Political Theory

POLITICAL THEORY

THE QUALITY OF FREEDOM by Mathew H. Kramer

Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. 482, ISBN 0 19 924756 0

Readership: Postgraduates, academic/research

Rating: ****

Reviewer: AGUSTÍN JOSÉ MENÉNDEZ (University of Leon, Spain)

This book aims at a rigorous analytical dissection of the political conception of freedom, from which to found a general theory of measurement of personal and social overall liberty. Four basic choices inform the whole argument. The author's first focus is on the interpersonal aspects of freedom – on freedom-curtailing (and, occasionally, freedom-enhancing) actions – which allows him to distinguish neatly between unfreedoms and inabilities. His second focus is on the affirmation of the primacy of negative over positive freedom. His third is on the distinction between specific liberties and overall liberty, which he traces back to Carter's The Measure of Freedom, but which is further refined here. In particular, he claims that the existence of a specific freedom (or unfreedom) is a matter of fact, whereas the measurement of overall freedom has an unavoidable normative dimension. And his fourth focus is on the measurement of overall freedom being said to be based on both a qualitative and quantitative weighing of specific freedoms. He combines the unfolding of his argument with a constant dialogue with other major texts in the literature (such as those of Quentin Skinner or Hillel Steiner), something which helps clarify the arguments.

The book is very successful as a plea and program for analytical clarity; less convincing are the arguments on the measurement of overall freedom. Once the author grants that he does not aim at a rigorous (numerical) quantification of overall freedom, but rather at disciplining the exercise of judgment in the matter, his claims on the weight to be attributed to freedoms and unfreedoms, to probabilities and to different qualities, seem unnecessarily arid. In addition, an overall analysis of the shape of freedom (of the kind put forward by Robert Alexy in the appendix to his Theory of Constitutional Rights) is unfortunately missing.

INTERPRETING MODERN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY: from Machiavelli to Marx by Alistair Edwards and Jules Townshend (eds)

Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2002. 249, £15.99, ISBN 0 333 77242 3

Readership: Undergraduates, academic/research

Rating: ****

Reviewer: JANE McCONKEY (Queen's University Belfast)

This book provides a useful guide to the literature surrounding key thinkers in Western political thought. It is intended to help students grapple with the diverse interpretations that surround the works of many of our most influential thinkers. However, I think academics writing lectures for a modern political thought course who do not research historical literature would also find this a valuable first port of call. The strategy adopted is to give a brief introduction to the particular thinker's work, followed by sections on problems surrounding their work, why conflicting interpretations exist and what those interpretations are. At the end of each chapter, the individual author evaluates the interpretations found in the literature.

The book contains entries on all the usual writers one would expect to find. However, it also has chapters on Hume and Kant, two thinkers not always covered in undergraduate courses, perhaps because they are understood as being of a more general philosophical relevance than explicitly political thinkers such as Hobbes or Locke. I would single out the chapter on Kant for particular praise, as it clearly indicates the contemporary importance of Kant's thought by explaining how his work has influenced major recent figures like John Rawls. Its thematic approach makes the study of Kant seem considerably less daunting than it is sometimes taken to be. Likewise, the chapter on Hegel is readable and does not give the impression that the primary texts would be impenetrable. However, I thought the chapter on Marx struggled somewhat in this regard – understandably perhaps, as surveying the secondary literature on Marx is a mammoth task that many would baulk at. Nevertheless, I would recommend this book as a quick and easy way to negotiate one's way through the vast literature on the history of political thought.

ANCIENT GREEK DEMOCRACY by Eric W. Robinson (ed.)

Oxford: Blackwell, 2003. 326, £17.99, ISBN 0 631 23394 6

Readership: Advanced undergraduates, postgraduates

Rating: ****

Reviewer: GIOVANNI GIORGINI (Columbia University)

The study of ancient Greek democracy has been a burgeoning field in the past twenty years, with a remarkable contribution of specialists from such different areas as political theory, sociology, ancient history, history of political and economic thought, and gender studies. One of the merits of this book is the capacity to mirror such fruitful diversity of approaches in the selection of essays. The reader will not only find a chronological account of the development of democracy, from its beginnings (or even before, as the first chapter is devoted to an examination of the notions of liberty and equality in Homer and Hesiod) to full-fledged democratic theory and practice. There are also essays and sources dealing with democratic experiences outside Athens (to remind the reader that democracy was not a peculiarly Athenian regime); the set of ideals underpinning Greek democracy; the relationship between power and rhetoric in democracy (with special reference to our best-known case, Athens); the relation between mass and elite in democracy; and the limits of Greek democratic experience (the exclusion of slaves and women from political participation). Each set of essays is prefaced by a selection of ancient sources on the theme in question.

The reader has thus a very inclusive account of the many themes that can be pursued in the investigation of ancient Greek democracy, and all the essays included come from authors who are authorities in their field; the editor's selection should be praised for its quality as well as for its scope. His choice is even more commendable, and fruitful, when it puts together authors with very different interpretations of the same historical issue (as in Josiah Ober's and Loren Samons's contrasting views of Cleisthenes’ achievement). Any selection inevitably entails leaving something valuable out. In this case, I find that the editor's excellent summary sketch at the beginning could have been fruitfully expanded to include a more comprehensive account of the different appreciation of ancient democracy in the history of political thought.

TRAUMA AND THE MEMORY OF POLITICS by Jenny Edkins

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. 266, £16.95, ISBN 0 521 534420 8

Readership: Advanced undergraduates, postgraduates, academic/research, professional

Rating: ****

Reviewer: STEPHEN G. WINTER (St Catherine's College, Oxford)

The traumatic experience challenges state sovereignty. This is because trauma exposes the ungroundedness of society, its foundations of violence, and so needs to be captured by authority and depoliticized within narratives of security. Such defensive controlling responses seek the mythologization, medicalization or disappearance of trauma. However, because the essence of the traumatic is its appearance as a bare fact or event, it resists such responses and frequently escapes structures of control.

The author of this book analyses the approach of authority to memories, memorials and museums pertaining to traumatic events such as the First World War, the Holocaust and the Vietnam War. Habitually, authorities attempt to structure traumatic memories into a narrative suitable to sovereignty. Such an example is the process of mythologizing where memorialization co-opts the slain into supporting narratives of sacrifice. Authority often tries to impose closure; thus, the author accuses the state of stripping political contestability from the traumatic. There are better alternatives. Intense and prolonged public responses testify to the greater power and truth in anti-narrative memorials like the Whitehall's Cenotaph and the Vietnam Veterans Wall. Refusing easy emplotment, such places perform the only possible act of memory – they encircle the traumatic, marking it as a place of inarticulate suffering.

This approach is critical. The stories provided by truth commissions, international courts and even humanitarian interventions are treated as manifestations of imperialist sovereignty. Regrettably, there is no in-depth analysis of the human reasons behind the narrative imperative – the human need for a consoling story of redemption that makes the stories produced by sovereignty so seductive. This work raises further issues in the relation between the needs of individual victims and their collective descendants. In sum, this is a well-written, interesting argument and a fine analytical product – and series of further questions.

