What do you think?
Rate this book
Justice by Means of Democracy
From leading thinker Danielle Allen, a bold and urgent articulation of a new political power-sharing liberalism.
At a time of great social and political turmoil, when many residents of the leading democracies question the ability of their governments to deal fairly and competently with serious public issues, and when power seems more and more to rest with the wealthy few, this book reconsiders the very foundations of democracy and justice. Scholar and writer Danielle Allen argues that the surest path to a just society in which all are given the support necessary to flourish is the protection of political equality; that justice is best achieved by means of democracy; and that the social ideals and organizational design principles that flow from recognizing political equality and democracy as fundamental to human well-being provide an alternative framework not only for justice but also for political economy. Allen identifies this paradigm-changing new framework as “power-sharing liberalism.”
Liberalism more broadly is the philosophical commitment to a government grounded in rights that both protect people in their private lives and empower them to help govern public life. Power-sharing liberalism offers an innovative reconstruction of liberalism based on the principle of full inclusion and non-domination—in which no group has a monopoly on power—in politics, economy, and society. By showing how we all might fully share power and responsibility across all three sectors, Allen advances a culture of civic engagement and empowerment, revealing the universal benefits of an effective government in which all participate on equal terms.
At a time of great social and political turmoil, when many residents of the leading democracies question the ability of their governments to deal fairly and competently with serious public issues, and when power seems more and more to rest with the wealthy few, this book reconsiders the very foundations of democracy and justice. Scholar and writer Danielle Allen argues that the surest path to a just society in which all are given the support necessary to flourish is the protection of political equality; that justice is best achieved by means of democracy; and that the social ideals and organizational design principles that flow from recognizing political equality and democracy as fundamental to human well-being provide an alternative framework not only for justice but also for political economy. Allen identifies this paradigm-changing new framework as “power-sharing liberalism.”
Liberalism more broadly is the philosophical commitment to a government grounded in rights that both protect people in their private lives and empower them to help govern public life. Power-sharing liberalism offers an innovative reconstruction of liberalism based on the principle of full inclusion and non-domination—in which no group has a monopoly on power—in politics, economy, and society. By showing how we all might fully share power and responsibility across all three sectors, Allen advances a culture of civic engagement and empowerment, revealing the universal benefits of an effective government in which all participate on equal terms.
288 pages, Hardcover
Published April 28, 2023
46 people are currently reading
434 people want to read
About the author
Danielle S. Allen
18 books140 followersDanielle Allen, James Bryant Conant University Professor at Harvard University, and Director of Harvard’s Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, is a political theorist who has published broadly in democratic theory, political sociology, and the history of political thought. Widely known for her work on justice and citizenship in both ancient Athens and modern America, Allen is the author of The World of Prometheus: The Politics of Punishing in Democratic Athens (2000), Talking to Strangers: Anxieties of Citizenship since Brown vs. the Board of Education (2004), Why Plato Wrote (2010), Our Declaration: A Reading of the Declaration of Independence in Defense of Equality (2014), Education and Equality (2016), and Cuz: The Life and Times of Michael A. (2017). She is the co-editor of the award-winning Education, Justice, and Democracy (2013, with Rob Reich) and From Voice to Influence: Understanding Citizenship in the Digital Age (2015, with Jennifer Light). She is a former Chair of the Mellon Foundation Board, past Chair of the Pulitzer Prize Board, and a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the American Philosophical Society.
Dr. Allen received her undergraduate education in Classics at Princeton University, graduating summa cum laude. She was awarded an M.Phil. and Ph.D. in Classics from Cambridge University and went on to Harvard University, where she received her M.A. and Ph.D. in political science. She joined the faculty at the University of Chicago in 1997 as Assistant Professor of Classics. In 2000, Dr. Allen became Associate Professor of Classical Languages and Literatures, Political Science and the Committee on Social Thought. In 2003, she was promoted to Professor. The following year she was named Dean of the Division of Humanities, a role she was in until 2007.
Widely known for her work on justice and citizenship in ancient Athens and its application to modern America, Dr. Allen was awarded in 2002 a MacArthur Fellowship for her ability to combine "the classicist's careful attention to texts and language with the political theorist's sophisticated and informed engagement."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
October 24, 2023
This book represents a huge missed opportunity for a brilliant thinker to present her ideas to a broader audience.
In some ways, I was part of the target audience for this book. I think Allen is one of the best American political philosophers of the last twenty years. I have bought three previous books by Allen, including two books that contains early versions of content for this book ("Difference Without Domination"; "A Political Economy of Justice"). I have books written by Allen's collaborators Dani Rodrik and Tommie Shelby. I have several books by other political philosophers who are cited in this book (including Philip Pettit and Elizabeth Anderson). This book seemed to be a summation and synthesis of Allen's core thinking over the last decade, and I had this book on my wish list months before it was released. I was hoping that this would be the type of book I could readily recommend to people who are educated and thoughtful about politics but not deeply engaged with the field of political philosophy.
So I was immediately frustrated to see that this book contained the dense jargon and extensive abstract discussions of an academic journal article. It is far less accessible than Allen's previous (excellent) book "Our Declaration", and even less accessible than her (very good) edited volume "Difference Without Domination". I was hoping that this book would be akin to Philip Pettit's 2014 book "Just Freedom" (mentioned by Allen on page 34), where Pettit took the ideas he'd been developing since the 1990s and made them more accessible to non-specialists. Allen's intellectual framework is arguably more complex and nuanced than what Pettit presented in "Just Freedom", but I see very little effort in "Justice by Means of Democracy" to make any concessions to an audience that has not already read the works of major political philosophers and/or Allen's previous work. I can't tell whether this failure is attributable to Allen herself or her editors at University of Chicago Press, but it's a huge problem.
This failure is particularly frustrating because the ideas in this book are so good. The articulation of design principles for a democracy that promotes human flourishing is visionary without being unduly utopian. Perhaps the strongest part of the book is the extended critique of John Rawls for downplaying positive liberties, political equality, and the diverse perspectives of a pluralistic society. The discussion of the shortcomings of assimilation and multiculturalism as foundations for a diverse society is also welcome. And peeking out occasionally is a recognition of some of underappreciated ways in which our current public policies undermine democracy (if I had my way, housing policy would be mentioned in every lengthy analysis of the problems with American democracy). But it's all contained within the short of achingly precise academic language that fails to engage most people outside the ivory tower.
At one point Allen writes, "People often ask me what kind of political philosopher I am. I answer that I am a eudaemonist democratic pragmatist." Maybe Allen gives that answer at Harvard dinner parties, but I find a hard time believing that she gave that kind of answer to voters campaigning for Massachusetts governor (Allen ran for governor in 2021-22). Yes, Allen's answer is accurate and yes, more people should know about the pragmatic political philosophies of John Dewey and Richard Rorty. But at a certain point, academic jargon must yield to somewhat plainer language even at the cost of marginally reduced precision in language.
I will likely keep this book and occasionally refer back to it, but I struggle to think of anyone I would recommend to read this book. At a minimum, I would suggest that anyone interested in this book should read "Our Declaration" and "Difference Without Domination" so that they can get a sense of Allen's ideas before plunging into this dense thicket of ideas. It's a worthwhile progression, but a time-consuming one, and while I understand why other reviewers have given this book five stars, I cannot follow suit due to the lack of a serious effort to make these important ideas more accessible.
In some ways, I was part of the target audience for this book. I think Allen is one of the best American political philosophers of the last twenty years. I have bought three previous books by Allen, including two books that contains early versions of content for this book ("Difference Without Domination"; "A Political Economy of Justice"). I have books written by Allen's collaborators Dani Rodrik and Tommie Shelby. I have several books by other political philosophers who are cited in this book (including Philip Pettit and Elizabeth Anderson). This book seemed to be a summation and synthesis of Allen's core thinking over the last decade, and I had this book on my wish list months before it was released. I was hoping that this would be the type of book I could readily recommend to people who are educated and thoughtful about politics but not deeply engaged with the field of political philosophy.
