Liberalism is associated by many with the protection of private property and the insulation of economic markets from state intervention. Yet the liberal tradition is very diverse, and some have taken its concern with equality and liberty in radically egalitarian directions that belie the reduction of liberalism to market-fundamentalist ‘neoliberalism’.
What Are Its Possible Futures in South Africa?
David Bilchitz and Daryl Glaser
Kira Erwin and Gerhard Maré
This special issue emerges from a concern with academic practice around researching and theorising race, racialism and racism; particularly within the current theoretical climate in which race is, in the majority, accepted as a social construct. In public thinking and discourse, however, acceptance of the biological existence of races continues to dominate in many societies. Racial classification also continues in many state practices in South Africa such as the collection of racial demographics though the national census, and through countless private and public officials reporting towards government-stipulated race-based employment acts. These classification practices raise contradictions for the constitutional goal of non-racialism in South Africa. South Africa has also signed and ratified the International Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Professional Interest/Pages/CERD.aspx), which aims to eliminate racial discrimination in member states. The convention, to which member states are legally bound, raises a number of pressing issues that, to date, are not present in a wider national debate on the continued use of race in South African state policy. For example, there is little recognition by the state of the difficulties associated with identifying a targeted group based on race, nor clarity as to whether these groups are identified through markers based on phenotype, or socio-economic or cultural differences. Nor is there open discussion on the use of terms such as fair and unfair discrimination and how they relate to terms such as distinction and differentiation (see Bossuyt 2000), and the legal consequences of using such terms.
This is the second of two special issues on freedom and power to be published seriatim in Theoria: A Journal of Social and Political Theory. The contributors to this issue analyse the relationship between freedom and power in fascinating ways. Issue 131 was arranged in terms of intellectual historical chronology, focusing on the work of Hobbes, Spinoza, Hegel, Adorno and Arendt, amongst others. This time the contributors are concerned less with intellectual history and more with conceptual, exegetic and contemporary matters.
Ever since Livy proclaimed that ‘freedom is to be in one’s own power’, if not from long before and in other contexts, the relationship between freedom and power has been an enduring concern of social and political theorists. It has withstood even Isaiah Berlin’s sharp distinction between seemingly irreconcilable forms of freedom and much of the subsequent theoretical and philosophical debates that it spawned. The history of political thought is littered with thinkers who have opposed freedom and power, arguing that liberty can only be truly attained free from power and domination (republicans) or in the absence of external impediments imposed by other human beings (liberals); but there are also many examples of arguments that identify a close and intriguing link between them, especially in the sphere of politics, that emanate from radicals and conservatives alike, thinkers such as Machiavelli, Montaigne, Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, Arendt and Foucault. Moreover, those in the former camp tend to think of freedom in formal and abstract terms, while proponents of the latter eschew this now normal tendency in political philosophy and instead think of freedom in fully substantive, concrete and even materialist terms. Hobbes is an unusual and unique figure as his account of freedom inspires members of both parties, that is those concerned with the formal character of freedom and those troubled by its more substantive components and conditions, which is why it is only right that we start this special issue on freedom and power with an analysis of Hobbes’ account of freedom.
The theme of this issue of Theoria is ‘Special Obligations, Rights and National Responsibility’. It arises from a conference held at the University of St Andrews in October 2010 which focused on David Miller’s recent work. The editors are grateful to Alice Pinheiro Walla, Jesse Anne Tomalty, Yann Allard-Tremblay and André Grahle for organising this stimulating event, and to David for graciously agreeing to reply to his commentators both in person at the conference and in print here.
The theme of this special issue of Theoria is the relationship between constitutions, constitutional review and democracy. The four essays that make up the issue advance new arguments, offer fresh perspectives and make innovative proposals in response to a cluster of questions: what institutional arrangement of constitutional review best realizes the ideals of democracy? How does rightsbased judicial review fare, relative to constitutional review carried out by other branches of government, from the perspectives of democratic legitimacy and epistemic competence? Are courts more likely to uphold individual rights than legislatures? If democracy requires the participation of citizens in ordinary political decision making, should citizens be permitted to participate in the periodic revision of formal constitutions?
Earlier versions of the five articles of this edition of Theoria were presented at a conference held at the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg in March 2010.1 Although they are diverse in style and content, all address the shared theme of the conference and this edition — ‘Poverty, Charity, Justice’.
Raphael De Kadt
In 1991, Charles Simkins, the doyen of economic demography in South Africa, wrote an article in Theoria entitled ‘The Scope and Methods of Political Economy’. In this article, a reworked version of his inaugural lecture as the Helen Suzman Professor of Political Economy at the University of the Witwatersrand, Simkins made a powerful case that economics is, of necessity, a moral science. Through the years, a concern with the intersection of politics, economics and the moral dimensions of the ‘human condition’ has been a recurrent theme, and organising motif, of this journal. Many of its contributors have, in diverse and often resonant fashion, reminded readers of the importance of this intersection and of extent to which the understanding of the economy is embedded in an appreciation of its broader historical — that is to say political, societal and cultural — contexts.
The focus of this special issue of Theoria is the Politics of Migration. Our aim in designing and attracting contributions to this issue was to contribute to the current debates on various aspects of global migration practices that are challenging the ways in which many nation-states, sending and receiving migrants, conceive of their place in this ever-changing globalised and globalising world in which we all live. International Relations theorists have, for several years, been writing about the contesting phenomena of integration and disintegration in global politics. As the world becomes more globalised, more linked and interdependent, the reality of a kind of global citizenship for the privileged elite with access to the markets and their spoils become more apparent. Those on the other end of the spectrum, often immigrant, minority and working class groupings who do not have access to resources beyond those promised to them by the state they rely on, react against these globalising forces. The result is a contest between a global integration and pulling together of individuals all over the world with similar political and economic situations, and a disintegration within and between nation-states, where those without these networks retreat into ethnic and cultural enclaves that offer them protection and defence against globalising impulses.
The five articles that comprise this edition of Theoria cover a range of issues from reconsidering the war on terrorism to defending black solidarity to the abjection of the vagina in Brazil and South Africa. While the subject matter of the five articles is diverse, there is a common thread that connects them: they all touch on the themes of inclusion and exclusion. In an increasingly globalised world shaped by crossborder events like the war on terrorism, we find ourselves connected to one another in new ways, and we are forced to consider the issue of belonging. Global migration brings people from developing parts of the world, some of which are predominantly Muslim, into contact with people in developed parts of the world, like Europe. The cultural and ethnic tensions and clashes that result raise questions about belonging—who belongs and who does not—and who has the right to be included in the state, and who should be excluded. The first two articles examine ways of excluding and marginalising members of society, respectively women and black intellectuals, in ways that are not necessarily obvious to the wider society. The second and third articles overlap in exposing ways of including marginalised people that are shown to be false. The final two articles look at new ways of creating discourses of inclusion through appealing to new forms of moral humanism and moral realism. Behind and through these narratives flows a concern about how, or even whether, one can expand inclusion in old and new discourses, or just reproduce new forms of old exclusions or replace old exclusions with new ones.