CIVIC REPUBLICANISM by Iseult Honohan

London: Routledge, 2002. 328, ISBN 0 415 21211 1

Readership: Undergraduates, advanced undergraduates

Rating: *****

Reviewer: DAVID SULLIVAN (University of Wales Bangor)

This is a book of two parts. The first provides a very helpful survey of the main contributors to the development of republican ideas. There are no surprises in the writers discussed, with excellent accounts of Aristotle, Cicero, Machiavelli and Rousseau, along with shorter discussions of figures less central to the tradition. There will always be quibbles about such lists – I would have preferred to see more on Madison – but the choice is well made and also includes two very important twentieth-century writers (Hannah Arendt and Charles Taylor), which helps to lead into the contemporary importance of the debate. The second part engages directly with a number of key ideas – common goods and public virtue, freedom, participation and deliberation and recognition – all of which are of central importance to the current debate about civic republicanism. These are discussed with appropriate philosophical rigour and tested against the alternatives to civic republicanism, especially liberalism.

But is it a book of two parts, or two books in one cover? The danger with books of this type is that the first part is most suitable to beginners and the second is appropriate to more advanced students. The author avoids this danger entirely. Students from a variety of disciplines – law and history, as well as philosophy and politics – will find the first part an admirably clear introduction to the development of the theory and to its main advocates. But they would miss out a great deal if they stopped there. The second part is written so well, and draws upon the first part in such an illuminating way, that the reader is encouraged to engage with the current debate as both accessible and richly formed by historical debate. More advanced students will also find much to stimulate their thinking about the history and current practice of civic republicanism. A book of two parts, but with a singular clarity of purpose and argument.

IN DEFENCE OF MODERNITY: vision and philosophy in Michael Oakeshott by Efraim Podoksik

Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2003. 260, £25.00, ISBN 0 907845 665

Reviewer: LESLIE MARSH (University of Sussex)

Efraim Podoksik's central task is to identify Oakeshott as a defender of modernity. He thus seeks to shift our perspective on the familiar views of Oakeshott as conservative anti-modernist or as proto-postmodernist. He does not claim that these views are simply false, but that they are misleading unless we appreciate the inherent fluidity of these interpretive categories (Michael Freeden's ‘ideological morphology’).

For Oakeshott, the mark of the modern consciousness is the emergence of a plurality of distinct spheres of knowledge – poetry, science and history (inter alia). This plurality, insists Podoksik, should not lead us to derive postmodern relativistic conclusions – each of these domains are constitutive of their own criteria of objectivity and standards appropriate to their own subject matter. This sounds pretty much like postmodern relativism – the precise contrast with postmodernism is not as clear as his modernity thesis requires. A marked feature of his discussion is the substantial amount of time he devotes to the place of science in Oakeshott's thought. Typically, commentators talk up Oakeshott's anti-naturalist credentials almost as a matter of professional pride. Podoksik rightly views this emphasis as one-dimensional: Oakeshott's adminadversions against scientism should be counterbalanced by his intention to maintain the integrity of science, rescuing science from misplaced scepticism and the relativism that is corrosive of one of modernity's great achievements. Podoksik has made an excellent effort to examine the scientific influences upon Oakeshott's sparse writings on the topic. His conclusion is surprising – that Oakeshott has more in common with the scientific positivism of Mach and Poincaré than with the antinaturalists and relativists he is so often allied with.

Podoksik's approach to Oakeshott is that of an intellectual historian: it is no part of his brief to offer a critical engagement with Oakeshott's philosophy. But the book is a superb text for both the novice and the seasoned Oakeshott reader. The former will find a refreshingly clear exposition of Oakeshott's work considered as a whole. The latter will find a bold statement challenging some entrenched interpretations.

THE FUTURE OF THE CAPITALIST STATE by Bob Jessop

Cambridge: Polity, 2002. 343, £17.99, ISBN 0 7456 2273 9

Readership: Advanced undergraduates, postgraduates, academic/research

Reviewer: DUNCAN KELLY (University of Sheffield)

In this book, Bob Jessop builds upon the numerous theoretical links he has made in previous work between Gramsci and Poulantzas – especially, regulation theory, systems theory and critical realism – to track the forms, functions and possible futures of the capitalist state. He modifies and develops ideas concerning the contingent and mediated links (or temporary ‘fixes’) between accumulation strategies, state forms and hegemonic projects and here utilises the idea of ‘ecological dominance’ to clarify the nature of connections within a broad system in order to show that there is never – and here, one legacy of Marxist state theory is emphatically rejected – any ‘last instance’ in which one element can always be said to be the theoretical prime mover.

From this, however, what the author realises is that the best we can do with his account is to provide an ex post facto analysis of developments or trends that have already manifested themselves – thereby implying, I think, that, although state theory loses some of its predictive power, it could become the basis for a rigorous and theoretically informed historical-sociology of state forms and strategies. All remains contingent, but the framework of ecological dominance does recognise that for a capitalist state to continue, its relationship to capitalist accumulation strategies is crucial. Yet this value form is never reproduced in a strictly delimited economic sphere. Processes of societalisation are equally vital. And this is where the author's ideal-type considerations of the current movement away from a Keynesian welfare national state towards a Schumpeterian workfare postnational regime come in. He assesses numerous political–economic changes alongside sociological ones, considering possible variations (neoliberalism, neocorporatism, neostatism and neocommunitarianism) to this new regime. In a typically dense and suggestive book, there is much too on the nature of governance and on primary modes of ‘metagovernance’, which will guarantee a wide readership.

OXFORD HANDBOOK OF POLITICAL PSYCHOLOGY by David O. Sears, Lionie Huddy and Robert Jervis (eds)

Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. 823, ISBN 0 19 516220 x

Readership: Academic/research

Rating: ***

Reviewer: YVES LABERGE (University of Laval, Quebec)

This monumental handbook was produced to show how some of the current research in psychology can be applied to studies in political science. According to the editors, political psychology was first recognized as a specific field in US universities by the late 1960s. Topics are various and range from decision-making (Richard Lau, Stanley Feldman) to ethnical conflicts (Herbert Kelman and Ronald Fisher, John Duckitt), group identity (Leonie Huddy, Bert Klandermans), social psychology (Jack Levy, Kathleen McGraw) and citizenship education (David O. Sears and Sheri Levy, Orit Ichilov, Robert Lane). Authors of the twenty-one contributions are mostly from the US, but also from the Netherlands, Australia and Israel.

The book is divided into five parts plus a long epilogue ('Saving political science from itself’). Contributors are fully aware that time has passed since the early works on the Pavlov or Lasswell theories, followed by research on propaganda and persuasion from the 1940s, and this explains why most chapters include an historical perspective before they present mapping and new developments in their respective fields (Billig, Huddy). Hence, many contributors deal with key concepts such as images, biases and stereotypes, proving that the study of public opinion (as political psychology) has to consider symbolical meanings that are constructed in the mind of individuals. However, most examples, illustrations and case studies are set in the US.

This hefty book is a sometimes provocative but successful attempt to somehow raise the limits of a discipline (political science) as the contributors try to go beyond its usual theoretical frameworks. All essays are new, clear, rigorous and will be helpful to academics whose research deals not only with political psychology, but also with ideologies, international relations and media studies.

REPUBLICANISM IN THE MODERN WORLD by John W. Maynor

Oxford: Blackwell, 2003. 230, £15.99, ISBN 0 7456 2808 7

Readership: Advanced undergraduates, postgraduates, academic/research

Rating: ****

Reviewer: ADRIAN BLAU (University of Oxford)

This thoughtful book attacks liberals who define freedom as non-interference, and instead defends republican ideas of freedom as ‘non-domination’. Domination is the potential for arbitrary interference, whether or not actual interference occurs. Avoiding domination requires educating citizens to respect each other and to participate in politics. Participation also informs citizens and officials about public opinions, enabling policies that advance collective interests. This clearly written book is a helpful explanation, extension and modification of Philip Pettit's work.