So I was immediately frustrated to see that this book contained the dense jargon and extensive abstract discussions of an academic journal article. It is far less accessible than Allen's previous (excellent) book "Our Declaration", and even less accessible than her (very good) edited volume "Difference Without Domination". I was hoping that this book would be akin to Philip Pettit's 2014 book "Just Freedom" (mentioned by Allen on page 34), where Pettit took the ideas he'd been developing since the 1990s and made them more accessible to non-specialists. Allen's intellectual framework is arguably more complex and nuanced than what Pettit presented in "Just Freedom", but I see very little effort in "Justice by Means of Democracy" to make any concessions to an audience that has not already read the works of major political philosophers and/or Allen's previous work. I can't tell whether this failure is attributable to Allen herself or her editors at University of Chicago Press, but it's a huge problem.
This failure is particularly frustrating because the ideas in this book are so good. The articulation of design principles for a democracy that promotes human flourishing is visionary without being unduly utopian. Perhaps the strongest part of the book is the extended critique of John Rawls for downplaying positive liberties, political equality, and the diverse perspectives of a pluralistic society. The discussion of the shortcomings of assimilation and multiculturalism as foundations for a diverse society is also welcome. And peeking out occasionally is a recognition of some of underappreciated ways in which our current public policies undermine democracy (if I had my way, housing policy would be mentioned in every lengthy analysis of the problems with American democracy). But it's all contained within the short of achingly precise academic language that fails to engage most people outside the ivory tower.
At one point Allen writes, "People often ask me what kind of political philosopher I am. I answer that I am a eudaemonist democratic pragmatist." Maybe Allen gives that answer at Harvard dinner parties, but I find a hard time believing that she gave that kind of answer to voters campaigning for Massachusetts governor (Allen ran for governor in 2021-22). Yes, Allen's answer is accurate and yes, more people should know about the pragmatic political philosophies of John Dewey and Richard Rorty. But at a certain point, academic jargon must yield to somewhat plainer language even at the cost of marginally reduced precision in language.
I will likely keep this book and occasionally refer back to it, but I struggle to think of anyone I would recommend to read this book. At a minimum, I would suggest that anyone interested in this book should read "Our Declaration" and "Difference Without Domination" so that they can get a sense of Allen's ideas before plunging into this dense thicket of ideas. It's a worthwhile progression, but a time-consuming one, and while I understand why other reviewers have given this book five stars, I cannot follow suit due to the lack of a serious effort to make these important ideas more accessible.
December 3, 2023
So, I finished this earlier this week and have not had time to sit down and write a review. I'm going to start now and anticipate that I still might not have time in this moment to get through everything I want to say: so ya'll prepare for a coda in a few days.
First, I need to say that Allen is my newest girl-crush. I saw her speak at UW in early November about moving forward in these difficult times and was enamoured. She is kind and funny and smart and talked about ways to pull people together, rather than continue the escalation. In her talk, she argued that we all need to be "confident pluralists" and that requires five things: 1) reflection--figure your own shit out; 2) commitment to non-violence--we are better than that, try to do less harm; 3) compromise--understand that by definition compromise means you don't get what you want, but that we can work for what WORKS for all; 4) listen first--make sure you understand the other's perspective before getting upset and be curious about how and why they got there--rather than just insisting they are wrong; and 5) never let anyone hold human dignity hostage--simply treat each other with respect and allow for human rights for all. I agree with all of this and was so excited to hear someone say these things in a large conference room. Ipicked up this book very excited about her plan for change and how to get there.
And, I had just come off reading McWhorter's angry missive (to be clear, I agree with a lot of McWhorter's points, but I feel that he violates 4 above and escalates, rather than deflates the conversation). I was super hopeful that Allen would provide a stronger mapping coming from a political lens.
And, I was disappointed. Not in Allen's arguments (they are sound) but in the lack of proscriptive measures. McWhorter at least leaves us with three straightforward suggestions; Allen sets up our "shoulds" and the philosophical argument around "why". She assumes that we all will (and want to) follow the five points above and that humanity can evolve to a more perfect democracy that delivers justice to all. I agree with her philosophy and with her proscriptions AND I think we are in a really tough time where differences feel super pronouced and motivation is low to understand or embrace the other. I fear that we are stuck in our in-group/out-group playing (if you will) and that not all of us are willing to work on a goal of "human flourishing for all". I think there is too much concern over zero-sum and we need a way to turn the ship towards inclusivity. Her work really relies on everyone accepting Adler's view of "universality" (with which I agree, but I believe is a VERY HARD SELL to those entrenched in difference) and therefore wanting to work on the five points above (to be confident pluralists), but I fear that in this moment in time both within America and globally there are many folks who do NOT want to work on these issues and instead are digging in deeper to exclude others. I was hoping to discover at the end some practical suggestions on how to move people towards WANTING THIS UNIVERSALITY (rather than remaining entrenched) and she does not provide it; she simply sets up a theory. I should add that she does provide a few real world examples for each of her points in order to emphasize that they are possible...but possibility does not mean likely.
Enough of my thoughts and reactions; I'll provide an outline of her argument along with appropriate quotes when I can.
Finishing up: So now I'll include a more specific review of Allen's content.
She poses that "a theory of justice seeks to identify the parameters for determining which among possible sets of rules for human interaction yields the best prospects for human flourishing, at both an individual and a species level", thereby setting up a framework for justice that includes flourishing. She goes on to note that traditional models (specifically Rawlsian) have been focused on individual rights over political rights along with an economic bent that puts growth and redistribution as preferred to models that focus more on equitable distribution from the onset. She argues that this is wrong; public autonomy (political rights) are just as important to flourshing and redistribution as private ones: "Our thinking about justice would be improved, I believe, if we began from political equality, recognizing that it has the same intrinsic importance for justice and human flourishing as liberty of conscious and freedom of the person."
Se defines five facets of political quality: experience of non-domination; equal access to instruments of government and chance to participate in decision-making; development of processes that unite laypeople in strong partnerships; realtional ethic that allows citizens to "look one another in the eye" and to propose need for redess; and co-ownership of all political instituations. I agree with all five of these AND was left feeling "but how". Most specifically, her entire design relies on "difference without domination" which she defines as "social patterning that does not eventuate in any group's having either direct or reserve control over another group, nor any individual having direct or reserve control over another merely because of each party's social background."
Absolutely! I can get on board with this; and yet how do we reconfigure such that it is a) not seen as zero sum--in order to reduce domination some will give up power and b) motivate people to do this. Her answer is "bridging ties". Of course; we create small comunities in which people have incentive to "bridge" across their otherwise exclusively defined "in groups". Okay, sure; and she even gives some small economic incentives for this. And yet, I am still left feeling a bit skeptical about actually motivating folks in this direction (particularly in today's political climate).
She describes: "The goal of acting in this policy space would be the cultivation of an associational ecosystem in which people do have the opportunity to choose their associates in order to realize their personal visions of the good life but also find themselves routinely interacting with those whom they have not, so to speak, chosen, and routinely obligated to share power in a variety of public contexts with these unchosen others." Sure...and how do we get everyone on board with this? On an individual level, I think we can broach differences, but on the level of social media and mass public perception of the "evil of the other" (however defined in any specific group) this seems an almost impossible task.
She then goes on to discuss the necessary conditions to create political equality in this way, focusing on social, economic, and political realms. She first outlines the necessary political requirements: power is depersonalized; there are mechanisms for checks and balances; all permanent residents have access to participation in decisions; and that mechanisms of governance deliver energy and safety while protecting all liberties. Again, these are ideals and she points out both the ways that the framers of our constition both violated and protected them. She also describes ways in which have run askew (executive fiat, for example "repersonalizes" power in the form of our President, rather than depersonalizing it by giving the legislative branch more control). Her points are all valid, but she does not give any clear, practical suggestions of how to rebalance this power other than that we "should" because that is what real democracy would be.
