In the Shadow of Justice: Postwar Liberalism and the Remaking of Political Philosophy

by Katrina Forrester

A forceful, encyclopedic study.--Michael Eric Dyson, New York Times
A history of how political philosophy was recast by the rise of postwar liberalism and irrevocably changed by John Rawls's A Theory of Justice



In the Shadow of Justice tells the story of how liberal political philosophy was transformed in the second half of the twentieth century under the influence of John Rawls. In this first-ever history of contemporary liberal theory, Katrina Forrester shows how liberal egalitarianism--a set of ideas about justice, equality, obligation, and the state--became dominant, and traces its emergence from the political and ideological context of the postwar United States and Britain.

In the aftermath of the civil rights movement and the Vietnam War, Rawls's A Theory of Justice made a particular kind of liberalism essential to political philosophy. Using archival sources, Forrester explores the ascent and legacy of this form of liberalism by examining its origins in midcentury debates among American antistatists and British egalitarians. She traces the roots of contemporary theories of justice and inequality, civil disobedience, just war, global and intergenerational justice, and population ethics in the 1960s and '70s and beyond. In these years, political philosophers extended, developed, and reshaped this liberalism as they responded to challenges and alternatives on the left and right--from the New International Economic Order to the rise of the New Right. These thinkers remade political philosophy in ways that influenced not only their own trajectory but also that of their critics.

Recasting the history of late twentieth-century political thought and providing novel interpretations and fresh perspectives on major political philosophers, In the Shadow of Justice offers a rigorous look at liberalism's ambitions and limits.

Genres: Philosophy, History, Politics, Nonfiction, Academic, American History, 20th Century

432 pages, Hardcover

First published September 24, 2019

Reviews

[Steve C · Rating 3 out of 5]

Maybe it's because I'm coming at this as a political philosopher, rather than as a historian of ideas, but I found In the Shadow of Justice to be a frustrating read. The jacket summarizes the goal of the book as "telling the story of how liberal political philosophy was transformed... under the influence of John Rawls". I read this book because I hoped it would fill in the gaps in my rather leaky narrative of political philosophy since Rawls - I know some of the high points, but I wanted to know a little bit more about how Rawls's views were different from his immediate predecessors, and to be given a conceptual map useful for navigating the different views that came in his wake. I can't say the book was successful on either of these scores. I don't really get a sense of why people thought that political philosophy was dead before Rawls. At the same time, there's not really a systematic attempt here to map out the different philosophers who came after Rawls (other than on a rough Left/Right axis) and explain how their views relate to one another. I was also hoping for more discussion of if/how Rawls's views trickled out beyond the academy. The prose is denser and more convoluted than necessary, which made reading it a bit of a chore.

[Desmond Brown · Rating 3 out of 5]

Whew. Exhaustive and exhausting. The long answer to the question of how Rawls developed his theory of justice, and how it was received, used, reinterpreted, challenged, adapted, responded to, succeeded by other theories...on and on. An admirably complete and detailed discussion, although I would have appreciated a bit more selectivity, with perhaps more time spent on selected critiques (more Nozick, Dworkin, Sen , Parfit. ) What I appreciated most was putting Rawls's ideas and those of his critics in the context of the events and thoughts of the society they were working in.

[Jakub Dovcik · Rating 5 out of 5]

In the Shadow of Justice is a monumental study of the impact - or rather domination - of John Rawls' thinking and framework on the topics of justice and equality in late 20th-century political philosophy. It approaches it from the perspective of the history of ideas, with Forrester being trained in the Cambridge school's tradition and under the strong influence of Quentin Skinner, which is present throughout the book.

Forrester shows how liberal egalitarianism triumphed in the post-war period through its ability to incorporate various other strands of 'public affairs' within its framework and, to some extent, the evolution or shift of its focus in response to political changes. Rawls' thinking became so dominant that even his most ardent critics ultimately had to debate his ideas of justice on his terms, with his framework. Yet, Forrester argues that this dominance came at a cost—by establishing Rawlsian justice as the central paradigm, alternative approaches to thinking about justice, such as socialist and radical democratic traditions, were marginalized or constrained within Rawlsian boundaries. This had long-term consequences, particularly in shaping the ways in which political philosophy engaged (or failed to engage) with real-world inequalities, institutions, and political economy.