But how modern is it? The author does not discuss whether the market dominates or whether employers dominate employees. His chapters on democracy and on factions ignore political parties, a basic feature of modern democracies. His account of civic education is better grounded, though arguably too optimistic. But his constitutional theory is simplistic, written at a level of abstraction that is now common among political theorists. Older republicans, by contrast, relished political detail (consider Machiavelli's Discourses and Harrington's Oceana).

And how republican is the author's republicanism? Domination worries many liberals: Isaiah Berlin's introduction to Four Essays on Liberty redefined negative liberty to include non-domination, and J. S. Mill and T. H. Green – both virtually ignored here – condemned the domination of women and workers, respectively. His intelligent criticisms of John Rawls and Will Kymlicka would be endorsed by liberals like William Galston, Stephen Macedo and Joseph Raz, who are largely overlooked here. These liberals would also support many of his helpful comments on civic education. I see his ‘republicanism’ as a blend of participatory liberalism and deliberative democracy. But substance matters more than classification, and his arguments are certainly valuable, especially his prescriptions on education. Overall, the book may not be very republican, and parts of it need modernising, but it makes useful contributions to liberal-democratic theory.

HANDBOOK OF CITIZENSHIP STUDIES by Engin F. Isin and Bryan S. Turner (eds)

London: Sage, 2002. 352, £75.00, ISBN 0 7619 6858 X

Readership: Undergraduates

Rating: *****

Reviewer: MARÍA INÉS TATO (University of Buenos Aires)

Citizenship studies constitute a new and growing field in the social sciences since the 1990s, pretending to answer to the challenges and transformations of modern citizenship posed by two simultaneous and differentiated phenomena: globalisation and postmodernisation. The reconfiguration of power produced by them has created a new geopolitics and has modified the extent, content and depth of citizenship. Thus, new conditions make possible claims of recognition of a large variety of rights. The purpose of this book is to offer an updated and comprehensive summary of the matter, through a well-articulated and coherent collection of works from different leading contributors. It is structured around four main parts: (i) the political, economic and social dimensions of citizenship; (ii) the historical formulation and meaning of citizenship (the ancient, the modern and the post-orientalistic conceptions); (iii) the different approaches to citizenship; and (iv) several current demands made in the name of citizenship rights.

The book shows a core concern – the consciousness of the radical transformation of the traditional notions of citizenship. In this respect, the authors remark on the fact that, in the new millennium, the nation state is not any more the sole source of sovereignty and, in consequence, of citizenship, given the emergence of supranational and transnational realities, which create the conditions for other modalities of citizenship. Moreover, they perceive the need for more sophisticated and accurate tools and mechanisms for the new struggles for recognition of rights, in order to achieve a more equalitarian society; thus, they adopt a critic perspective of modern citizenship, in favour of an approach prone to the valorisation of diversity and pluralism. In sum, the book serves as a complete introduction to citizenship studies and, at the same time, provides a noteworthy reflection on the current metamorphosis of this central issue in political life.

DEMOCRACY, POWER, AND LEGITIMACY: the critical theory of Jürgen Habermas by Omid A. Payrow Shabani

Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2003. 235, £32.00, ISBN 0 80208 7612

Readership: Academic/research

Rating: ***

Reviewer: DOROTA PIETRZYK-REEVES (Jagiellonian University, Poland)

This book offers an interesting and sophisticated discussion of different aspects of Habermas's philosophical project and presents an evaluation of his critical theory. The whole examination seeks to address the question of whether the theory of communicative action and discourse ethics, and subsequently ‘the uncritical shift’ in Between Facts and Norms, offer an adequate theory of power, legitimacy and democracy in capitalism. The central line of criticism concerns the weaknesses of the universalist, formalist character of the discourse ethics theory, which fails to address the problem of application, and the shift towards legal theory in Habermas's later works. Subsequently, it is argued that in order to revive the critical character of Habermas's project, it should be enriched with some elements of postmodern political theory. Primarily, it could be done through a synthesis of Foucault's critical theory of power with Habermas's critical theory of politics, and through Derrida's insight (deconstruction), which would preserve the normative core of the theory of deliberative democracy. This undertaking challenges Habermas's views.

The strongest point of the book is its critical and evaluative character, though most of its parts could be developed much more broadly. In particular, the author's attempt to modify or enrich Habermas's theory seems to be an unfinished journey and needs more detailed exploration. Furthermore, it might be averred that it is doubtful whether the project of bringing together two quite different approaches to power and justice can be successful. In his last work, Habermas attempted to bridge normative and empirical approaches to democracy and a new paradigm of law and the constitutional state. He developed a procedural concept of democratic process and fosters the concept of deliberative democracy. Postmodern political theory seems to be at odds with such development. Finally, it would be useful for a reader of Habermas if the bibliography included original German editions of his works.

THE ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF PUBLIC CHOICE by Charles K. Rowley and Friedrich Schneider (eds)

2 volumes. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2003. £192.00, ISBN 0 7923 8607 8

Rating: ****

Reviewer: KEITH DOWDING (London School of Economics)

This two-volume review of the public-choice tradition is written by a set of esteemed authors, many of whom can be considered the foremost experts on the topics on which they write (for example, Brams on ‘Approval voting’, or Rose-Ackerman on ‘Corruption’). The entries vary in length, not always, I feel, because of the importance or nature of the subject. Most entries give a good overview of their topic, and many pursue a definite argumentative line. Interestingly, for this reason, it would seem, the editors have decided to give some entries double-billing, with two writers presenting the same topic from their different perspectives – notably, Donald Wittman's entry ‘Efficiency of democracy’ followed by Charles Rowley and Michelle A. Vachris's ‘Efficiency of democracy?’; and ‘Redistribution I’ (Gordon Tullock) followed by ‘Redistribution II’ (Thomas Romer). Some entries are lasting topics of the discipline, such as ‘Arrow's impossibility theorem’ (interestingly written by Bernard Grofman), ‘Bicameralism’, ‘Direct democracy’, ‘The median voter model’ and ‘Public goods’. Others are very much of the moment: ‘Al-Qaeda’, ‘Enron’, ‘Internet voting’, ‘Voting equipment, minorities and the poor’ and ‘The war on drugs’. Others seem quite idiosyncratic, such as ‘Fame and politics’ and ‘Votes for women’ (quite an interesting little piece with snippets of information, but not an obvious topic for an encylopedia of public choice). As one can see from these titles, it might seem to be directed at a US market, though there are topics on European integration, the EU constitution, and the political economy of Italian electoral reform, among others, that might suggest that the European editor ensured his market too. As always with the public-choice crowd, such idiosyncrasies are part of their charm.

As well as some essays on some of the grandees of public choice – James Buchanan, Milton Friedman and William Riker (but not Gordon Tullock) – there are also short biographies on all the contributors (almost a hundred pages worth). Nice though this is for the contributors, I'm not sure we needed their CVs in such detail in an encylopedia. Instead, we could have had chapters on ‘votes for the propertyless’ or ‘votes for migrants’. Are there any missing entries? Nothing obvious, and I would only reveal my own idiosyncrasies to suggest some. All in all, a good book to have in your library for casual perusal and to check up specifics.