Next, she outlines the social requirements. These all focus on "difference without domination" and are absolutely correct in my opinion. Humans need social connection and we must have opportunity to strengthen our "bonding" ties. However, in order to be willing to embrace principles of equity we also need to strengthen "bridging" ties. We "should" be encouraged to create and strengthen "bridging" ties (definied as across typical in-group/out-group border) by the structure of society: "scrutinize how institutions build social connections with a view to ensuring that there are multiple, overlapping pathways connecting the full range of communities to one another." To get there, she advocates for "focusing on all of the policies that impact the use of land and space: transportation, housing, zoning, districting (including for both political representation and education), public accomodations, and communications infrastructure." Yes! Let's! And yet, NIMBY? We (the American political public) seem at this moment to have difficulty passing any policies that seem to be collectively useful in these domains.
She addresses this briefly: "Even if our policy frameworks help us build more instituations that require, enable, or nudge us towards bridging ties, leveraging those ties for positive social outcomes will depend on our having a deeper and richer understanding of the ethical practice of social bridging and the art and science of connected forms of social association." Again, even if we can get policies in place to better integrate public instituations (despite what I anticipate will be significant obstacles), we then have to encourage people to make bridging ties (rather that resist). For this, she proposes education on the "art of bridging," which follows many of her points from her talk (noted above) and basic polite-ness and respect for others. Again, I agree and I worry about how to motivate large swaths of the population to do this (rather than resist or avoid interactions).
She incorporates "polypolitanism" to note that folks are members of different groups (and political venues) simultaneously. I am both a citizen of the US and the state of WI and the city of Madison simultaneously and if I properly invoked all of those, I have more power. She goes on to suggest ways to empower immigrants by possibly allowing them access to more local elections (they are citizens of this city) despite not having access to national elections (for example). There is less global domination if people have freedom of moment and more receptivity (she argues) of immigrants if they had political voice where they land: "ground a theory of justice in the non-sacraficeability of political equality within a polity must show how an economic order can be constructed that supports a domestic project of political equality without making the exclusion of others from access to political equality a necessary condition of its own success". This makes sense to me and again, how do we encourage people to allow other people to move just as freely as goods and capital across boarders? One way she proposes is through an immigrant sponsorship program (similar to what is being done in Canada) that gives incentive to current residents for opening up borders, but this even requires some exploitation as the immmigrants will not recieve the full fruits of their labors.
With regard to the economy, she requires an empowering economy for all. I agree with her design principles and understand the benefit of working to empower and more equitably distribute on the front end (rather than relying on redistribution in the ways that Rawls does)...but it also requires that current structure are broken down and reconfigured. This seems absolutely viable from within her political framework that allows for equal participation of all, but way less viable in today's current society.
I believe and support an ideal of a stronger middle class. I think our "floor" for all Americans is currently too low and would love to see a universal basic income to establish access to food, housing, and health care to everyone. I think in order to do this, we need to lop off the top 1% or so and redistribute those funds. And moving forward from that point, we should follow models such as Allen's to maintain a better sense of equilbrium with regard to access. I just don't know how to get that started given our current political climate and distribution of power. Knowing that there are better ways to structure ourselves to be more in line with the "ideal" is useful theory; but how do we get there. The closest I found in this book is: "whether populism can evolve from the expectation that a charismatic leader will change things by executive fiat into an embrace of egalitarian participatory constitutional democracy, here representatives seek compromises that permit them to steer the economy in ways that rest on the perspetives of the polity's diverse stakeholders". Yes, Danielle yes. This is the question. Can we unite in our humanity or will we continue to fight over our individualistic differences?
So, now I am on coda #2. I "finished" this review yesterday and then went and walked my dogs and had several more thoughts. First, Allen does provide some concrete suggestions (I'll list them in a minute) and they still feel optimistic/hard to follow withouth more political cohesion. And then the second was why am I so hard on her. This is not her problem. She is a political THEORIST. And she provides a theory with which I agree; it is not "her job" to then come up with specific, easy to follow and implement steps on how to get there. Her theory feels "pie in the sky" given our current conditions, but it is a road map on where we should/could be aiming. And for this it is valuable. I think my disappointment came out because I was so motivated by her talk and then the book (which I hoped would provide more pragmatism) really just outlines the theory to support her position.
So...good step 1 (reflection); my shit (expectations and impressions from Allen's talk followed by general impatience and wanting to hear a loud, good voice giving pragmatic instruction with which I agree--so often the loud voices are wrong in my opinion) allowed me to write a review that "blames" Allen for missing the mark; but her mark was to develop a theory...it is my target that I wanted her to hit.
I'll end (probably this time for real), with her list of suggestions. Again, these are valid, reasonable suggestions...my only problem is that they feel tautological: yes, we need more civic education to empower people but we need policies to implement this civic education and I worry that given current political climate we cannot pass legislation or create curriculum to provide this civic education without more political clout/participation. If Education leads to participation which will change legislation, how do we change legislation to increase education to get started on this improved cycle?
So, here is her list of what we need to do (again, I agree with all of it):
1. Improve civic education such that folks can identify what works for themselves and engage appropriately. Part of this is general education/critical thinking skills (bring back the humanities) and part of this is working towards an empowering economy (folks have free labor and choice) that secures people free time to be able to join groups and participate politically (not just voting, although time off to vote IS a barrier for some, but also to join community groups and support individual interests through connection building). Specifically she notes: "civic education needs to foster development of skill at civil disagreement, perspective-taking, and bridging relationships."
2. Acknowledge that people have individual interests, but use their purpose to motivate civic and political engagement instead. Allen throughout (including in her talk) emphasizes the importance of compromise and expectation that when engaging with others we will not "fully get our way". By setting aside our individual interest and instead working towards an overall purpose, we are better able to connect with others who have similar purpose (ends justify the loss of individual means along the way kind of thing). In order to do this, she argues that we need to use deliberation (communicating respectfully with others), fair fighting (again, respecting the other and commit to the ongoing existence of the communicty and shared political institutions), and prophecy (this to my mind speaks the most to a charismatic leader--which has other dangers--but is dsigned to "reframe" the discussion to discover underlying similar purposes to bring about political change).
She believes this will increase access by reforming "policy-making and electoral politics to deliver access and voice to those who have historically been put-upon or done-to--and left univited from the full integration into the shaping of our shared purposes"
3. Create a culture of humanity in which we do belive in full "human flourishing" for all. We have to forgive each other on our failures and cultivate a spirit of community: "strengthen the ethic of nonviolence and put it at the center of our politics. We need a culture not of blame and shame but acknowledging fallibility and of calling one another in for course corrections."
So, yeah...she has a lot of good stuff here. And, I'm still left with the weight that this is an individual project, working day by day, person by person, at the local level to create connections and hope they build and last and grow enough to collectively make change.
First, I need to say that Allen is my newest girl-crush. I saw her speak at UW in early November about moving forward in these difficult times and was enamoured. She is kind and funny and smart and talked about ways to pull people together, rather than continue the escalation. In her talk, she argued that we all need to be "confident pluralists" and that requires five things: 1) reflection--figure your own shit out; 2) commitment to non-violence--we are better than that, try to do less harm; 3) compromise--understand that by definition compromise means you don't get what you want, but that we can work for what WORKS for all; 4) listen first--make sure you understand the other's perspective before getting upset and be curious about how and why they got there--rather than just insisting they are wrong; and 5) never let anyone hold human dignity hostage--simply treat each other with respect and allow for human rights for all. I agree with all of this and was so excited to hear someone say these things in a large conference room. Ipicked up this book very excited about her plan for change and how to get there.
And, I had just come off reading McWhorter's angry missive (to be clear, I agree with a lot of McWhorter's points, but I feel that he violates 4 above and escalates, rather than deflates the conversation). I was super hopeful that Allen would provide a stronger mapping coming from a political lens.
