele.ac.uk), Michael Selgelid (Australian National University, Michael.Selgelid@anu.edu.au) and Anthony Mark Cutter (amcutter@uclan.ac.uk ).
Workshop on Human Enhancement & Justice
Coordinated by David Hunter, Centre for Professional Ethics, Keele University, Micheal Selegid, Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, Australian National University & Anthony Mark Cutter,
(As part of the activities of the International Network for Ethical Issues in Resource Allocation - a sub-network of the International Association of Bioethics)
Abstract:
Some theorists have argued strongly that there is a moral obligation to explore and develop new or existing technologies for use in human enhancement. This is particularly pertinent given the perceived convergence of technologies - such as the proposed Nano-Bio-Info-Cogno convergence championed by the National Science Foundation (NSF) in the USA. It is claimed that these technologies can be used to make us better or enhanced in various ways, and that there is either an obligation to allow others to enhance themselves, or indeed in some cases an obligation to enhance others. There is considerable debate about the acceptability of these technologies, and the acceptability of human enhancement. However most of these debates have focused on the individual and the impacts on the individuals involved. These technologies also have implications at the societal level as well. In particular they have potentially significant implications for the relationships between people and the distribution of resources. While many theorists have noted concerns in regards to justice with these technologies few have explicitly focused on, or deeply explored these issues. This workshop aims to redress this lack of focus by exploring the implications of these technologies explicitly in terms of justice.
19 Democracy: Theory and Practice. Stephen Elstub (University of the West of Scotland, stephen.elstub@uws.ac.uk )
20 Contesting Recognition. Atnre Alleyne (University of Delaware, atnreakn@UDel.Edu )
This panel will consider the political implications of the theoretical discussion of Hobbes, Hegel, Husserl concerning recognition and the subtopics of intersubjectivity and abjection.
21 Vilfredo Pareto. Joe Femia (University of Liverpool, femia@liverpool.ac.uk) and Alasdair Marshall, (University of Southampton, A.Marshall@soton.ac.uk).
22 Justice in Work and Production. Keith Breen (Queen's University Belfast, k.breen@qub.ac.uk) and Russell Keat (University of Edinburgh, )
The goal of this workshop is to explore questions of justice posed by the reality of contemporary work generally and by the ideal of 'meaningful work' specifically. Papers are welcomed from researchers working in the disciplines of political, social, and economic philosophy/theory. Key themes and areas of focus include, but are certainly not limited to, the following:
'Varieties of capitalism', economic organization, and the prospects for meaningful work
Meaningful work, justice, and worker democracy
Meaningful work, perfectionism, and anti-perfectionism
Meaningful work, ethics, and the 'good life'
Management, industrial production processes, and worker autonomy
Work, justice, and ownership of the means of production
Liberal egalitarianism, socialism, and meaningful work
Meaningful work, justice, gender, and the household
Socialization, worker education, and meaningful work
Justice, responsibility, and the distribution of 'hard work'
If you are interested in presenting a paper in this workshop, please contact Keith Breen ().
23 The Problem of Dirty hands. Stephen de Wijze (University of Manchester, dewijze@manchester.ac.uk )
24 British idealism. Davaid Boucher (Cardiff University, boucherde@cardiff.ac.uk )
25 Art and Politics: Towards a Culture of Solidarity? (Larry Wilde, Nottingham Trent University, ) and Ian Fraser (Nottingham Trent University, ).
This workshop seeks to explore the various ways in which art, conceived in its broadest sense, illuminates and inspires solidarity. Since its origins in the mid-nineteenth century, solidarity has been invoked as an ideal by the oppressed, emphasising the strength that can be gained through concerted action, combined with a moral commitment to ideals of social inclusion and justice. Art can play a vital role in protesting injustice and stimulating solidaristic resistance. It has the potential to assist the development of human solidarity by enriching our understanding of the needs, pains and hopes of others. Papers are encouraged that explore these ideas or comment more generally on the theoretical relationship between art and politics.
Expressions of interest should be sent to:
Lawrence Wilde and Ian Fraser
Division of Politics and Sociology
Nottingham Trent University
Burton Street
Nottingham NG1 4BU.
The Conference fee is £170, this includes dinner on the evening of the 2nd. September and lunches on arrival and 3rd of September. Should you require accommodation, the total fee is £ 228 for two nights B&B in Halls of Residence, and £ 327 B&B ensuite in local hotel. Post Graduate fee is £125 (£180 B&B in Hall of Residence). There will also be a wine reception.
The organisers are: Professor Joe Femia (School of Politics and Communication Studies, University of Liverpool, femia@liv.ac.uk ) and Professor Jules Townshend (Department of Politics and Philosophy, Manchester Metropolitan University, j.townshend@mmu.ac.uk )
Conference Registration:
Please complete the Conference Registration Form and send it to
Conference and Events Coordinator,
Manchester Metropolitan University,
Venues for Events,
Cavendish Building,
Cavendish Street,
Manchester,
M15 6BG
Email: venues@mmu.ac.uk
Tel: 0161 247 1565
Fax: 0161 247 6887
Registrations after 30th July 2009 will be subject to a late fee of £10 (please include this with your payment)
Registrations will not be accepted after 14th August 2009