Legal realism and human rights

This essay uses Schmitt's work to cast new light on the relevance of the American legal tradition known as ‘legal realism’ for the history and analysis of human rights. It does so by exploring several of Schmitt's most famous criticisms of international law and human rights, and then suggests how they might correspond with a widespread critical legal tradition in the 1920s and 1930s. This essay describes in detail two fundamental features of this tradition: historicism and realism. It concludes by suggesting that a return to some of these earlier law writers and texts might be a more substantive way to develop a constructive critical position in the fields of human rights and international law than an overreliance on the politically provocative (and problematic) rhetorical flourishes of Carl Schmitt.     

A Crocean critique of Gramsci on historicism,hegemony and intellectuals

Although Gramsci's debt to Croce is well known, most commentators simply accept his criticisms of Croce and his claim to have overcome certain lacunae in the Neapolitan's thought. This article argues that many of these criticisms misfire, and mounts a Crocean critique of Gramsci. Through a comparison of their respective views of historicism, hegemony and intellectuals, it is argued that the radical democratic and libertarian theory many post-Marxists claim to find in the Sardinian is more appropriately associated with Croce. Sebbene il debito di Gramsci verso Croce sia risaputo, molti commentatori tendono semplicemente ad accettare le critiche di Gramsci verso Croce, in particolare il primato da parte di Gramsci stesso nell'aver colmato certe lacune nel pensiero del filosofo napoletano. Questo articolo pone in rilievo che molti di queste critiche risultano essere prive di significato, ed inoltre, tende a far emergere una critica crociana di Gramsci. Dal tentativo di porre in relazione le idee di entrambi su concetti quali lo storicismo, l'egemonia, ed infine l'identitÀ degli intellettuali, si evince che la teoria libertaria e democratico-radicale che molti post-marxisti tendono ad attribuire all'intellettuale sardo, tende ad essere in buona parte il prodotto del pensiero di Croce.     

DECONSTRUCTING HISTORICIST TIME,OR TIME'S SCRIBE

This article investigates the enduring chronopolitics of Historicism. To do so, I work through two dominant understandings of Historicism: the view that “historicism” is a means to account for the historian's own standpoint or historical situation as the place from which they take up and interpret the past, which I call Historicism A, and the separate (though now more popular) understanding of “historicism” that is derived from Karl Popper's The Poverty of Historicism, which I call Historicism B. I am less interested in what draws these varying definitions of Historicism apart and instead investigate a point of intersection in their understanding of time and temporality. Both strains serve politics via a concept of time as a neutral, uniform, and apolitical scale upon which any political or ideological agenda is enacted. Time here serves as the basis for historical explanation, but its neutrality, homogeneity, and extra-historicality are a trick. I employ Gérard Genette's analytic of the palimpsest, with the help of Nancy Partner, to expose the ways that Historicism allows the past to be rewritten and overwritten to political and ideological ends that the temporal construct conceals. This then enables me to work through the politics of Historicism and ultimately deconstruct Historicist time, demonstrating how the universal or eternal claims of Enlightenment or pre-Historicist thought are actually maintained in Historicism as the mechanism to advance political and ideological positions under the cloak of neutrality. In what follows, I make the temporal mechanism of Historicism explicit in order to expose the ethical failings that this mechanism conceals.     

Contextualist dilemmas: Methodology of the history of political theory in two stages

This article traces the development of contextualist methodology in the study of the history of political thought/political theory after WWII. It argues that the so-called ‘Cambridge School’, often regarded as the core of historicist contextualism, arose during the 1950s and 1960s in response to dilemmas that were largely internal to (the history of) political philosophy as it was practiced in Britain in an academic culture dominated by analytic philosophy. This first stage of contextualist theorizing, usually associated with Laslett, Skinner and Pocock, was highly influential, but it also contributed to the formation of a new set of problems. These were connected to the diversification and internationalization of the historicist contextualist study of political thought after the 1960s. The ‘second stage’ of contextualist theorizing was shaped by post-analytic and post-modernist impulses among others. Because of the variety of philosophical and conceptual commitments on notions central to the field such as ‘political thinking’, ‘politics’, or ‘power’, it is unlikely that the present historicist contextualist approaches would come to share a unified methodology or theory of historical interpretation.     

