| |
.gif) |
|
|
Locke's state of nature
A recent paper by John Dunn reaffirms his long held view that the account of state of nature which Locke presents in his Second Treatise is neither an hypothesis nor a description. Rather, he claims, it is a 'theoretical analysis of the fundamental relations of right and duty which obtain between human beings, relations which are logically prior to the particular historical situations in which all actual human beings always in fact find themselves' . What Locke says about the state of nature, it seems, is not always what he means. Here Dunn presents a misleading account of Locke's argument, presumably, as the title of his paper suggests, in order to mount an argument of his own about the 'political relevance' of Locke's work to a time when no-one takes seriously the early modern idea of the state of nature. The treatment of a significant historical figure in which Dunn indulges here is a common feature of academic life, and a relatively harmless one in many cases. It appears to be hardly worth disputing, in fact, except among a gathering of specialists on Locke or on his period. In this context, it invites the hardly less common, and perhaps hardly necessary, rejoinder which seeks to defend the injured party against this misrepresentation...
Presented at the Locke Conference, Griffith University, 2004.
.
|
|
The Althusserian Moment and the Concept of Historical Time
Contributors to this series have been invited to include 'historical reflection' on the emergence of the 'moment of theory', a period running from the late 1960s through to the early 1980s, as a component of their discussions. The greater part of my discussion focuses on Althusserian Marxism in Britain, using this case to add a further level of complexity to the schema set out in Ian Hunter's invaluable 'Notes for a Seminar'. However, I also want to use this opportunity to reflect on the emergence of something rather different. This is the form of historical understanding, and of the understanding of historical time in particular, in which such objects as 'the moment of theory', 'the spirit of the age' or 'England in 1819', to co-opt the title of a poem by Shelley and of a densely argued book by James Chandler, can appear as objects of historical enquiry...
Presented at the History of Theory seminar, Centre for the History of European Discourses, University of Queensland
. |
|
The very idea of a universal history
Towards the end of his life Immanuel Kant produced some relatively short texts which, each from a different perspective, outline a vision of humanity's future. The earliest is his Idea for a Universal History from a Cosmopolitan Purpose, published in 1784, which outlines nature's plan for the development of humanity – that we should move through a world federation of constitutional republics to a final cosmopolitical condition – and the means it employs to ensure the plan's fulfilment. Here, Kant insists that morality, reason and the image of the ideal future state of humanity play only a limited part in this development, and then only in its final stages. On the Common Saying: 'This May be True in Theory but it does not Apply in Practice' followed in 1793. Its third section disputes the view, which Kant attributes to Moses Mendelssohn, that while individuals may progress, humanity as a whole does not. Perpetual Peace appeared in 1795, arguing that the cosmopolitical condition is the only way to ensure a lasting peace – a peace, that is, which is something more than an interval between one war and the next – and that we have a duty to work towards its realisation...
This paper has been written as part of a joint project 'Government, Social Science, and the Concept of Society'. The present draft has benefited from discussion in the CSPT seminar at the University of Victoria, British Columbia, and from the comments and advice of Bill Connolly, Dick Flathman, Cindy Holder, Ian Hunter, and Jim Tully.
. |
|
Response to Wendy Brown
Let me begin by saying how grateful I am to the organisers for providing me with this opportunity to meet Wendy Brown. I have admired her work for many years, but always from a distance and it has been pleasure to meet her in person.
It has been a pleasure, also, to read a critical, rather than celebratory, discussion of liberal discourse on tolerance. I especially liked Wendy's treatment of the interplay between the discourse of tolerance and the discourse of civilisation. Indeed, when I first read the chapter on which today's paper is based, I found myself wondering what I could possibly add to a very valuable discussion. Some observations by Thomas Friedman, an op-ed columnist for the NYT, which Wendy quotes at the beginning of her chapter, gave me a start...
Presented at a conference to launch the Research Centre for Citizenship, Identities and Governance, Open University, 2004.
|
|
|
|
