Ideas, Ideologies and Public Consent: Introducing the Issue

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

The concept of consent is essential for every society society, affecting almost all its spheres - from everyday life to socio-political bases. Therefore, it cannot be considered accidental that both the idea itself and the diverse directions of its interpretation, dating back to the era of early modernity, today constitute one of the most priorities, intellectually saturated segments in modern socio-political theory. It is impossible to deny the appeal of the doctrine of personal consent (and the parallel thesis that no government is legitimate unless it acts without the consent of the governed). It has had a great influence on the political institutions of many modern states and has been a major factor in the direction that political theory has taken since 1600. In the second half of the 20th century, two approaches prevailed in political theory, within the framework of which the process of formation of the consensus tradition: personal and historical ones. The most impact to the theory is made by criticism of the unilinear model of consent analysis in the works of George Klosko, analysis by R.D. Bernstein of the problem of consent in the form of critical remarks on the philosophical position of R. Rorty, the concept of socialist “consent strategy” developed in the 1980s by E. Laclau and Sh. Mouffe, the controversy of the Canadian political philosopher James Tully with neo-Marxist theorists, the philosophical interpretation of consent by Jürgen Habermas as part of his analysis of the “rationalization paradox” etc. This theoretical and methodological frame becomes a basis for the thematic volume, where the articles on the history of socio-political thought are followed by the chapter devoted to the problems of Russia between cleavages and social harmony. Russian problems are blended with an international context, and the issue ends with an attempt to understand the ideological attitudes of modern youth.

About the authors

Vladimir A. Gutorov

St Petersburg State University, Saint Petersburg

Author for correspondence.
Email: gut-50@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-8063-2558

Doctor of Science in Philosophy, Professor, Head of the Department of Theory and Philosophy of Politics, Faculty of Political Science

Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation

Alexander A. Shirinyants

Lomonosov Moscow State University

Email: jants@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-6949-2256

Doctor of Science in Political Sciences, Professor, Head of the Department of History of Social and Political Doctrines of the Faculty of Political Science

Moscow, Russian Federation

Daria B. Kazarinova

People’s Friendship University of Russia

Email: kazarinova-db@rudn.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-9416-5898

PhD in Political Science, Associate Professor of the Department of Comparative Politics

Moscow, Russian Federation

References

  1. Bernstein, R.J. (2007). New constellation: The ethical-political horizons of modernity/ postmodernity. Cambridge.
  2. Edmundson, W.A. (2018). Moral education and the ethics of consent. In A. Müller & P. Schaber (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of the ethics of consent (pp. 372-383). London; New York.
  3. Estlund, D. (2018). Normative consent and authority. In A. Müller & P. Schaber (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of the ethics of consent (pp. 359-371). London; New York.
  4. Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the Prison Notebooks. London.
  5. Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action. Vol. 1. Reason and the rationalization of society. Boston.
  6. Howarth, D.R. (2013). Poststructuralism and after: Structure, subjectivity and power. Houndmills, Basingstoke.
  7. Klosko, G. (2004). Multiple principles of political obligation. Political Theory, 32(6), 801-824.
  8. Klosko, G. (2005). Political obligations. Oxford; New York.
  9. Klosko, G. (2018). Consent theory of political obligation. In A. Müller & P. Schaber (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of the ethics of consent (pp. 348-358). London; New York.
  10. Klosko, G. (2019). Why Should We Obey the Law? Cambridge.
  11. Laclau, E., & Mouffe, Ch. (1985). Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics. London; New York.
  12. Simmons, A.J. (1979). Moral principles and political obligations. New Jersey.
  13. Davaney, S.G., & Frisina, W.G. (Eds.). (2006). The Pragmatic Century: Conversations with Richard J. Bernstein. Albany.
  14. Tuckness, A. (2018). Historical perspectives in political philosophy. In A. Müller & P. Schaber (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of the ethics of consent (pp. 337-347). London; New York.
  15. Tully, J. (1995). Strange multiplicity: constitutionalism in an age of diversity. Cambridge.
  16. Wellmer, A. (1985). Reason, utopia, and the Dialectic of Enlightenment. In R.J. Bernstein (Ed.), Habermas and Modernity (pp. 35-67). Cambridge, Massachusetts.
  17. White, S.K. (1988). The recent work of Jürgen Habermas: Reason, justice and modernity. Cambridge.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML

Согласие на обработку персональных данных

 

Используя сайт https://journals.rcsi.science, я (далее – «Пользователь» или «Субъект персональных данных») даю согласие на обработку персональных данных на этом сайте (текст Согласия) и на обработку персональных данных с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика» (текст Согласия).