THE NATURE AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE MODERN STATE by Graeme Gill

Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003. 301, ISBN 0 333 80450 3

Readership: Advanced undergraduates

Rating: ***

Reviewer: ALAN SIAROFF (University of Lethbridge, Canada)

This book looks at the evolution of the state from ancient times to today's age of globalization. Its central focus is the nature and development of state capacity, a term which combines power, penetration, effectiveness and legitimacy. The most capable states have been those that rely on infrastructural power and the embeddedness of the state in society. Following from this is the author's most intriguing hypothesis – that the ‘ideal’ state is organically and institutionally interdependent with society, not dominant over it. This is because ‘in the normal course of events, the state does not exercise power against society, but through it’ (p. 22). He thus specifically disagrees with those who see the relationship between state and society as a zero-sum one. After setting out the book's theoretical parameters, he then examines in separate chapters the ancient state, the feudal and early modern state, the state's role in capitalist industrialization, the Western versus the historical Asian state, the twentieth-century welfare state and its communist rival, and state capacity in a globalized world. Globalization is not seen as a threat, at least not to the modern Western state.

The book is well written and has very thorough references. It had its origins in a fourth-year honours seminar; and indeed, senior undergraduates are those who would most benefit from reading it cover to cover. The chapter on globalization could be read by all students as a balanced assessment of the issues here. The author's demonstration of how industrialization has been crucial for the infrastructural reach and thus the overall capacity of the state implies, conversely, that non-industrial developing societies will remain burdened with weak states of low capacity. However, this implication is not developed in any detail, as he says little about the state in the contemporary developing world.

PRUDENCE: classical virtue, postmodern practice by Robert Hariman (ed.)

University Park PA: Penn State University Press, 2003. 337, $65.00, ISBN 0 271 02255 8

Readership: Postgraduates, academic/research

Rating: **

Reviewer: CLIFFORD ANGELL BATES JR (Warsaw University, Poland)

This volume of academic essays focuses on prudence as a much-neglected resource to come to the aid of political judgement in today's environment of pluralism and interdependency. The attempt is to offer an interdisciplinary take (although most of the contributors are rhetorical/communication studies scholars) on the question of how the varied dimensions and traditions of prudence can be utilized by political actors.

It seems that the postmoderns have rediscovered prudence and its role as a form of political judgement that avoids the pitfalls of modern rationalism. Following a hint from their teacher, Heidegger, advocates of postmodernism see prudence as a pre-scientific (read pre-modern rationalistic) means to comprehend man's situation in the world and as a basis to live one's life in the most authentic manner possible. This book seeks to reconnect the contemporary postmodern fascination with prudence to his historical and classical origins.

Following an introductory essay by the editor, the essays are divided up into sections focused on three themes: conceptual frameworks; rhetorical structures; and provisional networks. The introduction is not only rather weak, but it also fails to give a convincing justification for the threefold division. Thus, the book has a disjointed feel to it. Robert Cape's essay on Cicero and Eugene Garver's essay on Machiavelli (reprinted from a journal article, and part of a book by him on the same subject), both found in the first section, far outshine most of the other essays in the book. The essays in the third section are the most disjointed and least in focus, with Maurice Charland's interesting piece on ‘Lyotard's postmodern prudence’ dwarfing the other two.

KANT'S CRITIQUE OF HOBBES by Howard Williams

Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2003. 244, £15.99, ISBN 0 7083 1814 2

Readership: Undergraduates, advanced undergraduates, postgraduates, academic/research

Rating: ***

Reviewer: RONALD TINNEVELT (University of Leuven, Belgium)

This book offers a systematic study and reconstruction of Kant's critique of Hobbes. The author not only focuses our attention on the explicit points of difference that Kant emphasizes in the second section of his essay on ‘Theory and practice’ (1793). He also tries to show that Kant's political philosophy in general can be seen as a systematic engagement with Hobbes's main positions on morals and politics. In this sense, the critique of Hobbes is presented as one of the central themes of Kant's political writings. The main points of contention between Kant and Hobbes are treated under the headings of ‘Freedom’, ‘Equality’ and ‘Independence’. In addition, the author analyses the position of both on political change, revolution and international politics. His main aim is to demonstrate that Kant's political writings present us with a persuasive alternative to Hobbes's absolutist model of politics and his ‘realist’ vision of the international political order. Unlike Hobbes, Kant's understanding of sovereignty is republican by nature and connected to an ambitious ideal of cosmopolitan citizenship. Lasting peace, right and justice can only be guaranteed in a peaceful worldwide federation. State sovereignty and cosmopolitan right are, therefore, no longer incompatible, but can be reconciled. According to the author, this makes Kant's account of political sovereignty the most appropriate one today.

Although the book is written in an accessible style and will be relevant to anyone interested in Kant's and Hobbes's political philosophy, it has some limitations. The analysis of Hobbes's political writings is occasionally rather brief and somewhat one-sided. But, given the aim of the book and the author's preference for Kant, this is understandable. It also contains some unnecessary repetitions and excursions. In particular, the chapters on Christian Garve and Kant's account of political change could have been pared down. But, in the end, these are only minor shortcomings of an overall very interesting and thorough study of the relationship between Kant and Hobbes.

THE DIFFICULTY OF TOLERANCE: essays in political philosophy by T. M. Scanlon

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. 273, £17.99, ISBN 0 521 53398 8

Readership: Advanced undergraduates, postgraduates, academic/research

Rating: *****

Reviewer: SIMON WIGLEY (Bilkent University, Turkey)

This book offers us thirteen essays from a philosopher noted for producing highly influential articles in defence of the view that rights should act as constraint on the pursuit of good consequences. In particular, a number of essays consider when harmful consequences can be appealed to as reasons to place legal restrictions on free expression. The author contends that any consequentialist-based attempt to revise the boundaries of toleration can only exert moral force if it is consistent with the particular brand of contractualism he espouses. The central underlying argument that emerges is that the actions of individuals and institutions should be constrained when they cannot be justified on reasonable grounds, rather than because doing so will generate good results. Thus, constraints that promote well-being can have normative force only if they are what individuals can reasonably demand from each other. But equally, claims to freedom of expression, freedom of religion, equality, and so on, may also constitute reasonable demands.

In keeping with his contractualist stance, the author goes on to argue that we are obligated to keep our promises because we would reasonably reject principles that permitted others not to take due care over the expectations they create. Implicit here is the view that the promiser has the opportunity to choose not to allow the promisee to detrimentally rely on her promise. In a similar vein, he argues that punishment is legitimate when the criminal has had the fair opportunity to choose otherwise and therefore avoid the legal consequences of her actions.

Given that many of the essays collected here were previously difficult to access, and given that some have played a direct role in shaping the terrain of contemporary political philosophy, this book constitutes an invaluable resource for those grappling with the nature and moral significance of rights, well-being and consent.

MICHAEL OAKESHOTT ON HOBBES: a study in the renewal of philosophical ideas by Ian Tregenza

Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2003. 232, £25.00, ISBN 0 907845 592

Readership: Academic/research

Rating: *****

Reviewer: JAMES G. MELLON (Queen Elizabeth II Health Science Centre, Canada)

This thoughtful study commences by posing a question. Michael Oakeshott displayed a continuing interest in the thought of Thomas Hobbes, whose work clearly influenced him. Given that Oakeshott is well known for his critique of rationalism in politics, and that Hobbes, with his apparent effort to apply scientific reasoning to politics, could be interpreted as epitomizing rationalism in politics, how can we reconcile this with Oakeshott's obvious affinity for Hobbes?

