Esta tese se insere no campo da teoria política normativa e tem como tema o estudo do debate sobre o conceito de liberdade. Nossa proposta consiste em analisar o conceito de liberdade como não interferência, de Isaiah Berlin; o conceito de liberdade como não dominação, de Philip Pettit; e a ideia de liberdade construtivista, de Nancy Hirschmann, para assim colocar esses conceitos em relação entre si. Objetivamos indicar a possibilidade de diálogo entre as diferentes correntes teóricas apontadas, como também propor uma leitura sobre o conceito de liberdade, para assim ampliarmos o nosso entendimento sobre o que é ser livre. Acreditamos que articular elementos das diferentes teorias pode enriquecer essa reflexão que pretende ser teórico-normativa, mas que, ao mesmo tempo, ambiciona refletir sobre as condições de liberdade para os diferentes sujeitos, tendo em vista as suas vidas nas sociedades contemporâneas e plurais. Nosso argumento é de que o exercício de compreender diferentes visões de liberdade de forma articulada é um caminho profícuo para abordarmos a indagação sobre quem é o sujeito livre. Desse modo, procuramos não apenas retomar criticamente os conceitos dos autores citados, mas também oferecer um possível diálogo entre as distintas concepções de liberdade tratadas nesta tese. Além disso, propomos usar o tema da opressão para articular elementos do pensamento dos três principais autores retomados aqui: Isaiah Berlin, Philip Pettit e Nancy Hirschmann. Defendemos que a ideia de não opressão pode ser uma abordagem teórica e política para discutirmos a liberdade. Tal chave de leitura nos permite pensar não só os espaços de liberdade, mas as diferentes experiências das pessoas. Assim, a liberdade considerada como não opressão relaciona a liberdade com a liberdade de escolha e, ao mesmo tempo, indica a necessidade da não dominação e atenção à construção do sujeito que escolhe. As escolhas se inserem em relações complexas, e a leitura da liberdade pela ideia da opressão é uma ferramenta normativa atenta a importantes aspectos políticos dessas escolhas / This thesis belongs to normative political theory field and has as its theme the study of the debate on the concept of freedom. Our proposal is to analyze Isaiahs Berlins concept of freedom as non-interference, Philip Pettits concept of freedom as nondomination, and Nancy Hirschmanns idea of constructivist freedom, and thereby to put these concepts in relation to each other. We intend not only to indicate the possibility of a dialogue between these different theoretical views, but also to propose a new way of developing the concept of freedom in order to expand our understanding of what is to be free. We believe that the articulation of elements taken from different theories can enrich this reflection that intends to be theoreticalnormative, but at the same time aspires to reflect about the conditions of freedom of the different subjects regarding their lives in plural and contemporary societies. Our argument is that the exercise of understanding different views of freedom in an articulated manner is a fruitful way to approach the question of who is the free subject. Thus, we not only approach critically the concepts of these authors, but we also offer a possible dialogue between the different conceptions of freedom treated in this thesis. In addition, we propose to use the theme of oppression to articulate elements of the thoughts of the three main authors discussed on this thesis: Isaiah Berlin, Philip Pettit and Nancy Hirschmann. We defend that the idea of non oppression, can be a theoretical and political approach to discuss freedom. This key of reading allow us to think not only spaces of freedom, but the different experiences of people. Thus, freedom considered as non oppression relates freedom to freedom of choice and, at the same time, indicates the necessity of non domination and attention to the construction of the choosing subject. The choices are embedded in complex relationships, and reading freedom by the idea of non oppression is a normative tool aware of important political aspects of these choices

abstract: In their criticism of various approaches to upbringing and related American family law jurisprudence, liberal theorists tend to underweight the interests of parents in directing the development of children’s values. Considered through the lens of T.M. Scanlon’s contractualism, providing a good upbringing is not a matter of identifying children’s “best interests” or acting in accordance with overriding end-state principles. Rather, children should be raised in accordance with principles for the general regulation of behavior that no one could reasonably reject as a basis for informed, unforced general agreement. The process of ascertaining such principles requires an understanding of relevant values; a good upbringing is what children receive when parents properly value their children, enabling them to appropriately recognize what it is that they have reason to do given the roles that they play. By developing the account of upbringing hinted at in Scanlon’s contractualist monograph, What We Owe to Each Other, this project identifies and responds to some common mistakes in contemporary liberal theorizing on childhood, suggests that contractualism yields a more plausible account of upbringing than alternative approaches, and along the way identifies some implications of contractualism for public policy where individuals properly value the children of others in their community. / Dissertation/Thesis / Doctoral Dissertation Philosophy 2019