The early chapters show the development of Rawls' approach to thinking about justice - from his wartime service, through years at Princeton and very importantly at Oxford. There he was influenced by the revisionist wing of Labour thinkers, particularly Anthony Crossland (which is a very interesting connection). This connected to his intellectual upbringing within the post-war American affluence, steady growth, and dominance within the capitalist world. Forrester shows the development of Rawls' thought - which ultimately constrained it to a large extent as was shown in the debates about the future in the 1980s - from an aversion towards the expansion of the administrative state and limits of state planning, an aversion to utilitarianism, to the importance of Tocqueville-style town hall democracy and family ties (with both family ties and future generations being represented in his framework through the 'heads of households' as agents in the original position - which is the influence of Jefferson and Rousseau). Young Rawls looked for a ‘prenez garde’ state, where an effective predistribution would limit the need for an interventionist state and give more space to church, family and community.

Forrester shows how Rawls began to think about society in terms of ‘games’, that should be fair so that everyone has the motivation to participate - ultimately giving rise to the original position as well as the difference principle. Rawls believed that inequalities should be psychologically acceptable to people in lower social positions (building on 18th-century French tradition), because what he calls the ‘special psychologies’ interfere with the stability of society. Thus a just society should limit the impact of envy and the effects of humiliation on the individual in the least advantaged. In other words, ‘Rawls had chosen the principles of justice to limit the effects of contingency on collective life.’

In the middle of the book, there are two chapters on civil disobedience and war and responsibility, which demonstrate the ways in which new forms of public morality were created in the 1960s and 70s. These sections highlight how Rawls engaged with Vietnam-era debates on just war theory, but also how his views on civil disobedience were shaped by the specific political moment in which he wrote, particularly the tensions within liberal democracies over race, war, and political obligation.

Forrester also emphasizes how, by the end of the 20th century, Rawlsian liberalism had become entrenched within Anglo-American political thought, shaping not only academic debates but also the institutional frameworks of international justice. However, she argues that this success came with limitations—both external as the narratives dominated by Rawls’ principles gave rice to technocratic discourses and despite his reservations at the end of his life (where he said he is ‘further left to the welfare state’) opened possibilities for accommodation of market-based approaches to justice and also some Third Way thinking - but also in academic terms particularly in how liberal egalitarianism struggled to respond to the rise of neoliberalism, as well as the broader challenges posed by feminist, communitarian, and radical democratic critiques. The book ultimately suggests that the Rawlsian framework, while deeply influential, left unresolved questions about power, capitalism, and structural injustice that later critics sought to address. Forrester also argues that Rawls shifted his positions more than he would admit.

As someone without an extensive formal education in 20th-century philosophy, I particularly liked the first two and the last three chapters - on the development of Rawls' thought and later the rise of the communitarian and 'liberalism of fear' critiques. Especially towards the end of the book, Forrester shows how liberalism's dominance was not just intellectual but also institutional, shaping how justice was conceived within political philosophy and beyond.

Overall, the book is very dense and detailed. I enjoyed it, but it is definitely not an easy read. I learned a lot not just about the context for Rawls’ work, but also about Ronald Dworkin and late work of Judith Shklar. Forrester’s analysis is sharp, and while she clearly appreciates Rawls' contributions, she is unafraid to critique the limitations and consequences of his intellectual dominance. 

[Daniel Schotman · Rating 5 out of 5]

Rawls's Theory Of Justice (1971) placed in his right historical, philosophical and intellectual context. About how and why Rawls set out out to write it and what the global effect was of this (arguably) most important book in political philosophy since Sidgewick's Method Of Ethics (1871). Quentin Skinner would have been proud as this is a exemplary effort of how intellectual history should be executed.

Highly recommended for those who are about to set out to read TTOJ or already read it and want to gain a better understanding of in which context it was written.

A good understanding of the work of : Nozick, Dworkin, Walzer and Sandal is highly recommended not to mention to brush up on your contemporary history.

[9 · Rating 3 out of 5]

ambitious project. earlier chapters are much more focused, with clearer arguments. can feel like an info dump at times, but kindaaaa understandable bcos forrester is trying to do economic history + intellectual history…but the last chapter hmmm her argument abt agonistic democratic theory and anti-totalitarianism being stuck in the shadows of the rawlsian vision isn’t convincing…if not for h. i’d not pick this up

also crazy to think there are serious rawlsians who think he’s radical…like this book just makes it even clearer his ideas are insular to radical changes lmao

and im still unmoved by analytical pol philo lol

[José Pereira · Rating 5 out of 5]

