John Rawls and "Our Tradition" of Democracy

IF 0.1 Q4 POLITICAL SCIENCE
James T. Kloppenberg
{"title":"John Rawls and \"Our Tradition\" of Democracy","authors":"James T. Kloppenberg","doi":"10.3138/ttr.43.1.21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:The notion of a clear distinction between Rawls's liberalism and social democracy rests on a caricatured conception of the liberal tradition and Rawls's place in it. From Rousseau, John Adams, and Madison through Tocqueville to Dewey, notable political theorists have sought to balance the two principles at the core of Rawls's A Theory of Justice. In this essay I sketch the ways in which American thinkers and activists escaped the cages in which commentators have tried to confine them, not only the false binary between liberalism and democratic socialism but also that between secularism and religious belief. As Rawls himself tried to make clear in his later writing, his ideal of justice drew from earlier theorists who understood the constitutive role of social interaction and inherited traditions, and he envisioned a society with room for people animated by comprehensive philosophical and religious ideas not shared by everyone else. Rawls's political liberalism, historicist as well as pluralist, was attuned as much to the threat inequality poses to freedom as to the endangered status of freedom in mass society. Rawls's ideas, especially as articulated in his book Justice as Fairness, remain a vital resource for social democrats who prize social and economic equality as well as individual liberty.","PeriodicalId":41972,"journal":{"name":"Tocqueville Review","volume":"43 1","pages":"21 - 50"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tocqueville Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3138/ttr.43.1.21","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract:The notion of a clear distinction between Rawls's liberalism and social democracy rests on a caricatured conception of the liberal tradition and Rawls's place in it. From Rousseau, John Adams, and Madison through Tocqueville to Dewey, notable political theorists have sought to balance the two principles at the core of Rawls's A Theory of Justice. In this essay I sketch the ways in which American thinkers and activists escaped the cages in which commentators have tried to confine them, not only the false binary between liberalism and democratic socialism but also that between secularism and religious belief. As Rawls himself tried to make clear in his later writing, his ideal of justice drew from earlier theorists who understood the constitutive role of social interaction and inherited traditions, and he envisioned a society with room for people animated by comprehensive philosophical and religious ideas not shared by everyone else. Rawls's political liberalism, historicist as well as pluralist, was attuned as much to the threat inequality poses to freedom as to the endangered status of freedom in mass society. Rawls's ideas, especially as articulated in his book Justice as Fairness, remain a vital resource for social democrats who prize social and economic equality as well as individual liberty.
约翰·罗尔斯与民主的“我们的传统”
摘要:将罗尔斯的自由主义与社会民主主义区分开来的观点,是基于对自由主义传统和罗尔斯在自由主义传统中的地位的讽刺。从卢梭、约翰·亚当斯、麦迪逊到托克维尔,再到杜威,著名的政治理论家都试图平衡罗尔斯《正义论》的两个核心原则。在这篇文章中,我概述了美国思想家和活动人士是如何逃脱评论家们试图禁锢他们的牢笼的,不仅是自由主义和民主社会主义之间的错误二元对立,还有世俗主义和宗教信仰之间的二元对立。正如罗尔斯自己在他后来的著作中试图阐明的那样,他的正义理想来自于早期的理论家,这些理论家理解社会互动的构成作用,并继承了传统,他设想了一个社会,为人们提供空间,这些人受到其他所有人都不认同的全面的哲学和宗教思想的激励。罗尔斯的政治自由主义,既是历史主义的,也是多元主义的,既关注不平等对自由构成的威胁,也关注自由在大众社会中的濒危状态。罗尔斯的思想,尤其是他在《作为公平的正义》一书中所阐述的思想,对于那些重视社会和经济平等以及个人自由的社会民主主义者来说,仍然是一个重要的资源。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Tocqueville Review
Tocqueville Review POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信