In response, it is argued that Oakeshott approached the work of past political thinkers at different times through different modes of inquiry. On occasion, he might approach them historically, but at other times he might, and did, approach a work like Hobbes's Leviathan philosophically. For Oakeshott, interpreting such a work meant relating a particular text to some appropriate context, and he took the view that Leviathan represents a masterpiece that may be related not only to its own immediate context, but also to the entire history of politics philosophically. What Oakeshott so appreciated about Hobbes's thought was his skepticism, his appreciation of the limits of human knowledge. By this interpretation, Hobbes's sovereign represents not the achievement of some definitive sense of the ends of politics but, rather, an acceptance that claims to discovery of such ultimate ends will always be specious, and that the sovereign exists not to advance any such claim but to accomplish the limited goal of suppressing war among proponents of the competing ends.

Whether Oakeshott's interpretation of Hobbes is more persuasive than competing ones remains a matter of debate, but this book sheds considerable light on the thought of Oakeshott and on how it may be clarified by looking at the ways in which he used Hobbes's thought to reflect on politics in the broadest context.

INTRODUCING SOCIAL THEORY by Pip Jones

Cambridge: Polity Press, 2003. 224, £14.99, ISBN 0 7456 2698 x

Readership: Undergraduates, advanced undergraduates

Rating: ****

Reviewer: ANTHEA JONES (University of Canberra, Australia)

This is an introductory text for the study of sociology. The context of the book is set by its assertions that ‘Humans are social beings’ (p. 1) and that ‘Few of our activities are truly solitary and scarce are the times that we are really alone’ (p. 1). It overviews the fundamental theories comprising sociology, including structural-consensus theory, structural-conflict theory, action theory and modernity. It examines the principal theorists of classical sociology – Durkheim, Marx and Weber. And it includes summaries of Foucault, feminist theory, structuralism, post-structuralism and relativism, modernity and post-modernity, as well as critical responses to postmodernity and postmodernism, bringing the reader into contact with the contemporary sociological theoretical dialogues of Gellner, Habermas, Giddens and Beck.

For the author, all sociological theories have a common emphasis on the centrality of human belief and action (defined as conscious intention) as the product of social influences. In the context of sociology emerging as a discipline in the nineteenth century, this is highly relevant to the discipline of political theory, which goes back to the ancient Greeks. The social realm is one that is neither public or private, and the blurring of distinctions between political and social theory, where politics is nothing more than a function of society, make the important disciplinary distinctions difficult to perceive.

Overall, the book succeeds admirably in its intent to serve as an accessible introduction to sociological theorising and debates and as a useful guide to understanding and evaluating key sociological theorists. Information is provided in an easily accessible manner for a novice student of the discipline. The presentation is easy on the eye. And adequate chapter notes and further readings are given, which strengthens this book as a primer for sociology students. Students using this book would be encouraged to continue with the discipline.

UNDERSTANDING POLITICAL IDEAS AND MOVEMENTS by Kevin Harrison and Tony Boyd

Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2003. 360, £12.99, ISBN 0 7190 6151 2

Readership: Undergraduates, advanced undergraduates

Rating: ****

Reviewer: MARY WALSH (University of Canberra, Australia)

This is an introductory text on political ideas and movements in the modern world that situates the study of modern political philosophy around the core themes of politics, power and justice. It outlines key concepts in modern political theory and debate, including the state and sovereignty, the nation, democracy, freedom, equality, rights, obligations and citizenship and the role of ideology in politics and society. These key concepts provide the contextualisation for the later chapters on political ideologies and movements, including nationalism, conservatism, liberalism, socialism, Marxism and anarchism, fascism, environmentalism, ecologism and feminism. The concluding chapter discusses emergent issues in contemporary politics identified as impacting upon the future, including politicised religion, disabled rights, gay rights and animal rights. The book ends with a discussion of how ideological change occurs, emphasising the importance of rationality for politics, and is specifically written for GCE Government and Politics A2 level students. It features points to consider, boxed definitions of key terms throughout the text, chapter summaries, references and further reading, as well as an extensive glossary of major figures, placing their work in historical perspective.

While appreciating the impossibility of capturing the entire terrain of modern political philosophy, the book underplays the crucial centrality of actual events to modern political theory in its assertion that ‘politics takes place within a framework of ideas and concepts, ideological and religious beliefs, and social and political institutions’ (p. 309). The focus is upon whether the ideas presented are ‘out of date’ rather than identifying the importance of events for modern political theory, as opposed to concepts and ideas for modern political philosophy. Moreover, the chapter on freedom confuses the distinctively political and public dimensions of freedom by merging it with liberty and assuming they are the same things.

THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE STATE: beyond the myth of retreat by Georg Sørensen

Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2004. 231, £16.99, ISBN 0 333 982053

Readership: Postgraduates, academic/research

Rating: *****

Reviewer: DANIEL BARACSKAY (Cleveland State University)

This book brings a strong theoretical analysis to the recurring debate between pro-state and retreat scholars. While the state-centric and classical liberal theorists are still engaged in discourse on whether or not the state is in retreat, the critical approach offers a convincing argument that the state is actually in a state of transformation. This is the foundation of the book. Derived from sociology and international political economy, the ‘embedded autonomy’ of the critical approach explores the complexity of relationships that exist between the state and market, and states and civil societies. This complexity changes the power positions of states over time and across issues. For instance, the author argues that globalization has not so much reduced the role of the state, as changed it. This change has occurred since international competition has expanded, and political and non-political entities have evolved into considerably stronger forces. The market and the state are intertwined in a non-zero-sum game. Effective states promote strong markets, as is the case in Western Europe, North America and Japan, which retain the primary share of foreign direct investment. He also explores cross-border cooperation and how the growth of interstate, transgovernmental and transnational relations emphasize different roles for the state through interaction with other states and governmental and non-governmental players.

The book is enlightening and informative for students of state theory. In fact, its treatment of Third World countries and international institutions, both governmental and non-governmental, also entices scholars of comparative and international politics. It is highlighted with the periodic use of data and tables, which substantiate the primary arguments. Although it is specialized and requires a base of knowledge that is likely to be beyond that of introductory students, it would be an appropriate choice for upper-division classes, and especially for graduate-level study. For scholars of political science, it provides a definite contribution to the discipline.

RIGHTS AND REASONS: an introduction to the philosophy of rights by Jonathan Gorman

Chesham: Acumen, 2003. 230, £14.95, ISBN 1 90268374 9

Readership: Undergraduates, advanced undergraduates, postgraduates, academic/research

Rating: ****

Reviewer: JANE McCONKEY (Queen's University Belfast)

The aim of this book is to philosophically ground ‘rights’ discourse. It does this in a historical manner, beginning with Plato and proceeding to discussions of Hobbes, Locke, Hume, Kant and the legal theorist W. N. Hohfeld. Although the inclusion of Plato may initially strike one as odd, the rationale is to set the scene for rights as independent, eternal and consistent entities. Each of these standards is then subjected to critical discussion throughout. The author concludes that ‘human rights have no independent metaphysical existence, are not plausibly universal, may with reason change over time, and may be intelligibly inconsistent with each other’ (p. 183). Drawing on Isaiah Berlin's pluralism, he urges us to adopt an attitude of ‘toleration’, recognising different points of view; this is necessary in order to incorporate all our moral understanding.

