首页> 外文学位 >The grammar of politicization and depoliticization: Arendt's republicanism and the translation of revolutionary politics and judgment into political institutions.
【24h】

The grammar of politicization and depoliticization: Arendt's republicanism and the translation of revolutionary politics and judgment into political institutions.

机译:政治化和非政治化的语法:阿伦特的共和主义以及将革命政治和审判权转化为政治制度。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

For Arendt, political freedom is both a spontaneous rejection of rule and the foundation of institutions. In my dissertation, I argue that both aspects are linked together by her concept of political judgment. This reading of Arendt contrasts with a strand of political theory that seems to argue that public-participatory politics, as found in revolutions, cannot be translated into lasting institutions: Wolin and Ranciere argue that any attempt at establishing institutions undermines the participatory character of politics. Habermas and Pettit on the other hand argue for establishing lasting institutions, but they do so at the expense of a rich concept of participation. From an Arendtian perspective, both of these approaches understand politics as rulership.;By focusing Arendt's account of judgment, this dissertation offers a way to criticize both of these strands that claim it is impossible to translate participatory politics into institutions. Focusing on a reading and defense of her theory of political judgment I suggest it is possible to produce a republican political theory that neither embraces pure spontaneity in the rejection of rule nor seeks to institutionalize republican freedoms in a form of rule that diminishes public politics. Drawing on Arendt's critique of Platonic-Heideggerian Philosophy, I argue we should see Arendt as replacing the nexus of philosophy and political rule with her concept of political judgment. Once we place political judgment at the center of her political theory we can derive a thick concept of republican freedom that includes rejection of rule in favor of plurality, and membership. From this perspective, public politics, judgment and the thick concept of republican freedom are co-constitutive with political judgment linking the former to the latter. If we understood politics purely in terms of rule, Arendt shows, we would miss this interrelatedness and ultimately undermine political judgment and political action altogether.;Still, in her emphasis of the political over the social, Arendt ignores that socio-economic capability translates into political domination that would ultimately undermine her attempt to bring political judgment and political freedom in line with political institutions. I then propose to supplement Arendt's theory by a Habermasian concept of rights.
机译:对阿伦特来说,政治自由既是对统治的自发拒绝,又是制度的基础。在我的论文中,我认为她的政治判断概念将这两个方面联系在一起。对阿伦特的这种解读与一连串的政治理论形成鲜明对比,后者似乎认为,革命中发现的公众参与政治不能转化为持久的制度:沃林和兰切尔认为,任何建立制度的尝试都会破坏政治的参与性。另一方面,哈贝马斯(Habermas)和佩蒂特(Pettit)主张建立持久的机构,但这样做却是以丰富的参与概念为代价的。从阿伦迪安的角度来看,这两种方法都将政治理解为统治。通过论述阿伦特的判断力,本论文提供了一种批评这两种观点的方法,它们认为不可能将参与式政治转化为制度。我着重于对她的政治判断理论的阅读和辩护,我认为有可能产生一种既不接受纯粹自发拒绝统治的共和主义政治理论,也不寻求以减少公共政治的统治形式将共和自由制度化。我认为,借鉴阿伦特对柏拉图-海德格尔哲学的批判,我们应该看到阿伦特用她的政治判断概念代替了哲学和政治统治的联系。一旦将政治判断置于其政治理论的中心,我们就可以得出一个共和自由的浓厚概念,其中包括反对以多元化和会员制为由的统治统治。从这个角度来看,公共政治,审判和共和自由的厚泛概念与将前者与后者联系起来的政治判断是共同构成的。阿伦特(Arendt)指出,如果我们仅从统治角度来理解政治,我们将错过这种相互关联性,并最终完全破坏政治判断和政治行动。;尽管如此,阿伦特在强调政治而非社会方面仍然忽略了社会经济能力转化为政治统治最终将破坏她使政治判断和政治自由与政治制度保持一致的企图。然后,我建议用哈贝马斯的权利概念来补充阿伦特的理论。

著录项

  • 作者

    Kuchler, Daniel.;

  • 作者单位

    State University of New York at Albany.;

  • 授予单位 State University of New York at Albany.;
  • 学科 Political science.;Philosophy.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 2016
  • 页码 327 p.
  • 总页数 327
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号