And, I was disappointed. Not in Allen's arguments (they are sound) but in the lack of proscriptive measures. McWhorter at least leaves us with three straightforward suggestions; Allen sets up our "shoulds" and the philosophical argument around "why". She assumes that we all will (and want to) follow the five points above and that humanity can evolve to a more perfect democracy that delivers justice to all. I agree with her philosophy and with her proscriptions AND I think we are in a really tough time where differences feel super pronouced and motivation is low to understand or embrace the other. I fear that we are stuck in our in-group/out-group playing (if you will) and that not all of us are willing to work on a goal of "human flourishing for all". I think there is too much concern over zero-sum and we need a way to turn the ship towards inclusivity. Her work really relies on everyone accepting Adler's view of "universality" (with which I agree, but I believe is a VERY HARD SELL to those entrenched in difference) and therefore wanting to work on the five points above (to be confident pluralists), but I fear that in this moment in time both within America and globally there are many folks who do NOT want to work on these issues and instead are digging in deeper to exclude others. I was hoping to discover at the end some practical suggestions on how to move people towards WANTING THIS UNIVERSALITY (rather than remaining entrenched) and she does not provide it; she simply sets up a theory. I should add that she does provide a few real world examples for each of her points in order to emphasize that they are possible...but possibility does not mean likely.
Enough of my thoughts and reactions; I'll provide an outline of her argument along with appropriate quotes when I can.
Finishing up: So now I'll include a more specific review of Allen's content.
She poses that "a theory of justice seeks to identify the parameters for determining which among possible sets of rules for human interaction yields the best prospects for human flourishing, at both an individual and a species level", thereby setting up a framework for justice that includes flourishing. She goes on to note that traditional models (specifically Rawlsian) have been focused on individual rights over political rights along with an economic bent that puts growth and redistribution as preferred to models that focus more on equitable distribution from the onset. She argues that this is wrong; public autonomy (political rights) are just as important to flourshing and redistribution as private ones: "Our thinking about justice would be improved, I believe, if we began from political equality, recognizing that it has the same intrinsic importance for justice and human flourishing as liberty of conscious and freedom of the person."
Se defines five facets of political quality: experience of non-domination; equal access to instruments of government and chance to participate in decision-making; development of processes that unite laypeople in strong partnerships; realtional ethic that allows citizens to "look one another in the eye" and to propose need for redess; and co-ownership of all political instituations. I agree with all five of these AND was left feeling "but how". Most specifically, her entire design relies on "difference without domination" which she defines as "social patterning that does not eventuate in any group's having either direct or reserve control over another group, nor any individual having direct or reserve control over another merely because of each party's social background."
Absolutely! I can get on board with this; and yet how do we reconfigure such that it is a) not seen as zero sum--in order to reduce domination some will give up power and b) motivate people to do this. Her answer is "bridging ties". Of course; we create small comunities in which people have incentive to "bridge" across their otherwise exclusively defined "in groups". Okay, sure; and she even gives some small economic incentives for this. And yet, I am still left feeling a bit skeptical about actually motivating folks in this direction (particularly in today's political climate).
She describes: "The goal of acting in this policy space would be the cultivation of an associational ecosystem in which people do have the opportunity to choose their associates in order to realize their personal visions of the good life but also find themselves routinely interacting with those whom they have not, so to speak, chosen, and routinely obligated to share power in a variety of public contexts with these unchosen others." Sure...and how do we get everyone on board with this? On an individual level, I think we can broach differences, but on the level of social media and mass public perception of the "evil of the other" (however defined in any specific group) this seems an almost impossible task.
She then goes on to discuss the necessary conditions to create political equality in this way, focusing on social, economic, and political realms. She first outlines the necessary political requirements: power is depersonalized; there are mechanisms for checks and balances; all permanent residents have access to participation in decisions; and that mechanisms of governance deliver energy and safety while protecting all liberties. Again, these are ideals and she points out both the ways that the framers of our constition both violated and protected them. She also describes ways in which have run askew (executive fiat, for example "repersonalizes" power in the form of our President, rather than depersonalizing it by giving the legislative branch more control). Her points are all valid, but she does not give any clear, practical suggestions of how to rebalance this power other than that we "should" because that is what real democracy would be.
Next, she outlines the social requirements. These all focus on "difference without domination" and are absolutely correct in my opinion. Humans need social connection and we must have opportunity to strengthen our "bonding" ties. However, in order to be willing to embrace principles of equity we also need to strengthen "bridging" ties. We "should" be encouraged to create and strengthen "bridging" ties (definied as across typical in-group/out-group border) by the structure of society: "scrutinize how institutions build social connections with a view to ensuring that there are multiple, overlapping pathways connecting the full range of communities to one another." To get there, she advocates for "focusing on all of the policies that impact the use of land and space: transportation, housing, zoning, districting (including for both political representation and education), public accomodations, and communications infrastructure." Yes! Let's! And yet, NIMBY? We (the American political public) seem at this moment to have difficulty passing any policies that seem to be collectively useful in these domains.
She addresses this briefly: "Even if our policy frameworks help us build more instituations that require, enable, or nudge us towards bridging ties, leveraging those ties for positive social outcomes will depend on our having a deeper and richer understanding of the ethical practice of social bridging and the art and science of connected forms of social association." Again, even if we can get policies in place to better integrate public instituations (despite what I anticipate will be significant obstacles), we then have to encourage people to make bridging ties (rather that resist). For this, she proposes education on the "art of bridging," which follows many of her points from her talk (noted above) and basic polite-ness and respect for others. Again, I agree and I worry about how to motivate large swaths of the population to do this (rather than resist or avoid interactions).
She incorporates "polypolitanism" to note that folks are members of different groups (and political venues) simultaneously. I am both a citizen of the US and the state of WI and the city of Madison simultaneously and if I properly invoked all of those, I have more power. She goes on to suggest ways to empower immigrants by possibly allowing them access to more local elections (they are citizens of this city) despite not having access to national elections (for example). There is less global domination if people have freedom of moment and more receptivity (she argues) of immigrants if they had political voice where they land: "ground a theory of justice in the non-sacraficeability of political equality within a polity must show how an economic order can be constructed that supports a domestic project of political equality without making the exclusion of others from access to political equality a necessary condition of its own success". This makes sense to me and again, how do we encourage people to allow other people to move just as freely as goods and capital across boarders? One way she proposes is through an immigrant sponsorship program (similar to what is being done in Canada) that gives incentive to current residents for opening up borders, but this even requires some exploitation as the immmigrants will not recieve the full fruits of their labors.
With regard to the economy, she requires an empowering economy for all. I agree with her design principles and understand the benefit of working to empower and more equitably distribute on the front end (rather than relying on redistribution in the ways that Rawls does)...but it also requires that current structure are broken down and reconfigured. This seems absolutely viable from within her political framework that allows for equal participation of all, but way less viable in today's current society.
I believe and support an ideal of a stronger middle class. I think our "floor" for all Americans is currently too low and would love to see a universal basic income to establish access to food, housing, and health care to everyone. I think in order to do this, we need to lop off the top 1% or so and redistribute those funds. And moving forward from that point, we should follow models such as Allen's to maintain a better sense of equilbrium with regard to access. I just don't know how to get that started given our current political climate and distribution of power. Knowing that there are better ways to structure ourselves to be more in line with the "ideal" is useful theory; but how do we get there. The closest I found in this book is: "whether populism can evolve from the expectation that a charismatic leader will change things by executive fiat into an embrace of egalitarian participatory constitutional democracy, here representatives seek compromises that permit them to steer the economy in ways that rest on the perspetives of the polity's diverse stakeholders". Yes, Danielle yes. This is the question. Can we unite in our humanity or will we continue to fight over our individualistic differences?
So, now I am on coda #2. I "finished" this review yesterday and then went and walked my dogs and had several more thoughts. First, Allen does provide some concrete suggestions (I'll list them in a minute) and they still feel optimistic/hard to follow withouth more political cohesion. And then the second was why am I so hard on her. This is not her problem. She is a political THEORIST. And she provides a theory with which I agree; it is not "her job" to then come up with specific, easy to follow and implement steps on how to get there. Her theory feels "pie in the sky" given our current conditions, but it is a road map on where we should/could be aiming. And for this it is valuable. I think my disappointment came out because I was so motivated by her talk and then the book (which I hoped would provide more pragmatism) really just outlines the theory to support her position.