The book is intended to be introductory and it fulfils this aim in many regards. For example, it explicates key philosophical terms such as ‘realism’ and provides details such as explaining different trends in analytical philosophy. A beginner philosopher may well find these explanations illuminating, as the author writes in a precise style that is crisp and clear. My reservation with this aspect is that I doubt a beginner would think a book about rights would be the place to find such accounts. Readers should also be aware not to expect extended discussion of heavily debated contemporary issues such as ‘group rights’; The book allows that we can talk about such rights if we wish, but the limits of the book's inquiry do not permit analysis of substantive political concerns that one finds in other works. Consequently, although this could be a good starting place to think about rights, one could not use it as the main introductory text for current university politics courses.

WHY SOCIETIES NEED DISSENT by Cass R. Sunstein

Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2003. 256, £14.95, ISBN 0 674 01268 2

Reviewer: MADS QVORTRUP (Robert Gordon University)

‘When you have a great country’, wrote American novelist Norman Mailer, ‘it is your duty to be critical of it so it can become even greater’. The American lawyer and political writer Cass Sunstein's book is an attempt to explain why we have a ‘duty to be critical’. Based on the 2003 Oliver Wendell Holmes Lectures, he endeavours to show that ‘organisations and nations are more likely to prosper if they welcome dissent’ (p. 11), as a critical public will prompt the rulers to correct mistakes. This is not a novel argument. As Sunstein acknowledges, John Stuart Mill made the same case for dissent, free speech and tolerance in On Liberty. Sunstein's approach is similarly utilitarian, and a persuasive one at that – even for a Kantian like the reviewer.

The book is mainly focused on the freedom of speech. That might be justified on the grounds of Sunstein's area of expertise. Yet a defence of the freedom of speech is hardly controversial – especially not in America. It would have been far more challenging and daring had he instead chosen to focus on other ‘dissenting actions’, such as civil disobedience and unlawful protests. For is it not the case that civil disobedience and unlawful protests have served as outlets for the legitimate concern of, say, groups who have been disadvantaged by narrow-mindedness among the political classes? Sunstein might not agree with this criticism, yet he would – I am sure – agree that a critical review of his book is in the spirit of the thesis he is defending. It is a good read – even if it does not go nearly far enough.

UNDERSTANDING DEMOCRATIC POLITICS: an introduction by Roland Axtmann (ed.)

London: Sage, 2003. 350, £19.99, ISBN 0 7619 7183 1

Readership: Undergraduates

Rating: ****

Reviewer: CHARLES BROUGHTON (Canberra, Australia)

This is an accessible introduction to democratic politics, focusing more on contemporary problems and issues than on abstract theory. This by no means makes the book unacademic, but it does lend it a practical tone. It has a UK focus, though other democracies are mentioned. No single undergraduate book could provide an exhaustive list of the major topics in democratic politics, but this one provides a good cross-section of both the usual suspects (for example, power and legitimacy, interest groups, feminism and representation) and more topical concerns (for example, social capital, cyber-democracy and Islamism), organised under three headings: ‘Concepts’; ‘Institutions and political behaviour’; and ‘Ideologies and movements’. For an introductory text, the inclusion of the relatively obscure topic of cosmopolitanism is curious, though interesting. One notable gap is on whether democracy can be legitimately adapted according to cultural values (for example, the ‘Asian’ democracy debate in SouthEast Asia) – despite the useful Islamism chapter.

The thirty-two chapters are kept short. Bullet-point summaries cover the main issues and concepts, and thoughtful tutorial questions are supplied. The further reading lists – essential for a book of this concise format – include references to the most notable contributors to the literature. The book's approach to teaching democratic politics suggests a form of Socratic method – promoting discussion and engagement. Rather than providing answers fully formed as discerned by experts. The brief seems to have been to briefly raise several interplaying ideas and their essential background. Each chapter is cross-referenced to related chapters, and this approach will hopefully emphasise the interconnected aspects of democratic politics. One of the book's self-professed goals is to be practical, and this is achieved. It would provide a useful base for undergraduates or those new to democratic politics – one that students would return to in subsequent years of their degree when seeking a refresher or some clear language.

A DANGEROUS MIND: Carl Schmitt in post-war European thought by Jan-Werner Müller

New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 2003. 303, £20.00, ISBN 0 300 09932 0

Readership: Undergraduates, advanced undergraduates, postgraduates, professional

Rating: *****

Reviewer: CLIFFORD ANGELL BATES JR (Warsaw University, Poland)

This is perhaps one of the best books written about this controversial political thinker and constitutional jurist, Carl Schmitt. He was a man of the right who fought to stop the Nazis from coming to power, but failing that, and following the infamous enabling act of 1933 (giving German sovereignty to Hitler), thought he could guide Hitler towards a responsible understanding of the state. His attempt failed, in that he fundamentally did not understand the true nature of Hitler and his true agenda. And because of this opportunistic attempt to guide Hitler, Schmitt and his critique of liberalism is now perpetually tied to the Nazis, even if his anti-liberalism has rather little in common with that movement.

The book is composed of three parts. The first part is a brief account of Schmitt's life up to the end of the Second World War and the end of his career as a constitutional jurist. The second part deals with Schmitt's ‘After life’ and the various ways his anti-liberalism has been adopted by both the left and the right. The third part deals with how Schmittian themes are used by the various critics of globalism and the liberal census that the ‘End of History’ brought about by the end of the cold war. This account is even-handed and, to a great degree, covers a lot of ground that will be useful to scholars interested in Schmitt, critiques of liberalism and critiques of globalism.

PERFECTIONISM AND NEUTRALITY: essays in liberal theory by Steven Wall and George Klosko (eds)

Lanham MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003. 290, £20.95, ISBN 0 7425 0844 7

Readership: Undergraduates, advanced undergraduates, postgraduates, academic/research

Rating: *****

Reviewer: SHAUN P. YOUNG (University of South Africa)

The dichotomy between perfectionism and neutrality framed much of the political theorizing conducted during the latter part of the twentieth century, and, arguably, it continues to capture the principal distinction between the different prominent liberal responses to the problem of securing the socio-political conditions needed to establish and sustain a just and stable polity. This book seeks both to provide a survey of the fundamental features of the perfectionism–neutrality debate and to contribute new material that engages and expands upon the existing scholarship.

The text comprises an introduction and two parts, a total of 16 chapters. The introduction offers an excellent outline of the history and primary elements of the perfectionism–neutrality debate. The first part consists of nine chapters that present excerpts from the works of the ‘most influential’ contributors to the debate, including Bruce Ackerman, Ronald Dworkin, Charles Larmore, Stephen Macedo, Thomas Nagel and John Rawls (Neutrality), as well as Vinit Haksar, Thomas Hurka and Joseph Raz (Perfectionism). The second part contains six chapters of new material written by eminent political theorists who have also been noteworthy contributors to the debate, including Richard Arneson, Gerald F. Gaus, Kent Greenwalt, George Sher, and a contribution from each of the editors. These essays seek to clarify a number of unresolved issues ‘that continue to divide participants in this controversy’ (p. vii). The questions addressed include what constitutes ‘the most promising formulation and justification of the neutrality principle’; what is the true degree of compatibility between perfectionism and ‘important liberal values and principles’; and to what extent would certain public institutions and policies be acceptable to one approach but not the other (p. 21)?

There is little to criticize with respect to either the content or the quality of this book. The editors have compiled a superb collection of both ‘canonical’ and new material that constitutes a very useful addition to the existing scholarship.