J.W. Burrow: A personal history

The late John Burrow, one of the most stimulating promoters of the distinctively interdisciplinary enterprise that is Intellectual History, was a vital member of what has become known as the ‘Sussex School’. In exploring the resonances of his singular and richly idiosyncratic contribution, this article places his unique historical sensibility within a series of interpretative contexts, demonstrating the vitality of writings that will continue to inspire and inform scholarship in the field for decades to come.     

Maggi's Croce,Sasso's Gentile and the riddles of twentieth-century Italian intellectual history

Claiming to occupy the forefront of modern thought, Croce and Gentile together dominated Italian intellectual life during the first half of the twentieth century. But though their intellectual interaction continued, they split definitively as Gentile embraced Fascism and Croce sought to recast liberalism in response to the Fascist challenge. Both then suffered eclipse as postwar Italians sought to embrace what seemed the wider western mainstream. Reflecting the recent Italian effort at reassessment, Sasso and Maggi offer major works focused, respectively, on the basis of Gentile's Fascism and the adequacy of Croce's response to his challenging era. Working through the limits of the two studies suggests how we might treat Croce and Gentile in tandem, as central to an innovative, sometimes troubling, distinctively Italian tradition that merits reconnection with the mainstream of western intellectual history, especially as we continue seeking to learn from the disastrous trajectories of Fascism and totalitarianism.     

Context and Contextualisation: Remarks on the Work of Ian Hunter

Summary

This essay focuses on a characteristic analytical and rhetorical strategy of the style of intellectual history practiced by Ian Hunter. It assesses the moral and political resources supplied by that strategy, as well as its implications for one particular humanities discipline, that of literary criticism.     

Histories of analytic political philosophy

This paper sets out an agenda for the study of the history of analytic and post-analytic political philosophy. It builds on a growing literature on the history of analytic philosophy to make three main suggestions. First, analytic philosophy arose as part of a wider shift from the developmental historicism of the nineteenth century to more modernist modes of knowledge. Second, analytic philosophy included a wide range of approaches to moral and political issues, many of which reflected distinctive concepts of analysis, logic, and science. Third, analytic philosophy only became widespread when the work of Quine and Wittgenstein moved it in a more post-analytic direction. Crucially, the move toward post-analytic philosophy inspired people to rediscover and reinvent other traditions, including liberal humanism, democratic republicanism, virtue ethics, and historicism. The resulting history provides a fluid and diverse understanding of arguably the most powerful philosophical movement of the twentieth century.     

Carl Schmitt, Reinhart Koselleck and the foundations of history and politics

This article explores the intellectual relations between Carl Schmitt and the German historian Reinhart Koselleck with a focus on the inspiration that Koselleck found in Schmitt's work in the early 1950s. The article goes beyond earlier contributions in the field by illuminating how the most important discursive features that Koselleck drew from Schmitt were utilized toward a very independent intellectual project. This project concerned an attempt to revise modern political thought by means of outlining a new concept of history. Koselleck's concept of history was to depart from all utopian notions of history as a singular, unified and goal-directed process. Instead, it aimed to outline certain fundamental existential structures of the human condition and to take account of the social relations existing among human beings in order to understand (historically) and contain (politically) the potential conflict in human societies. Hence Koselleck believed that his new concept of history would lead to a more responsible foundation of political order and decision making. Following an analysis of how Koselleck developed his project in a dialogue with the work of Schmitt and a number of other scholars, first of all Friedrich Meinecke and Martin Heidegger, the article presents a brief perspective on how his new concept of history was received in the 1950s and on how it came to provide his work with a certain analytical, thematic and argumentative unity.     

Histories of analytic political philosophy

This paper sets out an agenda for the study of the history of analytic and post-analytic political philosophy. It builds on a growing literature on the history of analytic philosophy to make three main suggestions. First, analytic philosophy arose as part of a wider shift from the developmental historicism of the nineteenth century to more modernist modes of knowledge. Second, analytic philosophy included a wide range of approaches to moral and political issues, many of which reflected distinctive concepts of analysis, logic, and science. Third, analytic philosophy only became widespread when the work of Quine and Wittgenstein moved it in a more post-analytic direction. Crucially, the move toward post-analytic philosophy inspired people to rediscover and reinvent other traditions, including liberal humanism, democratic republicanism, virtue ethics, and historicism. The resulting history provides a fluid and diverse understanding of arguably the most powerful philosophical movement of the twentieth century.