Really impressive work. Forrester actually manages to write a comprehensive history of second-half XX century analytic moral and political philosophy in about 300 (quite dense, I'll admit) pages. The breadth of subjects covered - egalitarianism, just war theory, global justice, environmental ethics, intergenerational justice, meta-ethics, analytical marxism, political realism, etc. - is spectacular.
Forrester addresses all these philosophical subjects with great detail, engaging with the arguments at a remarkable level of abstraction. But she does this while being able to be removed from them, and thus capable of framing them historically - connect them to the political, social and ideological contingencies of the epoch and the history of ideas more generally.
This allows Forrester to successfully attain what seems to be her main goal - to de-naturalize the main concepts, arguments and topics of inquiry of recent analytic moral and political philosophy. Inside this intelectual constellation, liberal egalitarianism and/or Rawlsianism in particular stand out and have shaped, as Forrester shows, what political/moral philosophy must be. This is problematic not only due to its conceptual and political limitations, but also because we live in a different world than the one that shaped those ideas.
A new philosophy, capable of resonating with people and of advancing the ideals - justice, equality, legitimate coercion, etc. - it purports to defend, must understand that it is not part of a static, hermetic discipline. Philosophers must grasp that, though they should drink from the wisdom of their forebearers (and liberal egalitarianism has a lot to give, many radical implications never implemented), they must not drown in it.
This book is (undoubtedly) mandatory for all those interested in analytical philosophy, and a must read for anyone interested in politics more broadly. The richness of the book - the amount of authors and topics discussed with immense care and intelectual honesty - is unparalleled.

[Peter · Rating 5 out of 5]

Liberalism! The great empty hole in a lot of radicals’ understanding of the political spectrum. In many respects, we treat it like a fact of life, like the weather, but also as something ephemeral, something that will just go away as soon as the real shit, the facts, the structural realities, assert themselves and force everyone to choose their path- right or left, reaction or revolution, fascist or socialist. I’m often enough guilty of it myself. And so we’re left with radicals handwaving liberalism away as a half-measure, reactionaries basically chalking it up to “cultural Marxism” or something, and of course, liberals’ own accounting for themselves.

But there’s more to it than that, obviously, and I think it benefits radicals to develop more nuanced (not necessarily positive!) understandings of liberalism and its history. It seems that mire critical leftists have been answering the call of late, and one such is Katrina Forrester, who wrote this top notch history of John Rawls’s epochal “A Theory of Justice” and its reception since its publication in 1971. It’s just the sort of toothsome intellectual history I love to make a real meal out of- the sort of thing that brings out the gourmand in me.

I read “A Theory of Justice” long ago and I’ll be damned if I remember much of it beyond the “original position”- that in a situation where no one knows what life circumstances they’re going to encounter, people would build a society that prioritized insulation from circumstance- bad luck, mistakes, etc. To this end, everyone should get the same rights, and any inequalities should be arranged to favor the least advantaged. This, I guess, was Rawls’s idea of justice. It’s precisely that sort of unmoored thought experiment that makes me recoil from most analytical philosophy (their attempts to be math don’t help) even when I don’t disagree, even when I can grant such experiments help some people. Like chess, algebra, and many forms of jazz, it’s a level of abstraction that I have difficulty hanging with and feel antagonistic towards in ways I can’t quite help.

Maybe one of the reasons I like this book so much is that it takes us into the worlds of analytical philosophy in the last half of the twentieth century, but at a level of abstraction — that of critical history — that I understand, my happy place. Rawls, Forrester informs us, worked on “A Theory of Justice” for a solid decade. He was an indefatigable student, engaging with pretty much every form of analytical philosophy and liberal political thought then available, trying things out for the big unifying theory he had in mind, taking bits from here and there- game theorists, utilitarians, moral philosophy, social democracy, antitotalitarianism, etc. Forrester takes us through these worlds and the priorities Rawls inherited from them, and the priorities his readers would soon apply to “A Theory of Justice” once it came out, lead among them the quandaries of the Vietnam War (doesn’t seem like that much of a quandary from a socialist anti-imperialist position, but liberals).

Among other key bits of context, political philosophy — understood here, I think, as the application of philosophical ideas to political debates (whereas political theory, in this telling, seems to entail either the creation of new constellations of political ideas, or the political critique of other ideas like gender, race, etc.) — was more or less dead in the water during the Cold War before Rawls almost single-handedly revived it. There was social science, and philosophy, mostly separate, there were polemics and political movements, but the idea philosophers had something distinct and decisive to say about politics had gone out of fashion, a casualty of the rise of the social sciences (and maybe a little of liberal antitotalitarianism, which often held that politics and abstract ideas shouldn’t mix). Post-Rawls, political philosophy made a big comeback. If I read Forrester right, it was a classic right-person-at-the-right-time scenario. Rawls’s theory — big, ambitious, clearly-stated but with enough wriggle room to provide good openings for interlocutors — came at a time when the Cold War consensus across the liberal spectrum, from political parties to academic departments, was looking stale and was under attack from the left and from the right. Rawls didn’t single-handedly win the fight for his vision, but he did determine the battlefield: that of political philosophy.