THE PARADOX OF PHILOSOPHICAL EDUCATION: Nietzsche's new nobility and the eternal recurrence in Beyond Good and Evil by J. Harvey Lomax

Lanham MD: Lexington Books, 2003. 145, £14.95, ISBN 0 7391 0477 2

Reviewer: STEVEN MICHELS (Sacred Heart University, Connecticut)

This book was written, at least in part, to correct prevailing postmodernist interpretations that confuse Nietzsche's attack on rationality with an exuberant nihilism. Nietzsche, the philosopher who best exemplifies the crisis of the West, attacked philosophy by tearing down the moral prejudices that were held as truths. He intended, it is argued, to introduce a sort of poetic philosophy that would elevate individuals and political communities to great heights. His new nobility is a healthy will that commands obedience, with the eternal recurrence – the ability to will all things, past, present and future – as its highest expression. Christianity might have prevailed because of the low state of philosophy, but Nietzsche aims to replace Christianity with the myth of the will and the eternal recurrence. It is paradoxical, in that, however much he cared for philosophy, his appeal to truth ends in a noble lie.

The book's greatest weaknesses are also great strengths. For one thing, the author makes little effort to interpret the whole of Nietzsche's corpus; instead, he focuses almost exclusively on the first three chapters of Beyond Good and Evil. Nietzsche is clearest here, he claims; and a close reading of this part will provide a better understanding not only of the remainder of the text, but also, more importantly, of Nietzsche's magnum opus, Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Although this might somewhat qualify his analysis, he is right to place Beyond Good and Evil among Nietzsche's most important texts. The brevity of the study also means that he has little time to consider secondary literature, but one can hardly blame him for maintaining his focus.

This is not intended for casual students of Nietzsche. Its introductory chapter is amazingly short and admittedly terse. Moreover, the author avoids spelling out his argument, preferring to reveal his conclusions at the end, a style that might be problematic for readers needing guideposts along the way. As he warns in the preface, the book must be read in its entirety. In so doing, however, the reader is rewarded with a commentary nearly as rich and compelling as the text it seeks to illuminate.

THE ETHICS OF STAKEHOLDING by Keith Dowding, Jurgen De Wispelaere and Stuart White (eds)

Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003. 203, £45.00, ISBN 1 4039 0580 0

Readership: Advanced undergraduates, postgraduates, academic/research

Rating: *****

Reviewer: JOHN BAKER (University College Dublin)

Stakeholding is defined here as a social policy paradigm that aims to give individuals a financial ‘stake’ in society. The two variants that dominate this book are universal basic income payments (also called citizens’ income) and universal basic capital grants (also called stakeholder grants), although there is also some discussion of targeted asset-building (savings schemes for low-income individuals with matching contributions by the state). The overall aim is to compare various proposals and their justifications. The editors’ opening chapter provides a very helpful survey of the range of policy options, the arguments that have been advanced for them and the key issues affecting their design. The next four chapters are mainly concerned with defending specific proposals, and the subsequent four chapters with critically appraising them. In the final chapter, Bruce Ackerman defends basic capital in response to the other authors.

This excellent collection contains many new insights and powerful arguments, providing a useful addition to a rapidly expanding literature. My only major doubt is whether ‘stakeholding’ is really appropriate as an umbrella term for both basic capital and basic income, since what emerges most strongly is the continued contrast between them. It seems clear enough that the idea of basic capital is more in tune with the dominant values of contemporary capitalist societies, particularly the UK and US, than basic income. It is therefore more feasible but, by the same token, less radical. This suggests, and as the contributions by Cécile Fabre, Carole Pateman and Robert van der Veen confirm in different ways, that basic capital ignores some of the deepest faults of our societies. Basic income is no panacea, and it faces its own challenges, such as those raised by Stuart White and Gils van Donselaar about reciprocity. But it still seems to point to a more humane, egalitarian society than basic capital.

POLITICAL THEORY AND PRACTICE: eight essays on a theme by Wendell John Coats Jr

London: Associated University Press, 2003. 157, £300.00, ISBN 1 57591 075 6

Readership: Academic/research

Rating: ****

Reviewer: FILIZ AKGUL (Bilkent University, Turkey)

As this book suggests, sketching the contours of the relationship between human intelligentsia and the evolving course of history involves an identification of the unchanging and changing aspects of human praxis and the practicability of philosophical reflections and their ways and limits of influence on human conduct. The examination of the relationship includes the nature and aims of political theorizing and its interaction with deed, as well as an insight into how the understanding of this relationship has been described by Western political philosophers from Plato to Oakeshott. In the essays on Plato, Aristotle, Vico and Descartes, Machiavelli, Locke and Descartes, and Marx, the author elaborates philosophers from various points of views, most evidently through an Oakshottian sensibility and the antirationalist school of thought, with some echoes of Strauss. His reflections on the theory–practice problem; revisited ideas developed in the earlier chapters, organized and discerned systematic inspection of political intellectual activity sets the main and secondary purposes of thought, subsequent to the main assumptions the inquiry is based on, and claims that one of the prominent roles of theorizing is to develop new terms that clarifies the concepts a civilization refers to, in order to differentiate politics from religion etc, thereby distinguishing the animus dominandi on the ‘map of human activity’ (p. 114).

Although the author justifies his main thesis that political theory's principle aim is to influence political practice, I find myself unconvinced of why – even at high levels of abstraction – political theorizing usually does not intend to understand for its own sake. Thus, his well-justified argument seems less valid when the counter-argument has been left less criticized. He finally makes a remark on the aims of contemporary political theorizing and similarly leaves the reader unconvinced. Precisely, he claims that today's political theory aims to moderate and/or harmonize human integration and order, with the lack of a convincing explanation of why and how it is different from the Machiavellian instrument of ‘concentration of power’. This book definitely deserves scholarly attention, but only from readers with philosophical or theoretical expertise.

LIBERALISM UNDER SIEGE: the political thought of the French Doctrines by Aurelian Craiutu

Lanham MD: Lexington Books, 2003. 356, $26.95, ISBN 0 7391 0657 0

Reviewer: DUNCAN KELLY (University of Sheffield)

This book shows how the ideas of the French Doctrinaires during the Bourbon Restoration were historically innovative and important and that aspects of their work speak to issues in contemporary political thought. Moreover, although this is a book about the Doctrinaires as a group, its principal focus is undoubtedly on François Guizot. It is through him that the author is able to expound the rationale behind some of the central political ideas of the Doctrinaires, such as the necessity of finding a juste milieu between revolution or reaction, forged out of historical attempts to understand how and why the French Revolution came to take its particular course.

The account of how Guizot's thinking was underpinned by a theory of civilization, progress and pluralism is very well done, and the contrasts established between conservative and more overtly liberal intellectuals are instructive, especially in terms of thinking about sovereignty, rights and political legitimacy. Civilization here is the product of a ‘systematic antagonism’ between plural forces, and reconciling pluralism and individual liberty with civilization is the task of an active ‘liberalism of government’. By tapping largely unrealized political capacities, a more inclusive government based on the ‘sovereignty of reason’ could develop. Yet if power was a central fact of human relations, political power had to be constrained, and its representative legitimacy should be assessed according to the precepts of reason, truth and justice (p. 127). Guizot's idealism was tempered by deep historical knowledge and active advocacy for press freedom and national education. His writings were profoundly important to Mill and Tocqueville for thinking about the problematic relationship between equality, democracy and individualism. His Protestantism further informed his ambivalence about democracy, but this ambivalence was also shared by other Doctrinaires. This book offers a salutary reminder of how important these neglected thinkers are to modern political thought.

