首页> 外文学位 >The perils of pluralism: Liberal constitutionalism in search of civility.
【24h】

The perils of pluralism: Liberal constitutionalism in search of civility.

机译:多元化的危险:寻求文明的自由宪政。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

Contemporary attempts to recover "liberalism" from its "communitarian" critics have overlooked much of the nuance and vitality of the tradition of liberal constitutionalism. Reacting to these contemporary philosophical debates, this work identifies multiple strands within the tradition of liberal constitutionalism. Drawing attention to the shift from an earlier, individualistic idiom to a later associationalist rejoinder in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century, this study reveals constitutional thinkers to have been engaged in a sustained defense of the preconditions of civility against the dangers of pluralism.; Thomas Hobbes, David Hume, and other eighteenth century constitutionalists saw collective engagement as necessarily corrupting of individual reason. In this view, an increased focus on individual instrumentality, privatism and self-interest appeared the best means to preserve constitutional order from the centrifugal tendencies of religious sectarianism and faction. In the late eighteenth and nineteenth century, however, we find a growing self-consciousness in the figures of Edmund Burke and Alexis de Tocqueville about the limitations of this individualistic model. Only by recovering the spirit of associational life might liberal constitutionalism resist the individualistic logic of a democratic age.; By calling attention to these two distinct models of political socialization, each worthy of our consideration, this work recalls the problem of pluralism confronting liberal constitutionalism in the next century. Taken together, these rival views of associational life suggest that liberal constitutionalism must locate civility in the middle ground between the extreme poles of violent recombination and individual apathy.
机译:当代试图从其“共产主义者”的批评家中恢复“自由主义”的尝试忽视了自由主义宪政传统的细微差别和生命力。对这些当代哲学辩论作出反应,这项工作确定了自由宪政传统中的多个方面。这项研究引起了人们的注意,即从早期的个人主义习语转变为后来的十八世纪末和十九世纪初的协会主义结合,这项研究表明宪政思想家一直在为捍卫文明前提抵制多元主义的危险而进行持续的辩护。托马斯·霍布斯(Thomas Hobbes),大卫·休ume(David Hume)和其他18世纪的宪政主义者将集体参与视为必然破坏个人理性。按照这种观点,对个人工具性,私人主义和个人利益的日益关注似乎是保持宪法秩序免受宗教宗派主义和派系离心主义倾向影响的最佳手段。然而,在18世纪和19世纪后期,我们在埃德蒙·伯克(Edmund Burke)和亚历克西斯·德·托克维尔(Alexis de Tocqueville)的人物中发现了关于这种个人主义模式的局限性的日益增长的自我意识。自由宪政只有恢复集体生活的精神,才能抵抗民主时代的个人主义逻辑。通过唤起人们对这两种不同的政治社会化模式的关注,每种模式都值得我们考虑,这项工作回顾了下一世纪自由主义宪政面临的多元化问题。综上所述,这些对社团生活的敌对观点表明,自由宪政必须将文明置于暴力重组和个人冷漠的极端之间的中间地带。

著录项

  • 作者

    Boyd, Richard Arthur.;

  • 作者单位

    Rutgers The State University of New Jersey - New Brunswick.;

  • 授予单位 Rutgers The State University of New Jersey - New Brunswick.;
  • 学科 Political Science General.; Sociology Theory and Methods.; History Modern.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 1998
  • 页码 289 p.
  • 总页数 289
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类 政治理论;社会学理论与方法论;现代史(1917年~);
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
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