Notionally, right and left both felt the impact from this sally of what we could call the center or liberal left. Both reacted in the field of political philosophy. But they reacted in different ways, and the blows had markedly different impacts on both… or maybe just the contexts made the blows feel different… the point is, Forrester illustrates that throughout the rest of the twentieth century and beyond, political philosophers of all stripes were doing things Rawls’s way even when they rejected his conclusions, and that many other discursive actors — policymakers, politicians, academics in other fields — also got sucked into the political philosophy orbit Rawls made a hot neighborhood.

But different sorts of players could adapt differently. To put it simply, the right, especially rising free-market libertarians like Rawls’s cothinker-turned-nemesis Robert Nozick, could more easily turn Rawls’s premises and operating methods — especially, to be blunt, the kind of bullshit thought games Rawls used — to their ends than could leftists, especially Marxists. Leftists who tried to play the game the Rawlsian way by and large found themselves abandoning traditional areas of strength, like a real political theory — a concept of change and an analysis of power, in their case rooted in the working class — in favor of various zeitgeisty flighty concepts — focus on methods like direct democracy is one prominent culprit — that haven’t helped much. That’s the real way in which the retreat to the academy has harmed the left, by the way- not appreciating the importance of difference, the way anti-woke left critics (invariably academics or other scribblers themselves) will tell you.

In the end, Forrester doesn’t want us to throw Rawls out. I think this is good even if I’m not sure what uses we’re going to put him to- I don’t have to, people better at abstraction can figure it out. Not disregarding him means not making the mistake that a lot of radicals make of disregarding the thought of the opposition, especially opposition that doesn’t mirror our structural thinking (as the far right often does- you can get a lot farther quoting Carl Schmitt in a lot of leftist circles than you can quoting Rawls or any other liberal). Rawls, as best I can tell, fits my conception of liberalism as existing in the space between revolution and counterrevolution, the basic dynamic of modern history. Liberalism seeks to elide the revolution-counterrevolution dynamic through various techniques and alternative foci for attention and effort, and often has enough power behind it to get people and whole societies going for a while. All that effort does produce insight and techniques worth knowing about- see Foucault’s lament that the left has t got a “governmentality,” an art of governing, but liberals do. Arguably, that’s most of what liberalism is. If we’re going to take and wield power, we might want to pay attention, and certainly if we’re going to understand the worlds liberalism has shaped we need to, as well. *****

[Greg Brown · Rating 5 out of 5]

Took me a while to read, but an excellent overview of how changes in political philosophy throughout the ‘60s, ‘70s, and ‘80s reacted to the crises of the era.

Forrester is especially excellent in pointing out how Rawls’ theory arose from its historical moment, even as the theoretical structure claims to discard it. I’m personally convinced by Rorty’s argument that the original position is just a way of laundering ideology; how else to explain the odds that that, beyond the veil of ignorance, we’d pick a society only a few notches to our left (but otherwise completely recognizable).

Loved how footnote-heavy it was too. Had to pull out a second bookmark so I could easily see what she was referring to, and make a mental note to try and read it down the road.

[Michael Tresnowski · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is an impressive accomplishment, putting decades of political philosophy in historical context. It would have been helpful when I was an undergraduate reading Rawls 15 years ago. You used to have to suss out the history of particular debates from particular contributions. Now, there’s a broad overview. Because of its breadth, things can move quickly regarding particular thinkers or arguments.

[Darla]

Going on my reading list.

https://newrepublic.com/article/15529...

[Bay Long · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed it as a Rawlsian.

[Ibrahim · Rating 2 out of 5]

I think was a bit too complex for me, but keep in mind I've only read one political philosophy book and that was also an introduction one

[E. · Rating 4 out of 5]

A thorough and compelling history of American and British liberal political philosophy in the era from the Second World War to the end of the Cold War.

[N. N. · Rating 1 out of 5]

A history of Rawlsian liberalism that approaches the profundity of Wikipedia. No less an authority than Michael Eric Dyson described it as "encyclopedic"!

Almost as impressive as its depth is its snide tone and Chekist sensibility.