So...good step 1 (reflection); my shit (expectations and impressions from Allen's talk followed by general impatience and wanting to hear a loud, good voice giving pragmatic instruction with which I agree--so often the loud voices are wrong in my opinion) allowed me to write a review that "blames" Allen for missing the mark; but her mark was to develop a theory...it is my target that I wanted her to hit.
I'll end (probably this time for real), with her list of suggestions. Again, these are valid, reasonable suggestions...my only problem is that they feel tautological: yes, we need more civic education to empower people but we need policies to implement this civic education and I worry that given current political climate we cannot pass legislation or create curriculum to provide this civic education without more political clout/participation. If Education leads to participation which will change legislation, how do we change legislation to increase education to get started on this improved cycle?
So, here is her list of what we need to do (again, I agree with all of it):
1. Improve civic education such that folks can identify what works for themselves and engage appropriately. Part of this is general education/critical thinking skills (bring back the humanities) and part of this is working towards an empowering economy (folks have free labor and choice) that secures people free time to be able to join groups and participate politically (not just voting, although time off to vote IS a barrier for some, but also to join community groups and support individual interests through connection building). Specifically she notes: "civic education needs to foster development of skill at civil disagreement, perspective-taking, and bridging relationships."
2. Acknowledge that people have individual interests, but use their purpose to motivate civic and political engagement instead. Allen throughout (including in her talk) emphasizes the importance of compromise and expectation that when engaging with others we will not "fully get our way". By setting aside our individual interest and instead working towards an overall purpose, we are better able to connect with others who have similar purpose (ends justify the loss of individual means along the way kind of thing). In order to do this, she argues that we need to use deliberation (communicating respectfully with others), fair fighting (again, respecting the other and commit to the ongoing existence of the communicty and shared political institutions), and prophecy (this to my mind speaks the most to a charismatic leader--which has other dangers--but is dsigned to "reframe" the discussion to discover underlying similar purposes to bring about political change).
She believes this will increase access by reforming "policy-making and electoral politics to deliver access and voice to those who have historically been put-upon or done-to--and left univited from the full integration into the shaping of our shared purposes"
3. Create a culture of humanity in which we do belive in full "human flourishing" for all. We have to forgive each other on our failures and cultivate a spirit of community: "strengthen the ethic of nonviolence and put it at the center of our politics. We need a culture not of blame and shame but acknowledging fallibility and of calling one another in for course corrections."
So, yeah...she has a lot of good stuff here. And, I'm still left with the weight that this is an individual project, working day by day, person by person, at the local level to create connections and hope they build and last and grow enough to collectively make change.
July 22, 2023
This book proposes a new way of looking at politics, an alternative to failed ideas of Keynesianism and neoliberalism. Allen proposes centering the right to participate in government, in our thinking and in our policies. That means both building explicit ways for people to participate (easier voting access, for example) and removing barriers that prevent people from making their voices heard (unstable jobs that prevent people from investing in their communities).
Allen is brilliant, and does an incredible job of laying out complex ideas in accessible language that’s tied to real life. This book lays out the failings of prior ways of thinking about the role of government in our lives, traces that to its roots in a failing of Rawls’ theory of justice, and builds the bones of a new framework to use as the base of a new approach to government in our age. There are pieces of her ideas that I am not yet convinced by, but the core point, that we need to focus on building more ways for people’s voices to be involved in government, absolutely resonates for me. Building new things is hard. Building new ideas and ways of thinking is even harder, and Allen does this.
Allen is brilliant, and does an incredible job of laying out complex ideas in accessible language that’s tied to real life. This book lays out the failings of prior ways of thinking about the role of government in our lives, traces that to its roots in a failing of Rawls’ theory of justice, and builds the bones of a new framework to use as the base of a new approach to government in our age. There are pieces of her ideas that I am not yet convinced by, but the core point, that we need to focus on building more ways for people’s voices to be involved in government, absolutely resonates for me. Building new things is hard. Building new ideas and ways of thinking is even harder, and Allen does this.
February 27, 2025
Unfortunately, this book fails to meet the modern moment.
September 30, 2023
Prefatory Comments
This is really one of the most important and exciting books that I have read in sometime. Ms. Allen, who has been studying this nation’s multiple governmental structures and our Constitution for some time, proposes an interesting and valuable new way of approaching how we might begin to restructure our stumbling system as well as reinvigorate our democratic republic. More on this in a moment, when I will do my best to summarize her overall approach.
The Essence of Her Argument
Whereas almost all of the books I have read previously that were written to address the seriousness of our present political/civic situation either begin with, or focus extensively upon, economic justice as the way towards a more just future, Ms. Allen instead gets to the heart of our overall functioning as a polity – the need to make our inter-relational behavior truly equal in a way that allows all citizens to flourish and participate.
I find this approach most exciting and, truly, one that speaks to the heart of our problem.
Ms. Allen does address economic issues on occasion, and more specifically in a latter chapter, but she understands the existing injustice of the economy in the US as integrally interconnected to an even more fundamental fact of relational inequality that permeates our society in every aspect. Through this lens one can both place and appreciate the role of such concerns as women’s and minority’s access to jobs, education, and housing because they are also fundamentally matters of relational inequality.
And, thus, the central focus of this work is on how we create true relational equality for each and every one of us.
And one of the things that I find most promising is that her approach embraces many things that true principled conservatives – note, please, very much not the rabble enflaming everything these days – find very important, things such as public virtue, private behaviors, local, state and regional governments, and so on. And it should appeal to liberals, too, for it argues to the inherent right – as the Declaration of Independence said – that each of us has to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (the latter more properly understood as the right of each person to flourish).
In her words:
“The need for a reinvented political economy has become only more pressing. Yet reinventing political economy actually requires stepping outside the domain of economics…. If we wish for different answers, we have to devise different questions.
“The purpose of this book is to propose some fresh questions… that the surest path to justice is the protection of political equality; that justice is, therefore best, and perhaps only, achieved by means of democracy; and that the social ideals and organizational design principles that flow from a recognition of the fundamental importance to human well-being of political equality and democracy provide an alternative framework within which economists might do their work.” (Pp. 3-4)
“What is the relationship between political economy, political philosophy, and a theory of justice? …any given economic system is built out of a set of underlying rules for human interaction.” (P. 4)
“…the American founders – authors of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Federalist Papers – also saw the power and value in intentionally designed institutions of human governance. Their goal was a set of institutions that recognized the natural dynamics of human interaction – both of competition and of cooperation – and worked to guide those dynamics in directions supportive of the ‘safety and happiness of the people’ and its ‘general welfare.’
“…A theory of justice…seeks to identify the parameters for determining which among possible sets of rules for human interaction yields the best prospects for human flourishing, at both an individual and a species level.” (P. 5)
“At stake in understanding political equality are deeper issues of the strength and health of human societies and their ability to advance the general welfare by building collaborative institutions and practices that deliver safety and happiness to all…
“With a fresh approach to a theory of justice, this book seeks to lay a foundation to reorganize policy debates around the value of political equality and the idea that justice at home is best pursued by means of democracy at home.” (Pp. 6-7)
“Understanding what counts as human flourishing therefore requires two things. First, it requires social practices and organizations that permit individualized explorations by each person of their own happiness. Second, it requires democratic conversations that permit the cohabitants of a community, of a nation, of the globe to seek solutions – for all decisions that we must necessarily take together – that best permit us to bring our multiple views about flourishing into alignment.”
Unfortunately, she argues, we early got caught up in the false separation between what we called negative and positive freedoms. That is, between those things that permitted us to be “free” because they prohibited certain things from happenings to us – such things as governments seizing property or persons without due process – and those things that allowed us to pursue our interests and abilities. While this is one way to consider “what makes us free” the false duality cause us to see how both are built upon other basic tenets without which any “freedom” is precarious.
These latter include the freedom of speech, of association, of religion, but also of opportunity to be – as the popular saying has it – all that we can be. This underlying democratic structure presumes a dynamic interrelationship between citizens whose equality exists, and is expressed in, multiple ways, unincumbered by hierarchies of any kind, including those created by wealth, status, country of origin, political viewpoints, etc.