My main argument in this dissertation is that popular nationalism in post-war South Korea, unlike the conventional claim to it among many South Korean critical intellectuals and unification policy-makers, cannot serve as an antidote to anti-North Koreanism. On the contrary, it is problematic that the cultural politics of national identification, prescribed as an authentic critical tool of challenging anti-North Koreanism, helps program hierarchical inter-Korea relationships by exposing the South Korean public to anomalous cultural-political characteristics of North Koreans. It also does so by creating popular discourses that have reinforced unification policy agendas that frame the development of North Korea in terms that would make it amenable to the needs of transnational capitalism and the legitimacy of liberal human rights discourse. This critical endeavor claims that the critique of anti-North Koreanism cannot be successful without problematizing the idea of discontinuity that stresses there is a rupture between cold war and post-cold war forms of anti-North Koreanism. This is because any un-scrutinized presumption of the historical transition can only confuse critical interpretations of the role of national identification while thereby reinforcing policy-driven resolutions for inter-Korea sociability. Thus, I locate the significance of my work in a democratic call for South Korean critical communication and cultural studies as well as the public to effectively deconstruct the contingent discursive collaboration of national identification and anti-North Koreanism that complies with transnational globalization.

This thesis argues that the 1938 Kentucky Democratic primary was a critical moment for the New Deal and the Democratic Party. Furthermore, it demonstrates the fractures forming within the southern wing of the party. Through this primary the paper examines peoples’ perceptions of a changing democracy. One that they believed included a much more powerful president and meddling bureaucracy. It details the major points of the campaign, including Franklin Roosevelt’s visit to the state the famous poisoning accusations, and the corruption within the Works Progress Administration.

Without doubt, John Rawls's A Theory of Justice is one of the most important statements of Anglo-American political philosophy in the twentieth century. Through a revival of the social contract device, Rawls formulates a set of principles of correct political association ("the right") that he argues must be considered as prior to any conception of the good. These principles apply to all persons as free and equal beings in society, but more importantly they assume some things about the nature of persons in that society. On the institutional aspect of his theory, Rawls conceives of the state as a neutral arbiter of the good. This, coupled with a conception of persons as individuals that affirm the values of autonomy and equality, has drawn extensive critical fire from philosophers within and without liberalism. One such group of critics, the communitarians, claim that Rawls's idea of the person is too abstract or "groundless" to account for shared values, and thus fails to appreciate the extent to which we understand ourselves as embedded within our culture. Michael Sandel has thus argued that Rawls's person so conceived is too abstract to be of any theoretical let alone practical use, while Alasdair Macintyre has argued that such a conception of persons is incoherent: liberal "persons" do not know themselves, and so they cannot know what is right or what is good. This thesis analyzes the liberal-communitarian debate by comparing and contrasting some terms used by both sides in the debate. By analyzing the terms, I will present a liberal conception of the person as properly understood in Rawls's theory. ' Rawls has not been idle since the publication of A Theory of Justice. He has defended his theory in a series of articles and lectures that have developed his position in response to these and other criticisms. Specifically, by positing his theory within liberal-democratic culture, by acknowledging individual formative conceptions of the good, and by emphasizing and relying upon a modus vivendi view as the basis for political liberalism and a liberal culture, Rawls has answered the communitarian objections by incorporating and responding to those pertinent criticisms. I will argue that Rawls's recent emphasis on a theory of political liberalism successfully accounts for his idea of persons because it accords with our considered moral principles, it treats persons as free and equal beings worthy of respect, and it incorporates the only coherent construction of the social embeddedness thesis to a greater degree than communitarians acknowledge or appreciate. Rawls's political liberalism thus surpasses this aspect of the communitarian critique.

