Political Philosophy and Public Purpose

This book proposes a new interpretation of Claude Lefort’s thought focusing on his phenomenological method. Although all scholars recognize the influence of Merleau-Ponty, so far no one has demonstrated the fundamental coherence between Merleau-Ponty’s theory and the main concepts proposed by Lefort; in particular between the concept of institution and the definitions of social and democracy. If Merleau-Ponty uses the idea of institution to think beyond the division between subject and object, to think together continuity and difference, permanence and change, this same concept allows Lefort to understand society as both conflict and unity. From this starting point, this study will attempt to clarify Lefort’s concept of the political and his interpretations of modernity, humanism, and the work of Niccolò Machiavelli. These very concepts will show the difference from structuralism, Michel Foucault’s contemporary theory and theories of immanence. At the same time this study highlightsan internal tension in Lefort’s own thinking: between autonomy and experience, institution and insurgence.

This book extends the approach that Murray and Schuler develop in their companion volume, False Moves in Philosophy and Social Theory: Losing Public Purpose. The chapters form a connected inquiry into consequences of capital, a far-reaching social form, through a critique of political economy and the mindset it shares with much modern philosophy and social theory. The authors call this bifurcating mentality factoring philosophy. Factoring philosophy mistakes the distinguishable for the separable. It splits the subjective and objective, form and content, and it takes the object of social theory to be an impossible economy-in-general, stripped of constitutive social forms. The critique of factoring philosophy structures the collection, which makes a wide-ranging contribution to the research field of the critique of political economy as critical social theory. Ultimately, this book solidifies Murray and Schuler’s impact on the study of political economy, political philosophy, modern philosophy, Hegel, Marx, and critical theory. 

This book considers diverse philosophical topics unified by the identification of false moves commonly found in modern philosophy, mainstream Anglo-American philosophy, and social theory. The authors expose the sources of fundamental problems that recur in philosophy—basic problems with what the authors call "factoring philosophy." Factoring philosophy fails to attend to the phenomenological task of determining when what is distinguishable is separable and when not. Consequently, factoring philosophy makes phenomenological mistakes—false moves—when it treats as separable what is only distinguishable. Analytic philosophy is prone to false moves when it fails to recognize that phenomenology is the necessary complement to analysis. There is nothing wrong with analysis—we might as well give up thinking as give up analysis—and nothing is wrong with the values prized by analytic philosophy. As Hegel observed, “philosophizing requires, above all, that each thought should be grasped in its full precision and that nothing should remain vague and indeterminate.” Ultimately, this book contends that false moves prevail in philosophical analysis and social theory when they neglect their phenomenological foundations. 

This book builds on the recent revival of interest in Marx and Marxism, calling for a renewal and refinement of Marxist state theory. It aims to provoke and encourage new debates and critiques that build on—but also update and extend—the rich tradition of Marxist analyses of the capitalist state, including the well-known debates of the 1970s. The chapters present a dynamic and diverse constellation of arguments and perspectives on a range of topics, from general re-appraisals of the capitalist state to investigations of contemporary challenges—including digitalisation, the ecological crisis, the coronavirus pandemic, social reproduction, and critical political economy. What they share is a commitment to an understanding of the specifically capitalist character of the modern state and its significance for any serious discussion of the causes of our current age of global catastrophe and the overcoming of capitalist social relations.

This book examines what the justification of political power and the character of a liberal political community in the conditions of pluralism should look like, with the aim of equal respect for all. Sylvie Bláhová argues that if those who understand the principle of respect as the basis of political liberalism are to fulfill all the prerequisites of this principle, they must ensure respect within the liberal political community as a whole. The classic interpretation of political liberalism ensures respect during the process of justification of political power, yet many individuals in the liberal political community remain disrespected, mainly due to their group membership. Accordingly, Bláhová looks for a more complex interpretation of the principle of respect within political liberalism, one that ensures respect beyond the justification of political power. The author argues that the way to achieve respect in the liberal political community is to interpret the criterion of reciprocity in a dual way. Specifically, Bláhová claims that respect can be ensured only in conjunction with the principle of civic friendship, which makes respect more comprehensive. This novel interpretation can ensure unity of the liberal political community and make it stable, which is crucial in conditions of pluralism.