The exercise of true autonomy – of individual freedom and equality – thus “requires both participation in civil society and political participation.” (P. 29)
“In short, democracy rests on the underlying moral equality that resides in this general human capacity for autonomy, and it provides a vehicle for the full realization of this capacity…. While the justice of democracy as a type of polity therefore derives from its grounding human moral equality, the realization of democracy as a political form depends on maximizing the trajectory toward political equality.” (P. 35)
“I propose a concept of political equality with face facets. These five facets are elements of a definition for political equality, as an anchor for justice.” These are:
1. Non-domination, both in social contexts and in the context of operating within political institutions.
2. Equal access to the instruments of government, and equal chance to participate in decision-making within political institutions.
3. “Epistemic egalitarianism,” the notion that any well-functioning democracy needs to make good decisions based on good knowledge processes, that is, processes for gathering and sorting knowledge and making judgments on its basis. Successful democratic knowledge processes will require reliance on both expertise and the social knowledge that ordinary people have.
4. Reciprocity, the relational ethic that citizens have with one another: the ability to look one another in the eye; the ability to propose the need for redress of grievances and to be secure in the expectation that redress will be possible within constraints of reasonableness and rights.
5. “Co-ownership of political institutions”
(Pp. 36-37)
Through the remainder of her book, she demonstrates – in-depth – both how these various principles work together and how their implementation would transform, enhance, and rebuilt our democracy.
What I find most hopeful and exciting about her work – dense as it sometimes is – is that it is not only about rectifying our current dismal political state, but primarily about how we reinvigorate our lives together in a way that short-changes no one. Well, only those who think that they have some kind automatic right to be “in control or “on top.”
Lastly, a caveat
Unfortunately, though, I must also note that this book was one of the densest, most difficult to read works I’ve encountered in many a year. As best as I can determined upon reflection, the cause is two-fold:
• Her argument is one that tightly builds one block upon another, something that – despite her efforts to summarize and recall earlier portion – demands that we remember an increasingly intricate arrangement of if x, y, and z are to be accomplished then they must be accompanied by a, b, and c.
• Many of her often-long paragraphs are packed with multi-syllabic words that one rarely encounters; in fact, in some cases I think she has invented them. Again, while I understand why this is so – it is all part of her building the over-all picture that is so vital and rich in her mind – it left me frequently shaking my head to clear it of ponderous word/weights that I am not accustomed to encountering.
What this means, I am afraid, is that this book represents a true obstacle to many readers who would otherwise find her argument to be exciting, new, and invigorating. And this is truly too bad!
This is really one of the most important and exciting books that I have read in sometime. Ms. Allen, who has been studying this nation’s multiple governmental structures and our Constitution for some time, proposes an interesting and valuable new way of approaching how we might begin to restructure our stumbling system as well as reinvigorate our democratic republic. More on this in a moment, when I will do my best to summarize her overall approach.
The Essence of Her Argument
Whereas almost all of the books I have read previously that were written to address the seriousness of our present political/civic situation either begin with, or focus extensively upon, economic justice as the way towards a more just future, Ms. Allen instead gets to the heart of our overall functioning as a polity – the need to make our inter-relational behavior truly equal in a way that allows all citizens to flourish and participate.
I find this approach most exciting and, truly, one that speaks to the heart of our problem.
Ms. Allen does address economic issues on occasion, and more specifically in a latter chapter, but she understands the existing injustice of the economy in the US as integrally interconnected to an even more fundamental fact of relational inequality that permeates our society in every aspect. Through this lens one can both place and appreciate the role of such concerns as women’s and minority’s access to jobs, education, and housing because they are also fundamentally matters of relational inequality.
And, thus, the central focus of this work is on how we create true relational equality for each and every one of us.
And one of the things that I find most promising is that her approach embraces many things that true principled conservatives – note, please, very much not the rabble enflaming everything these days – find very important, things such as public virtue, private behaviors, local, state and regional governments, and so on. And it should appeal to liberals, too, for it argues to the inherent right – as the Declaration of Independence said – that each of us has to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (the latter more properly understood as the right of each person to flourish).
In her words:
“The need for a reinvented political economy has become only more pressing. Yet reinventing political economy actually requires stepping outside the domain of economics…. If we wish for different answers, we have to devise different questions.
“The purpose of this book is to propose some fresh questions… that the surest path to justice is the protection of political equality; that justice is, therefore best, and perhaps only, achieved by means of democracy; and that the social ideals and organizational design principles that flow from a recognition of the fundamental importance to human well-being of political equality and democracy provide an alternative framework within which economists might do their work.” (Pp. 3-4)
“What is the relationship between political economy, political philosophy, and a theory of justice? …any given economic system is built out of a set of underlying rules for human interaction.” (P. 4)
“…the American founders – authors of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Federalist Papers – also saw the power and value in intentionally designed institutions of human governance. Their goal was a set of institutions that recognized the natural dynamics of human interaction – both of competition and of cooperation – and worked to guide those dynamics in directions supportive of the ‘safety and happiness of the people’ and its ‘general welfare.’
“…A theory of justice…seeks to identify the parameters for determining which among possible sets of rules for human interaction yields the best prospects for human flourishing, at both an individual and a species level.” (P. 5)
“At stake in understanding political equality are deeper issues of the strength and health of human societies and their ability to advance the general welfare by building collaborative institutions and practices that deliver safety and happiness to all…
“With a fresh approach to a theory of justice, this book seeks to lay a foundation to reorganize policy debates around the value of political equality and the idea that justice at home is best pursued by means of democracy at home.” (Pp. 6-7)
“Understanding what counts as human flourishing therefore requires two things. First, it requires social practices and organizations that permit individualized explorations by each person of their own happiness. Second, it requires democratic conversations that permit the cohabitants of a community, of a nation, of the globe to seek solutions – for all decisions that we must necessarily take together – that best permit us to bring our multiple views about flourishing into alignment.”
Unfortunately, she argues, we early got caught up in the false separation between what we called negative and positive freedoms. That is, between those things that permitted us to be “free” because they prohibited certain things from happenings to us – such things as governments seizing property or persons without due process – and those things that allowed us to pursue our interests and abilities. While this is one way to consider “what makes us free” the false duality cause us to see how both are built upon other basic tenets without which any “freedom” is precarious.
These latter include the freedom of speech, of association, of religion, but also of opportunity to be – as the popular saying has it – all that we can be. This underlying democratic structure presumes a dynamic interrelationship between citizens whose equality exists, and is expressed in, multiple ways, unincumbered by hierarchies of any kind, including those created by wealth, status, country of origin, political viewpoints, etc.
The exercise of true autonomy – of individual freedom and equality – thus “requires both participation in civil society and political participation.” (P. 29)
“In short, democracy rests on the underlying moral equality that resides in this general human capacity for autonomy, and it provides a vehicle for the full realization of this capacity…. While the justice of democracy as a type of polity therefore derives from its grounding human moral equality, the realization of democracy as a political form depends on maximizing the trajectory toward political equality.” (P. 35)
“I propose a concept of political equality with face facets. These five facets are elements of a definition for political equality, as an anchor for justice.” These are:
1. Non-domination, both in social contexts and in the context of operating within political institutions.
2. Equal access to the instruments of government, and equal chance to participate in decision-making within political institutions.
3. “Epistemic egalitarianism,” the notion that any well-functioning democracy needs to make good decisions based on good knowledge processes, that is, processes for gathering and sorting knowledge and making judgments on its basis. Successful democratic knowledge processes will require reliance on both expertise and the social knowledge that ordinary people have.
4. Reciprocity, the relational ethic that citizens have with one another: the ability to look one another in the eye; the ability to propose the need for redress of grievances and to be secure in the expectation that redress will be possible within constraints of reasonableness and rights.
5. “Co-ownership of political institutions”
(Pp. 36-37)
Through the remainder of her book, she demonstrates – in-depth – both how these various principles work together and how their implementation would transform, enhance, and rebuilt our democracy.