Cette thèse porte sur le rôle du raisonnement fondé sur des croyances religieuses dans la discussion politique, et plus précisément sur la compatibilité des arguments religieux publics avec les postulats libéraux et démocratiques concernant la justification de décisions politiques, c’est-à-dire prises au nom de l’État. La justification publique est gage de légitimité en démocratie libérale : mais dans quelles conditions une décision est-elle publiquement justifiée ? Tous les arguments sont-ils valables ? Les arguments religieux sont souvent considérés avec méfiance : ils sont particuliers, ne sont convaincants que pour certains citoyens et sont rejetés par d’autres. Il semblerait donc injuste, pour ceux qui ne partagent pas ces croyances religieuses, de les utiliser pour justifier des décisions politiques. La même chose, cependant, vaut pour de nombreux autres arguments, non religieux, comme les arguments utilitaristes et les arguments libéraux eux-mêmes. L’objectif de la thèse est d’examiner différentes stratégies visant à justifier l’exclusion de certains arguments, puis de proposer un nouveau modèle de discussion politique. La thèse défendue est que les arguments absolutistes, c’est-à-dire les arguments fondés sur la reconnaissance de l’existence d’une source extra-sociale de validité normative, ne respectent pas les exigences de la justification publique et doivent donc être exclus de la discussion politique. Mais la distinction entre arguments absolutistes et non absolutistes ne recoupe pas celle entre arguments religieux et séculiers : on ne peut donc pas dire que tous les arguments religieux doivent être exclus, ni qu’ils peuvent toujours être inclus. / This dissertation focuses on the role of faith-based reasoning in political discussion, and more specifically on the compatibility of public religious arguments with liberal and democratic premises regarding the justification of political decisions, i.e. decisions made in the name of the state. Public justification is a requirement of legitimacy in liberal democracy: but under which conditions is a decision publicly justified? Are all arguments valid? Religious arguments are often considered with suspicion: they are particular, therefore convincing for only some citizens and rejected by others. It seems unfair, for those who do not share religious beliefs, to use these arguments to justify political decisions. The same objection, however, is also true for many other non-religious arguments, like utilitarian arguments or liberal arguments themselves.The purpose of the dissertation is to examine different strategies aiming to justify the exclusion of certain arguments, and then to offer a new model of political discussion. The claim defended is that absolutist arguments, meaning arguments that are based on the recognition of the existence of an extra-social source of normative validity, do not respect the requirements of public justification and consequently should be excluded from political discussion. The distinction between absolutist and non-absolutist arguments does not overlap with the distinction between religious and secular arguments: it thus cannot be argued that all religious arguments should always be excluded, or that they could always be included.

The purpose of this dissertation is to examine the often tumultuous relationship between Friedrich Nietzsche and democracy. Nietzsche has always had an antipathy towards democracy. Nietzsche has claimed that democracy espouses a will to equality which levels the greatest men along with the most average men. For Nietzsche, his Ubermenschen must emerge from the muddle of mediocrity and similitude in order to set themselves apart from the herd. The herd is more than happy to live in a democratic society since no one will be rendered better or greater than anyone else. I argue that Nietzsche does not realize democracy's many assets. Liberal democracy could very well be the best political springboard for his Ubermenschen. For Nietzsche, higher culture emerges in spite of modernity's leveling snare. These great men engage in contests. They create their own rules and values. They say what they like. In a fascist society, these men would never be allowed to do as they please. One benefit of liberal democracy is that we are given the right to dissent. We are given the right to express ourselves. Democracy could facilitate the emergence of the elusive Ubermenschen. These are men who transcend the average and the ordinary. In this dissertation I begin by exploring Nietzsche's cultural criticisms. He devotes a great deal of energy condemning modernity and its leveling tendencies. Out of the cultural morass that is modernity comes this higher culture of which Nietzsche speaks highly. In chapter two, I argue that higher culture must begin with the individual. I will examine what it takes for a man to be able to transcend his mediocre culture. In chapter three, I examine the contemporary political climate and try to determine whether these great individuals could emerge in such a climate. Finally, in chapter four I examine which political system could best help this culture emerge. I argue that liberal democracy is the best environment for these higher men.

The goal of this thesis is to examine the effect of neoliberalism on developing nations. Specifically it will look at how neoliberalism has affected Mexico via the North American Free Trade Agreement. Mexico was chosen because since its depression in 1982 it has adopted continuing neoliberal policy, which according to its leaders, United States leaders, and international governmental bodies, is the path to development and the improvement of the standard of living for all people. This work begins by examining the historical path of neoliberalism to provide context for choosing Mexico for the focal point of this thesis, as well as context for the situation occurring in Mexico. It then examines neoliberalism via its scholars who are in support of it and against it. This is followed by an evaluation method based off of Amarya Sen's capability approach to development. Then several previous studies are examined to prove qualitatively that there have been adverse effects experienced under NAFTA in Mexico, by all of the established evaluation parameters. Then this thesis turns to a discussion of some descriptive statistics relating to the approach set up by Sen. It concludes with quantitative approach showing over interesting correlations of neoliberalism, to other variables indicative of capabilities via linear regression.

No description available.

My abiding concern with human and planetary wellbeing and an emerging interest in the potential of Participatory Action Research as a method of engaging with restorative, life-enhancing ways of being are central to the research reported here. Chomsky (2003), Kelsey (2002), Roddick (2001), and Stiglitz (2003) are amongst many authors who argue that the way in which we shape and are shaped by our relationships with one another has contributed to an intolerable, inhumane and unsustainable compromise of human and planetary wellbeing. Through a Participatory Action Research (PAR) project with staff from Te Ra, a community based on the holistic ideals of Rudolf Steiner, and thus an organisation explicitly committed to holistic wellbeing of people and planet, we sought to explore the challenges to such wellbeing. While our mutual attention was focused on enhancing staff wellbeing at their place of employment, my wider attention was also given to an investigation of the value of a critical analysis to the wider political and economic context in which this organisation works to meet the aspirations of this community. My deep attention has also focused on the potential for PAR to make a contribution to the transformational aspirations of critical theorists who are concerned to uncover and transform aspects of society that inhibit justice and wellbeing of people and planet. My metaphor of choice, to allow me the engagement in all three spheres simultaneously, is the metaphor of Dance. In my work with the staff of Te Ra, our intent was to 'dance with the Shadows', alluding to Jungian references to hidden aspects of ourselves and this community, to discover if un-wellness and disconnection from self and others could be transformed into flourishing relationships and wellbeing in the organisation. McNiff (2000) proposes that PAR has the potential to generate living theories that redefine the main purpose of organisation theory in terms of human wellbeing. Throughout this research project, principles of PAR are woven in with work of critical organisational theorists, psychologists and anthropologists. The already established ideas of reflection, observation, reflexivity, and action are choreographed with the less often considered ideas of those aspects of the research relationship that may inhibit mutuality. While this organisation is explicitly and deeply committed to underpinning all that is aspired to with a relational ethic, the impact that instrumental practices associated with an intensifying neo-liberal economic external environment have not left this organisation untouched. It took commitment, courage and resources to identify and engage with the Shadows masked by intrinsic and extrinsic pressures and processes that these research participants were experiencing. Engaging in PAR processes allowed us dance 'up close and personal' with their aspirations to begin transforming what was not well, while recognising and reinforcing the organisation's existing strong philosophical and spiritual foundations that emphasized individual freedom and collective responsibility for wellbeing of all. Based on the significant transformations achieved during this project we posit that PAR provides a collaborative opportunity for academics and practitioners to 'dance with the Shadows' of individuals and communities to make a significant contribution to the development of sustainable relationships in workplaces where human and planetary wellbeing is the priority.