POLITICAL THINKERS: from Socrates to the present by David Boucher and Paul Kelly (eds)

Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. 564, £19.99, ISBN 0 19 878194 6

Readership: Undergraduates, advanced undergraduates

Rating: *****

Reviewer: MICHAEL DROLET (Royal Holloway, University of London)

As the editors note in their engaging and very accessible introduction to this excellent volume of essays on the principal political thinkers of Western civilization, the history of political thought contains a wide plurality of approaches and styles that makes the discipline a thoroughly exciting and stimulating intellectual activity. The distinguished group of scholars assembled here have written clear and thoughtful essays that reflect how diverse and electrifying the discipline is. Some emphasise the historical dimension of political thought, such as Cary Nederman's excellent piece on Marsiglio of Padua or Deborah Baumgold's solid account of the work of Hobbes. Others stress the theoretical nature of political thinking, as Jeremy Waldron's stimulating discussion on Locke's liberalism or Kelly's excellent accounts of Hume and Bentham testify. Still others, such as Cheryl Welch's exemplary essay on Tocqueville, reveal the significant relevance of past thinkers to contemporary debates.

The editors have gone to some lengths to justify who among the great political thinkers is worthy of being included in this volume. Where significant thinkers such as Jean Bodin or Leo Strauss have not been assigned individual chapters, their works have been discussed and thoroughly explored in relation to other thinkers. Nevertheless, it is a pity that they missed an opportunity to include chapters on Spinoza, whose reflections on politics, religion and toleration are of monumental significance, or on the Frankfurt School, whose influence on twentieth-century thought is profound.

This book is an ideal starting point for students. Each essay contains a brief abstract, biographical sketch, glossary of key terms, list of key texts and helpful guide to further reading. It is sure to convert many undergraduates, who are nearly always initially intimidated by the ideas of the great minds of the past and present.

MARX AND WITTGENSTEIN: knowledge, morality and politics by Gavin Kitching and Nigel Pleasants (eds)

London: Routledge, 2002. 317, £65.00, ISBN 0 415 24775 6

DELEUZE, MARX AND POLITICS by Nicholas Thoburn

London: Routledge, 2003. 240, ISBN 0 415 28275 6

Reviewer: MADS QVORTRUP (Robert Gordon University)

It is, perhaps, not strange that Marx continues to fascinate now that Soviet communism is long dead and buried. In recent years, Marx has had a (in a sense, strange) renaissance among post-structuralist thinkers and analytical philosophers. The two books under review are examples of this. Galving Kitching and Nigel Pleasants's edited volume, Marx and Wittgenstein is an example of the latter. Nicholas Thoburn's monograph Deleuze, Marx and Politics is an example of the former.

These are both clever books. Thoburn shows considerable knowledge about the late Giles Deleuze's philosophy. His book is a good primer for those wishing to acquaint themselves with this (not always) comprehensible thinker. The same can be said of the essays on Wittgenstein in Kitching and Pleasants's book. Yet both books fail to convince the reader that, respectively, Deleuze and Wittgenstein can contribute to Marxism. It is not explained, for example, how Wittgenstein's brand of ordinary philosophy is compatible with Marx's ill-disguised positivism. A more fruitful approach would have been to look at the early Wittgenstein (of Tractatus) and the late Marx. The book does the reverse. Thoburn falls into the same trap by seeking – unsuccessfully – to marry Deleuze's idea of ‘minor politics’ to Marx's grand theory. This is bound to fail. Marx was not inspired by ‘minor politics’; indeed, he wrote scornfully about Saint-Simon and Owen and other ‘utopian socialists’. Marx was a classical economist with an Hegelian upbringing. He was inspired by French materialists like Helvétius and d'Holbach and British economists like Ricardo and Smith. He endeavoured to become the Darwin of the social sciences – indeed, he sent Darwin a signed copy of Das Capital.

Marx once wrote that ‘the philosophers have merely interpreted the World differently, the task, however, is to change it’. It seems that the authors and contributors to these two books have done to Marx what he wanted to do to the world – they have not merely interpreted Marx differently, they have also sought to change him.

LAW, PRAGMATISM AND DEMOCRACY by Richard A. Posner

Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2003. 398, £23.50 (hb), ISBN 0 674 01081 7

Readership: Undergraduates

Rating: ***

Reviewer: FRANK VIBERT (European Policy Forum, London)

This book makes the case for a ‘pragmatic’ approach both to the practice of law and to democratic governance. The main aim is to define ‘pragmatism’ in legal adjudication and its positioning in democratic theory; to discuss the practical implications of the pragmatic approach; and to provide the judicial and the political pillars of the liberal state with a common link. The key to this account of the ‘pragmatic’ theory of democracy and adjudication is its avoidance of debate over fundamental issues and deep truths, its distrust of attempting to embody theoretical precepts in legal formalism or political rules and its focus instead on everyday empiricism. An important advantage claimed by the author for the pragmatic approach to adjudication is that it frees up the law to take much greater account of insights from other disciplines such as economics. Moreover, according to him, the pragmatic approach is much more suited to dynamic and diverse societies and to the handling of the unexpected – whether dealing with terrorist threats or disputed elections.

The book starts with two chapters discussing the concept of pragmatic adjudication, four chapters extend the discussion to the concept of pragmatic democracy and a further two chapters take up case studies, such as the US Supreme Court ruling on the Florida recount – cases where the author believes the pragmatic approach is particularly salient. There is also a theoretical chapter on Hayek and Kelsen's approach to judicial philosophy. His attempt to provide a unified approach to the theory of both law and politics is interesting and important. The linking of theory with practice through case studies is also illuminating. The book is weakened by his less-sure grasp of democratic theory compared with legal practice and an almost wilful misinterpretation of Hayek and Kelsen.

T. H. GREEN AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF ETHICAL SOCIALISM by Matt Carter

Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2003. 224, £25.00, ISBN 0 907 84532 0

Readership: Advanced undergraduates, postgraduates, academic/research, professional

Rating: ****

Reviewer: THOM BROOKS (University of Sheffield)

What is the legacy of T. H. Green's liberalism? For too many, it is seen as having only minor historical interest and no lasting impact. This book provides us with a spirited defence of Green's significance in political thought. This significance lies in the development from Green's liberalism to R. H. Tawney's ‘ethical socialism’. The author argues that ethical socialism springs from central concepts underlying Green's liberal ideology – the common good, a positive theory of freedom, equality of opportunity, and an expanded role for the state. These concepts are reappropriated by Green's followers, such as Ball, Haldane, Holland and, ultimately, Tawney and the Labour Party.

The great strength of the book is its defence of the importance of Green's work in the history of ideas and, in particular, the development of New Liberalism. It is well argued and sensitive to the various historical controversies surrounding the persons involved, as well as that of Green's legacy, and it provides us with fascinating studies of Ball, Haldane, Holland and Tawney.

Although I believe this book makes an important contribution to the study of British idealism and its immediate legacy, I am not entirely convinced that Green and his followers were as important for the development of socialism as the author suggests. He seems to take the attendance or support of Labour Party and its affiliate unions’ activities by Green's followers as evidence of their support of socialism and not just a shared interest in social justice. This is problematic, as those Idealists who did affiliate with the Labour Party – a good example is J. S. Mackenzie – continued to vociferously reject socialism. In the end, it remains unclear whether these apparent defections to Labour reflected a true change in ideology or rather an opportunistic effort to realise liberal goals in a different political party.

Political Theory