What I find most hopeful and exciting about her work – dense as it sometimes is – is that it is not only about rectifying our current dismal political state, but primarily about how we reinvigorate our lives together in a way that short-changes no one. Well, only those who think that they have some kind automatic right to be “in control or “on top.”
Lastly, a caveat
Unfortunately, though, I must also note that this book was one of the densest, most difficult to read works I’ve encountered in many a year. As best as I can determined upon reflection, the cause is two-fold:
• Her argument is one that tightly builds one block upon another, something that – despite her efforts to summarize and recall earlier portion – demands that we remember an increasingly intricate arrangement of if x, y, and z are to be accomplished then they must be accompanied by a, b, and c.
• Many of her often-long paragraphs are packed with multi-syllabic words that one rarely encounters; in fact, in some cases I think she has invented them. Again, while I understand why this is so – it is all part of her building the over-all picture that is so vital and rich in her mind – it left me frequently shaking my head to clear it of ponderous word/weights that I am not accustomed to encountering.
What this means, I am afraid, is that this book represents a true obstacle to many readers who would otherwise find her argument to be exciting, new, and invigorating. And this is truly too bad!
July 15, 2025
Fabulous, but difficult — it took me over a year to read for a reason.
First, the core argument: Danielle Allen argues that leading liberal thinkers like John Rawls have a fatal flaw in their political philosophies, borne out in the current problems with American liberal democracy. Liberal thinkers too often prioritize negative liberties (think freedom of religion, speech, property) over positive liberties (freedom to participate in civic life and shape one’s culture and government). Allen argues that positive liberty should be a first principle, that negative liberties are not possible without positive liberties.
From that principle, Allen argues for “power-sharing liberalism,” where positive liberties are enshrined through the “difference without domination” principle. That is, difference is the natural result of freedom, but it should not result in systematic advantages and other forms of domination. She advocates for a liberalism that shares power (thus undercutting domination) across all three domains: political, social, and economic. Those three principles are egalitarian participatory democracy (political); polypolitanism (e.g. being a member of overlapping polities and prioritizing “bridging” social ties); and an empowering economy, where economic production prioritizes positive liberties.
Based on these principles, Allen concludes with a model for citizenship that prioritizes practices of deliberation (reaching for consensus), passionate advocacy (affirming conflict within the norms of forbearance and toleration), and prophecy (the shifting of cultural values).
It’s truly a tour de force of political philosophy, narrow in contribution (here is one way to shift the frame on liberalism) and broad in scope (here is how that changes every area of democratic life). My main complaint is that there are long stretches where Allen’s writing is dry as a bone. Her work is rigorous and systematic, but it lacks the style and engagement of some of her earlier work based on lectures (e.g. Education and Equality). Having heard her lecture, I can attest that she’s an engaging speaker, so it’s a pity that this important book doesn’t share that style.
Still, I’ll be thinking with this one for a long time. For anyone who cares about democracy and doesn’t mind wading through some occasionally dense philosophy, this is indispensable.
First, the core argument: Danielle Allen argues that leading liberal thinkers like John Rawls have a fatal flaw in their political philosophies, borne out in the current problems with American liberal democracy. Liberal thinkers too often prioritize negative liberties (think freedom of religion, speech, property) over positive liberties (freedom to participate in civic life and shape one’s culture and government). Allen argues that positive liberty should be a first principle, that negative liberties are not possible without positive liberties.
From that principle, Allen argues for “power-sharing liberalism,” where positive liberties are enshrined through the “difference without domination” principle. That is, difference is the natural result of freedom, but it should not result in systematic advantages and other forms of domination. She advocates for a liberalism that shares power (thus undercutting domination) across all three domains: political, social, and economic. Those three principles are egalitarian participatory democracy (political); polypolitanism (e.g. being a member of overlapping polities and prioritizing “bridging” social ties); and an empowering economy, where economic production prioritizes positive liberties.
Based on these principles, Allen concludes with a model for citizenship that prioritizes practices of deliberation (reaching for consensus), passionate advocacy (affirming conflict within the norms of forbearance and toleration), and prophecy (the shifting of cultural values).
It’s truly a tour de force of political philosophy, narrow in contribution (here is one way to shift the frame on liberalism) and broad in scope (here is how that changes every area of democratic life). My main complaint is that there are long stretches where Allen’s writing is dry as a bone. Her work is rigorous and systematic, but it lacks the style and engagement of some of her earlier work based on lectures (e.g. Education and Equality). Having heard her lecture, I can attest that she’s an engaging speaker, so it’s a pity that this important book doesn’t share that style.
Still, I’ll be thinking with this one for a long time. For anyone who cares about democracy and doesn’t mind wading through some occasionally dense philosophy, this is indispensable.
October 18, 2023
At a time when faith in democracy has been eroding, it's important to get back to basics. And that's what Danielle Allen does in her new book "Justice by Means of Democracy." s
Importantly, she recognizes that ex-post redistribution is insufficient as a form of social justice: we need to pay more attention to what happens before the redistribution. That means ending wage theft, strengthening protections for workers on the job, fostering a "good jobs" economy, reforming corporate governance, and breaking up monopolies and other anticompetitive practices. She offers a robust ethical and philosophical grounding for what has been increasingly called "predistribution," explaining how such policies flow from a belief in political equality and are essential to the vision of what she calls a "power-sharing liberalism."
I especially appreciated that terminology. One of the main deficiencies in much of liberal philosophy is its handling of power -- often an idealistic avoidance of addressing the deep and systemic imbalances of power that exist in society as well as a failure to grapple with the limits of representation (a failure of which leads to a technocratic exclusion of the public0.
The other term that Allen spends a lot of time with is "difference without domination," which is intertwined with that vision. It is a recognition that we should not try to flatten our differences, but we want to be able to enhance the differences that encourage individual and collective flourishing rather than inhibit them.
I would also like to call out her eloquent defense of the humanities as a core component of a thriving democracy: "Rather than supporting such advocacy, however, the standard policy response to income inequality -- the dissemination of STEM skills -- actually erodes political equality. The very modes of education advanced by the technocratic policy fail to prepare people for democratic participation."
Allen's book is accessible and methodical, with a fresh and vital understanding of democratic citizenship in all that it entails.
Importantly, she recognizes that ex-post redistribution is insufficient as a form of social justice: we need to pay more attention to what happens before the redistribution. That means ending wage theft, strengthening protections for workers on the job, fostering a "good jobs" economy, reforming corporate governance, and breaking up monopolies and other anticompetitive practices. She offers a robust ethical and philosophical grounding for what has been increasingly called "predistribution," explaining how such policies flow from a belief in political equality and are essential to the vision of what she calls a "power-sharing liberalism."
I especially appreciated that terminology. One of the main deficiencies in much of liberal philosophy is its handling of power -- often an idealistic avoidance of addressing the deep and systemic imbalances of power that exist in society as well as a failure to grapple with the limits of representation (a failure of which leads to a technocratic exclusion of the public0.
The other term that Allen spends a lot of time with is "difference without domination," which is intertwined with that vision. It is a recognition that we should not try to flatten our differences, but we want to be able to enhance the differences that encourage individual and collective flourishing rather than inhibit them.
I would also like to call out her eloquent defense of the humanities as a core component of a thriving democracy: "Rather than supporting such advocacy, however, the standard policy response to income inequality -- the dissemination of STEM skills -- actually erodes political equality. The very modes of education advanced by the technocratic policy fail to prepare people for democratic participation."
Allen's book is accessible and methodical, with a fresh and vital understanding of democratic citizenship in all that it entails.
February 18, 2023
Justice by Means of Democracy by Danielle Allen is an accessible and compelling argument for placing political equality as the base from which the other important aspects of a just society must flow.
While this is, as I said, very accessible it also warrants a careful reading. Allen lays her argument out very well and even when citing other thinkers, she explains their ideas so that those unfamiliar with them can follow. I am glad I was familiar with some of them, it certainly made it easier for me to understand, but even the parts that cited ideas that I didn't know I never felt lost.
