This book proposes a new interpretation of Claude Lefort’s thought focusing on his phenomenological method. Although all scholars recognize the influence of Merleau-Ponty, so far no one has demonstrated the fundamental coherence between Merleau-Ponty’s theory and the main concepts proposed by Lefort; in particular between the concept of institution and the definitions of social and democracy. If Merleau-Ponty uses the idea of institution to think beyond the division between subject and object, to think together continuity and difference, permanence and change, this same concept allows Lefort to understand society as both conflict and unity. From this starting point, this study will attempt to clarify Lefort’s concept of the political and his interpretations of modernity, humanism, and the work of Niccolò Machiavelli. These very concepts will show the difference from structuralism, Michel Foucault’s contemporary theory and theories of immanence. At the same time this study highlights an internal tension in Lefort’s own thinking: between autonomy and experience, institution and insurgence.

This study of Claude Lefort offers an account of Lefort's accomplishment - its unique merits, its relation to political philosophy within the Continental tradition, and its great relevance today.

This is the first English language volume to offer such a wide-ranging scholarly and intellectual perspective on Claude Lefort. It constitutes the most comprehensive attempt to reconstruct Lefort's engagement with his theoretical interlocutors as well as his influence on today's democratic thought and contemporary continental political philosophy.

This book presents and evaluates the understanding of political form in the work of Pierre Manent. The study of political form is Manent's central philosophical task. He is interested in the nature of man, in the action that makes us human, and thus in politics and political action as privileged windows into human nature and what it is to be human. Manent places himself in the classical political tradition, with its foundations in human nature and in a politics that accords with nature. He also situates himself within a triangle of faith, philosophy, and politics, all of which interest him as part of the reality of things even as he avoids an exclusive commitment to any one vertex in his investigation. The book first examines the major influences on Manent; the overarching questions that guide his work on political form, the "theologico-political question" and the question of the "modern difference" with the ancient view of man and politics; and his two intertwined paths of inquiry into political events and political thought. Manent describes political forms as "the modes of human association that no science has taken as its specific object." City, empire, Church, national monarchy or nation-state, and modern state are the principal forms that he examines. The book discusses Manent's thinking on each form in turn together with the tensions that propel the changes or motion in political form that Manent sees as driving and revealing the course of European political development. Using the work of Alasdair MacIntyre, Russell Hittinger, Étienne Gilson, Robert Sokolowski, and Francis Slade, the book evaluates Manent's insights into the modern state and political condition, which he judges to be exhausted, as well as his call for the preservation of the form of the "nation marked by Christianity."

Given the propensity of contemporary protection measures such as counterterrorism efforts and fierce protection strategies against viral threats, as well as physical and legal barriers against migration, a number of political philosophers, including Peter Sloterdijk and Roberto Esposito, have claimed that contemporary (political) culture can be characterised by a so-called ’immunisation paradigm’. This book critically examines the intricate entanglement between biological immunological notions and their political philosophical appropriation, whilst studying the ’immunisation response’ to recent viral threats, including the Swine Flu pandemic of 2009 and the lab-bred Avian flu threat of 2012, to analyse immunisation as a biopolitical strategy. Offering insights into to the polarising tendencies in contemporary political culture resulting from the appropriation of immunological concepts in political thought, the author also shows how political philosophers tend to build on purely defensive understandings of immunity. As such, Immunological Discourse in Political Philosophy constitutes a theoretically sophisticated critique of the ’semantic trap’ caused by the use of immunological concepts in political philosophy. Arguing for a more versatile and less defensive immunological repertoire, which allows for the development of alternative and less polarised forms of political debate, this book will appeal to scholars of political theory, sociology, philosophy and science and technology studies.

A wide-ranging overview of the emergence of post-foundationalism and a survey of the work of its key contemporary exponents.This book presents the first systematic coverage of the conceptual difference between 'politics' (the practice of conventional politics: the political system or political forms of action) and 'the political' (a much more radical aspect which cannot be restricted to the realms of institutional politics). It is also the first introductory overview of post-foundationalism and the tradition of 'left Heideggerianism': the political thought of contemporary theorists who make frequent use of the idea of political difference: Jean-Luc Nancy, Claude Lefort, Alain Badiou and Ernesto Laclau. After an overview of current trends in social post-foundationalism and a genealogical chapter on the historical emergence of the difference between the concepts of 'politics' and 'the political', the work of individual theorists is presented and discussed at length. Individual chapters are presented

What are the main trends in contemporary political science research? This book examines recent developments in political science research. What are the new influences to which the discipline opens itself up? Is political science research converging towards a single model or splitting into different streams? What are the new challenges at the beginning of the 21st century? This collection of essays discusses three interrelated topics: the relationship between political science and the problems of politics, the relationship between political science and other fields of research, and the transformation of the profession. EXTRACT The past, the present and the future of political science have always been a topic of inquiry for political scientists. This collection of essays is not the first to explore the evolution of the discipline. Since its inception, scholars of politics of all persuasions have (re)produced the story of the field as a discipline and as a profession (Farr et al. 1990: 598; Blondiaux 1997: 10; Gunnell 2002: 339; Dryzek 2002; 2006). They have explored the discipline’s relation with its social and political environment, they have questioned its epistemological and ontological specificities, and more recently they have documented its professional standards, codes, and practices. As the discipline expands in different parts of the world, the attention devoted to its evolution and development has increased. Political science is a recognized object of study and “state of the discipline” studies are flourishing. This book seeks to contribute to these recent debates about the evolution of the discipline by exploring three interrelated themes, namely (1) the discipline’s co-evolution with politics, (2) its changing relations with sister disciplines, (3) and the transformation of its practices for knowledge production and dissemination. We argue in this volume that these topics are fundamental, as they directly address the core identity of political science. ABOUT THIS BOOK There is very little literature on academic journals and how they function or what they achieve and Political Science in Motion is to be welcomed as a step towards filling that gap. It is well-edited, as is evident from the cross-references between chapters. It answers some of the questions that one might want to ask, while others remain unanswered" - Wyn Grant, The London School of Economics and Political Science, Review of books

Leo Strauss's readings of historical figures in the philosophical tradition have been justly well explored; however, his relation to contemporary thinkers has not enjoyed the same coverage. In Leo Strauss and Contemporary Thought, an international group of scholars examines the possible conversations between Strauss and figures such as Walter Benjamin, Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, Charles Taylor, and Hans Blumenberg. The contributors examine topics including religious liberty, the political function of comedy, law, and the relation between the Ancients and the Moderns, and bring Strauss into many new and original discussions that will be of use to those interested in the thought of Strauss, the history of philosophy and political theory, and contemporary continental thought.

A compelling account of a controversial and innovative episode in sociological thought

Despite his influence in utopian studies and democratic theory, French philosopher Miguel Abensour (1939–2017) has yet to be fully discovered in the English-speaking world as only a fraction of his work has been translated. A Politics of Emancipation fills this void by translating a selection of his seminal essays into English for the first time. The Reader provides a systematic overview of Abensour's work and the two inseparable projects that govern his approach to political theory: on the one hand, a radical critique of all forms of domination and, on the other, a desire to conceptualize the political as the realm of freedom and emancipation. For Abensour, both projects are to be undertaken together in order to avoid the double trap of an evacuation of conflict from politics and the reduction of politics to a form of domination. In other words, a politics of emancipation requires a "ruthless" critique of domination coupled with an analysis of politics as the domain within which human beings experience freedom and equality.