Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government [Oxford Political Theory Series]

by Philip Pettit

This is the first full-length presentation of a republican alternative to the liberal and communitarian theories that have dominated political philosophy in recent years. The latest addition to the acclaimed Oxford Political Theory series, Pettit's eloquent and compelling account opens with an examination of the traditional republican conception of freedom as non-domination, contrasting this with established negative and positive views of liberty.

The first part of the book traces the rise and decline of this conception, displays its many attractions, and makes a case for why it should still be regarded as a central political ideal. The second part of the book looks at what the implementation of the ideal would require with regard to substantive policy-making, constitutional and democratic design, regulatory control and the relation between state and civil society. Prominent in this account is a novel concept of democracy, under which government is exposed to systematic contestation, and a vision of state-societal relations founded upon civility and trust.

Pettit's powerful and insightful new work offers not only a unified, theoretical overview of the many strands of republican ideas, but also a new and sophisticated perspective on studies in related fields including the history of ideas, jurisprudence, and criminology.

Genres: Philosophy, Politics, Nonfiction, History

328 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1997

About the author

Philip Noel Pettit (born 1945) is an Irish philosopher and political theorist. He is Laurence Rockefeller University Professor of Politics and Human Values at Princeton University and also Distinguished University Professor of Philosophy at the Australian National University. He was a Guggenheim Fellow.

He was educated at Garbally College, the National University of Ireland, Maynooth (BA, LPh, MA) and Queen's University, Belfast (PhD). He was a lecturer at University College, Dublin, a Research Fellow at Trinity Hall, Cambridge, and professor at the University of Bradford. He was for many years Professorial Fellow in Social and Political Theory at the Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University. He is the recipient of numerous honours, including an honorary doctorate from the National University of Ireland. He was keynote speaker at Graduate Conference, University of Toronto.

Pettit defends a version of civic republicanism in political philosophy. His book Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government provided the underlying justification for political reforms in Spain under José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero. Pettit detailed his relationship with Zapatero in his A Political Philosophy in Public Life: Civic Republicanism in Zapatero's Spain, co-authored with José Luis Martí.

Pettit holds that the lessons learned when thinking about problems in one area of philosophy often constitute ready-made solutions to problems faced in completely different areas. Views he defends in philosophy of mind give rise to the solutions he offers to problems in metaphysics about the nature of free will, and to problems in the philosophy of the social sciences, and these in turn give rise to the solutions he provides to problems in moral philosophy and political philosophy. His corpus as a whole was the subject of a series of critical essays published in Common Minds: Themes from the Philosophy of Philip Pettit (Oxford University Press, 2007).

Reviews

[Alexei · Rating 3 out of 5]

I am not a professional philosopher, but the topic is of great interest to me. The first third of the book I found rather engaging and convincing. However, further on it turns into a kind of freedom calculus that the reader is invited to believe on the merit of sheer logic, with no examples or mental experiments. I am not sure social mechanisms work like abstract equations.

[Michel Lamblin · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'll sidestep commentary on the actual content of the book (which is top-notch, and I believe little 'r' republicanism - freedom as non-domination - is in some sense more 'liberal' than classical liberalism), and will just say that, though I haven't read other works by Pettit, his style is quite easy to follow - reiterating the main points of previous paragraphs and making his argument clear. And why don't more philosophers include a Propositional Summary at the end of their treatises - it just makes sense!

[Arbitrista · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm not entirely persuaded that Pettit's theory is incompatible with Rawlsian liberalism, but an instructive work nonetheless. Freedom as non-domination may be a synthetic principle combining elements of liberty as non-interference and equality. My biggest concern is Pettit's consequentialim and focus on "contestation" rather than consent - which makes me wonder how individual rights would fare in such a regime.

[mwr · Rating 2 out of 5]

Meh. I prefer classical republicanism and find that the phrase 'non-domination' is stretched to the point of meaninglessness here.

[Philip Chaston · Rating 5 out of 5]

Philip Pettit rescues the definition of freedom from the eighteenth century and pivots its revival for the twenty-first century. Useful engagement with freedom and power through the medium of law, though the author does not pay enough attention to the size of the state or the corrosive nature of identity politics in undermining his ideal.

[Aicha Ben · Rating 5 out of 5]

شكرا لكم

[Joshua · Rating 3 out of 5]

Pettit argues that he wants a republic that brings the best of the old republican tradition and interpret it with a radical theory of freedom as non-domination. His theory is alright but falls flat when he tries to bring the theory into a practical framework. He has suggestions for how a republic that espouses non-domination but nothing concrete. Perhaps my reading of political philosophy is too limited and this is a flaw of the literature but it did not feel as he was initiating a plan of action but rather an ideal theory. When he tries to talk practically it seems that his suggestions were not all that radical indeed but rather a retelling of any republican system we have today.

There is also something to be said in that he avoids the question of economic dominance. He covers it briefly when he tries to absorb socialists into his worldview but he focuses more so on the employers rather than the role of capitalism upon society which I would argue is a greater threat to republicanism than he gives credit for.

Ultimately he does not give much practical room for his theory and when he enters the practical realm he falters.

[Jed · Rating 4 out of 5]

I don't have a lot to compare this book to. I've read a bit about John Rawls political philosophy and of course more classical political philosophers, but not much else contemporary.

I'd say this book would be too dry for anyone not enthusiastic for wading into the waters of an academic discipline they don't know much about. Being the liberal-arts college graduate I am, I don't mind. While reading it, I found that I had a clearer picture and vocabulary to describe of a position I've espoused since my college days: namely that the majority isn't always right and that government interference in and of itself is not always undesirable.

I look forward to finding some more to read on this topic. And I welcome your suggestions.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

I've got all kinds of problems with Pettit's vision, but it's certainly inspired me, and unlike other recent contribution to republican thought, Pettit here successfully shows how Republican political thought might very well offer a superior vision of freedom to liberal thought.

[Marco O · Rating 4 out of 5]

Clear and well stablished. A neccesary reference for any discussion on liberty and governmennt. It certaintly shedds concise light on the political dimention of liberty.

[Leonardo]

En los primeros dos capítulos de Republicanismo, Pettit se encarga de mostrar que la no-dominación no puede ser reducida ni a la no-interferencia privilegiada por Berlin ni a la libertad positiva defendida (supuestamente) por los republicanos neo-Atenienses y los marxistas.

Filosofía Política Contemporánea. Clase 8