I'm not going to try to put Allen's entire argument into a few sentences, I wouldn't do it justice and would likely emphasize the areas I knew best and skip those I don't. In addition to both a theoretical and a practical approach, what I find here is something I am finding in a lot more texts than back when I was either a student or an academic, namely the dynamic nature of big ideas we often, in the public sphere, think of as static.
Justice, freedom, democracy, and all of the systems and policies that work toward these ends need to be treated and acknowledged as dynamic, always being reconsidered in light of what is working and, more important, what isn't working. And the way to make sure we have the best information to make those ongoing assessments is to ensure that everyone is free to live their lives and speak their opinions in an open and constructive manner.
I would highly recommend this to readers who want to work toward a better world as well as those who have an academic interest in the topic. Hopefully the second group is also part of the first, but some do get caught up in the intellectual gymnastics and forget it all means nothing if not applied to the real world. This is a book that will reward multiple readings and, one hopes, extensive discussion.
Reviewed from a copy made available by the publisher via NetGalley.
While this is, as I said, very accessible it also warrants a careful reading. Allen lays her argument out very well and even when citing other thinkers, she explains their ideas so that those unfamiliar with them can follow. I am glad I was familiar with some of them, it certainly made it easier for me to understand, but even the parts that cited ideas that I didn't know I never felt lost.
I'm not going to try to put Allen's entire argument into a few sentences, I wouldn't do it justice and would likely emphasize the areas I knew best and skip those I don't. In addition to both a theoretical and a practical approach, what I find here is something I am finding in a lot more texts than back when I was either a student or an academic, namely the dynamic nature of big ideas we often, in the public sphere, think of as static.
Justice, freedom, democracy, and all of the systems and policies that work toward these ends need to be treated and acknowledged as dynamic, always being reconsidered in light of what is working and, more important, what isn't working. And the way to make sure we have the best information to make those ongoing assessments is to ensure that everyone is free to live their lives and speak their opinions in an open and constructive manner.
I would highly recommend this to readers who want to work toward a better world as well as those who have an academic interest in the topic. Hopefully the second group is also part of the first, but some do get caught up in the intellectual gymnastics and forget it all means nothing if not applied to the real world. This is a book that will reward multiple readings and, one hopes, extensive discussion.
Reviewed from a copy made available by the publisher via NetGalley.
January 14, 2023
Danielle Allen’s Justice by Means of Democracy is a timely book about the importance of ensuring the right to/opportunity for political participation as a necessary condition of justice and human flourishing. She is, in particular, concerned about what she sees as a “ramifying mistake” and “20th century blindspot” in the Rawlsian model of basic liberties and subsequent economics-based theories. Specifically, she seeks to re-establish positive liberties alongside negative liberties as "non-sacrificiable." She argues for a principle of “difference without domination” instead of Rawls’s difference principle, seeking to ensure political equality and to enfranchise all members of society in political participation that allows them personal autonomy/self-determination and the ability to help guide the society of which they are part. Her command is capacious and her argument brings in along the way interesting observations about topics such as the lacuna in Posner’s Bowling Alone theory of diminished social capital (which did not account for court decisions prohibiting single-gender membership of organizations such as the Rotary club as a factor participation declines), significant differences in political engagement between two highly educated groups (humanities majors vs. STEM majors), intentional dilution of labor’s/unions' influence through increased reliance on immigrant labor that is excluded from political participation, and the importance of “listening to strangers” and civil disagreement--understanding that “we need to call each other in, not out” when we encounter the fallibility of others acting in good faith. A distinguished scholar, Allen (Conant University Professor and director of the Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard) makes her work remarkably accessible to non-academics.
July 18, 2025
Full review: https://open.substack.com/pub/tbindc/...
“In general, I appreciate Allen’s detailed and paced diagnosis of Rawls and her workings to address its aged errors. One never forgets that she is a Harvard professor, though. One of her common refrains, and the central idea of the book, is ‘egalitarian constitutional participatory democracy,’ a 21-syllable many-adjectived name that probably needs at least an undergraduate education to recognize on sight. I don’t think philosophy needs to be boiled down to a fourth-grade reading level to be persuasive. I *do* think that a serious attempt to spread ideas and change systems with momentum must be communicable. The viral nature of ideas has never been easier to identify than now, where the concept of virality has left epidemiology and taken up residence in sociology (such that there is a new word for this, ‘infodemiology’). For things to spread, they must have communication vectors. Naming is a powerful one, and this name is not infectious. Many of these heady texts have an audience problem: who will pick up the book based on the title, who will finish the first chapter, and who will champion the ideas in general? In other words, how effective can it be at facilitating the adoption of its theory?
…The major strength of *Justice by Means of Democracy* is its willingness to discuss implementation, and to do so with an eye to the practical. Many grand philosophical texts are interested in starting from a place of nothing and building a system, or destroying systems with momentum ostensibly overnight, and rebuilding them in perfection. Most that do this aren’t worth reading, because they are impossible and senseless, barely inspiring. Allen does not make this mistake; if anything, she is too interested in our current systems remaining unaltered. Nonetheless, each element of her framework includes a detailed diagnosis of our current situation, what she views as the needed changes in philosophical approach, and typically, practical examples of existing policies or experiments that speak to her frame.”
“In general, I appreciate Allen’s detailed and paced diagnosis of Rawls and her workings to address its aged errors. One never forgets that she is a Harvard professor, though. One of her common refrains, and the central idea of the book, is ‘egalitarian constitutional participatory democracy,’ a 21-syllable many-adjectived name that probably needs at least an undergraduate education to recognize on sight. I don’t think philosophy needs to be boiled down to a fourth-grade reading level to be persuasive. I *do* think that a serious attempt to spread ideas and change systems with momentum must be communicable. The viral nature of ideas has never been easier to identify than now, where the concept of virality has left epidemiology and taken up residence in sociology (such that there is a new word for this, ‘infodemiology’). For things to spread, they must have communication vectors. Naming is a powerful one, and this name is not infectious. Many of these heady texts have an audience problem: who will pick up the book based on the title, who will finish the first chapter, and who will champion the ideas in general? In other words, how effective can it be at facilitating the adoption of its theory?
…The major strength of *Justice by Means of Democracy* is its willingness to discuss implementation, and to do so with an eye to the practical. Many grand philosophical texts are interested in starting from a place of nothing and building a system, or destroying systems with momentum ostensibly overnight, and rebuilding them in perfection. Most that do this aren’t worth reading, because they are impossible and senseless, barely inspiring. Allen does not make this mistake; if anything, she is too interested in our current systems remaining unaltered. Nonetheless, each element of her framework includes a detailed diagnosis of our current situation, what she views as the needed changes in philosophical approach, and typically, practical examples of existing policies or experiments that speak to her frame.”
August 7, 2025
This was without a doubt one of the hardest books I have ever read. The text had jargon I did not know and it made for a much more dense read with the dictionary being open. A couple of points that I was favor for of
1. The notion that justice occurs when there is not domination
2. The thought that democracy Happens when everyone is flourishing
3. The stance of immigration policy is a direct impact to economics
This is a book i will recommend
1. The notion that justice occurs when there is not domination
2. The thought that democracy Happens when everyone is flourishing
3. The stance of immigration policy is a direct impact to economics
This is a book i will recommend
April 28, 2024
political scientists should be gently and firmly reminded they may or may not be any good at political philosophy. in this case, allen comes to relatively few objectionable conclusions but fails to arrive at them via particularly persuasive arguments.
partial
June 11, 2023Returning to this later. Good but rebalancing toward fiction at the moment.
November 15, 2023
A complicated revision of John Rawls' Theory of Justice; important reformulation, if difficult reading.
August 24, 2025
Kinda just made sense. it offered a basic understanding through refreshing language
January 5, 2025
Some brilliant ideas, super interesting to think about building democracy using design principles. But for a book about accessibility to government and decision-making processes... I think it could have been a little more accessibly written. Quite dense, took me over a year to chip away at.
May 14, 2024
Brilliant. Incredible. Allen cuts through so many contemporary debates with creative solutions, and an ever present focus on democracy.
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews