Partant d'une interprétation de la conception hégélienne de l'action et de la normativité par sa confrontation avec des développements de la pensée contemporaine de l'action, du droit et des institutions qui lui semblent - à bien des égards - opposés, cette étude porte sur le jugement politique en tant qu'il met en jeu, de manière problématique, le rapport entre rationalité et normativité. Il s'agit de déterminer les conditions d'un véritable jugement politique, d'une évaluation qui peut se prévaloir légitimement du qualificatif de politique - par distinction, tout à la fois du jugement moral et du jugement technique. Après une analyse de la conception hégélienne de l'action et de ses évaluations qui permet de déceler une acception non exclusivement morale du devoir-être (I), il s'agit d'expliciter la normativité à l'œuvre dans la théorie hégélienne de l'esprit objectif à partir de l'analyse des rapports du droit à l'histoire et à la rationalité et de la mise au jour d'une conception hégélienne du sens pratique (Il), La constitution du sujet pratique dans son rapport aux institutions conduit à concevoir le social et le politique comme des modalités distinctes du pratique, conception à partir de laquelle peut être dégagée, au sein du pratique, une normativité spécifiquement politique (III), Enfin, après avoir explicité la manière dont peuvent être dégagées, chez Hegel, tant une rationalité pratique qu'une normativité philosophique, la dernière partie, conclusive, s'efforce de tirer le bilan des thèses ainsi mises au jour, et de dégager ce que sont la fécondité et les limites de la position hégélienne pour l'élaboration d'une théorie du jugement politique (IV), / Based on an interpretative work on hegelian concepts of action and normativity and their confrontation with contemporary conceptions of action, law and institutions, this study deals with political judgment insofar as it involves a problematic relationship between rationality and normativity, Thus the aim of this research is to determine the conditions of genuine political judgment, that is to say of an evaluation which could be legitimately called political, being neither a moral nor a technical one. After considering the hegelian concept of action and its evaluations - a work that enables to highlight a notion of "Sollen" which is not only a moral one -- (1), this study examines the proper normativity of the objective spirit by analysing the link between law, history and reason and the « practical sense” theory hegelian philosophy entails (Il) The constitution of practical subjectivity in its relationship to institutions allows ta understand social and political spheres as Specifie modalities of the practical field. This idea leads our work to single out, among the practical and objective world, the distinctive normativity of politics (III), Lastly, after an account of the notions of practical rationality and rational normativity which can be found in Hegel's thought, the final part attempts to draw conclusions and critical balance and assessment of the hegelian claims in order to elaborate a relevant theory of political judgment (IV).

The present study has a threefold aim: First, the theoretical aim is to give a contribution to refinement of the theory of dialogue based feminist ethics, concerning the understanding of judgment and narration within such an ethics.  The study also has an empirical aim, defined as to clarify what kind of knowledge, relevant to the moral judgment of an engaged outsider actor, can be received from dialogical interpretation and analysis of a limited selection of critically reflecting life stories. Third, a methodological aim is defined as to develop an approach to interpretation and analysis of reflecting life stories, which renders the storyteller visible as a reflecting moral subject, and makes the story accessible as a source of knowledge for the moral judgment of an engaged outsider actor. The thesis combines philosophical reflection and argumentation, with a narrative-hermeneutic method for interpretation of life stories, relating the two to each other in a hermeneutic process.  The theoretical reflection draws on Seyla Benhabibs theory of communicative ethics. A dialogue based model for moral justification and a likewise dialogue based model for political legitimacy are at the heart of this universalistic theory, although in combination with a conception of a narratively and hermeneutically constituted context sensitive moral judgment, based on Hannah Arendt’s concept “enlarged thought”. In the reflection, this model is related to other feminist theorizing within the tradition of dialogue based feminist ethics, as found in the works of Iris M. Young, Georgia Warnke and Shari Stone-Mediatore. The empirical study draws on three critically reflecting life stories from Israeli-Palestinian women activists for a just peace. The methodology for interpretation and analysis that is worked out combines dialogical interpretation as presented in Arthur W. Frank’s socio-narratology with a method for structural analysis derived from Shari Stone-Mediatores theory of storytelling as an expression of political resistance struggle. The results show that some stories drawing on marginalized experiences have a potential­ to stimulate further public debate through their capacity to enable a stereoscopic seeing, elucidating a tension between ideologically structured discourse and non-linguistic experience; implying that narrative-hermeneutic competence should be considered crucial for public debate.

The present study has a threefold aim: First, the theoretical aim is to give a contribution to refinement of the theory of dialogue based feminist ethics, concerning the understanding of judgment and narration within such an ethics.  The study also has an empirical aim, defined as to clarify what kind of knowledge, relevant to the moral judgment of an engaged outsider actor, can be received from dialogical interpretation and analysis of a limited selection of critically reflecting life stories. Third, a methodological aim is defined as to develop an approach to interpretation and analysis of reflecting life stories, which renders the storyteller visible as a reflecting moral subject, and makes the story accessible as a source of knowledge for the moral judgment of an engaged outsider actor. The thesis combines philosophical reflection and argumentation, with a narrative-hermeneutic method for interpretation of life stories, relating the two to each other in a hermeneutic process.  The theoretical reflection draws on Seyla Benhabibs theory of communicative ethics. A dialogue based model for moral justification and a likewise dialogue based model for political legitimacy are at the heart of this universalistic theory, although in combination with a conception of a narratively and hermeneutically constituted context sensitive moral judgment, based on Hannah Arendt’s concept “enlarged thought”. In the reflection, this model is related to other feminist theorizing within the tradition of dialogue based feminist ethics, as found in the works of Iris M. Young, Georgia Warnke and Shari Stone-Mediatore. The empirical study draws on three critically reflecting life stories from Israeli-Palestinian women activists for a just peace. The methodology for interpretation and analysis that is worked out combines dialogical interpretation as presented in Arthur W. Frank’s socio-narratology with a method for structural analysis derived from Shari Stone-Mediatores theory of storytelling as an expression of political resistance struggle. The results show that some stories drawing on marginalized experiences have a potential­ to stimulate further public debate through their capacity to enable a stereoscopic seeing, elucidating a tension between ideologically structured discourse and non-linguistic experience; implying that narrative-hermeneutic competence should be considered crucial for public debate.