Theory and Debate

DEBATES IN
POLITICAL
THEORY
M.A. (POLITICAL SCIENCE)
SEMESTER-I
PS-C 101
DEPARTMENT OF DISTANCE AND CONTINUING EDUCATION

UNIVERSITY OF DELHI
Debates in Political Theory
Editors
Dr. Shakti Pradayani Rout
Content Writers
Dr. Rohit Kumar Sharma, Mrs. Pinki, Kaushik Kumar,
Mohammad Saalim Farooq Bhat, Rupal, Vinay Kumar Pandey
Content Reviewer from the DDCE/COL/SOL
Rupal, Sonia
Academic Coordinator
Mr. Deekshant Awasthi
© Department of Distance and Continuing Education

ISBN: ?
Ist edition: 2023
E-mail: ddceprinting@col.du.ac.in
Published by:
Department of Distance and Continuing Education
Campus of Open Learning/School of Open Learning,
University of Delhi, Delhi-110 007
Printed by:
School of Open Learning, University of Delhi
© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

Corrections/Modifications/Suggestions proposed by Statutory Body,

DU/Stakeholder/s in the Self Learning Material (SLM) will be incorporated in
the next edition. However, these corrections/modifications/suggestions will be
uploaded on the website https://sol.du.ac.in. Any feedback or suggestions can be
sent to the email- feedbackslm@col.du.ac.in
Printed at: Vikas Publishing House Pvt. Ltd. Plot 20/4, Site-IV, Industrial Area Sahibabad, Ghaziabad - 201 010 ( Copies)

SYLLABUS
Syllabus Mapping
Unit I: Introduction Chapter 1: Political Theory: An

a. What is Political Theory Introduction
b. Disagreements and Debates in Political Theory (Pages 3-29)
c. Normative Judgement in a Political Context Chapter 2: Disagreements and
Debates in Political Theory:
Normative judgment in a Political
Context
(Pages 31-51)
Unit II: Understanding Power Chapter 3: The Faces of Power:

a. The Faces of Power (Steven Lukes) Steven Lukes
b. Classes, Ideology and Power (Althusser) (Pages 55-62)
c. Power and the Subject: Foucault Chapter 4: Class, Ideology and
Power: Althusser and Foucault
(Pages 63-78)
Unit III: Debates on Freedom Chapter 5: Debates on Freedom-I

a. Ancient vs. Modern Liberty (Constant) (Pages 81-100)
b. Freedom as autonomy (Kant, Mill) Chapter 6: Debates on Freedom-II
c. Negative vs. Positive Liberty (Berlin, MacCallum) (Pages 101-121)
d. Freedom and the market (Libertarians)
e. Republican Conception (Skinner)
f. Freedom as Development (Sen)
Unit IV: Debates on Equality Chapter 7: Debates on Equality-I

a. Value of Equality (Bernard Williams) (Pages 125-138)
b. Equality of Opportunity (Rawls) Chapter 8: Debates on Equality-II
c. Equality of What? (Welfare, Resources, Capability) (Pages 139-147)
d. Luck egalitarianism and its critique (Elizabeth Anderson)
e. Equality, Priority or Sufficiency (Scheffler, Parfit, Franfurt)
Unit V: Debates on Justice

a. Consequentialist vs. Deontological (Utilitarians, Rawls) Chapter 9: Debates on Justice-I
b. Justice as Fairness (Rawls) (Pages 153-166)
c. Communitarian and Feminist Conceptions (Walzer, Sandel, Okin) Chapter 10: Debates on Justice-II
d. Global Justice (Thomas Pogge) (Pages 167-179)

Unit VI: Debates on Rights Chapter 11: Debates on Rights-I

a. Moral vs. Legal Conceptions (Pages 185-193)
b. Choice and Interest Theories Chapter 12: Debates on Rights-II
c. Conflicts between Rights (Pages 195-203)
d. Rights as Trumps
Unit VII: Debates on Democratic Political Community Chapter 13: Debates on Democratic
a. Identity and the Politics of Recognition Political Community–I
b. Democracy and the Challenges of Pluralism (Pages 207-220)
c. Citizenship, Virtues and Democratic Education Chapter 14: Debates on Democratic
Political Community–II
(Pages 221-232)

CONTENTS
UNIT I: INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 1 POLITICAL THEORY: AN INTRODUCTION 3-29
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Objectives
1.2 What is a Theory?
1.2.1 Functions of theories
1.3 Political Theory
1.3.1 Decline of Political Theory
1.4 Political Theory: Implications
1.4.1 Political Theory: Contents
1.4.2 Nature of Political Theory
1.4.3 Political Theory as History
1.4.4 Political Theory as Philosophy
1.4.5 Political Theory as Science
1.4.6 Political Theory: Growth and Evolution
1.4.7 Classical Political Theory
1.4.8 Modern Political Theory
1.4.9 Contemporary Political Theory
1.4.10 Need to Study Political Theory
1.4.11 Tasks Before Political Theory
1.4.12 Significance of Political Theory
1.5 Summary
1.6 Key Words
1.7 Answers to Check Your Progress Questions
1.8 Self-Assessment Questions and Exercises
1.9 Further Readings

CHAPTER 2 DISAGREEMENTS AND DEBATES IN POLITICAL THEORY:

NORMATIVE JUDGMENT IN A POLITICAL CONTEXT 31-51
2.0 Introduction
2.1 Objectives
2.2 Debates in Political Theory
2.2.1 Political Context
2.2.2 Debates on Freedom
2.2.3 Debates on Justice
2.2.4 Debates on Equality
2.2.5 Debates on Democratic Political Community
2.2.6 Debates on Rights
2.3 Normative Judgement in a Political Context
2.3.1 Introduction
2.3.2 Normative Approach
2.3.3 Normative Political Theory
2.3.4 Defining Normative Theory and Its Role
2.3.5 Relationship between Empirical Research and Normative Theory
2.4 Summary
2.5 Key Words
UNIT II: UNDERSTANDING POWER

CHAPTER 3 THE FACES OF POWER: STEVEN LUKES 55-62
3.0 Introduction
3.1 Objectives
3.2 Understanding Power
3.3 The Faces of Power
3.4 Summary

3.5 Key Words

CHAPTER 4 CLASS, IDEOLOGY AND POWER: ALTHUSSER AND FOUCAULT 63-78
4.0 Introduction
4.1 Objectives
4.2 Class, Ideology and Power
4.3 Power and the Subject: Foucault
4.4 Summary
4.5 Key Words
4.6 Answers To Check Your Progress Questions
UNIT III: DEBATES ON FREEDOM

CHAPTER 5 DEBATES ON FREEDOM-I 81-100
5.0 Introduction
5.1 Objectives
5.2 Ancient Vs. Modern Liberty
5.3 Liberty in the Form of Autonomy
5.3.1 Immanuel Kant: Liberty in the Form of Autonomy
5.3.2 J.S. Mill: Liberty in the Form of Autonomy
5.4 Negative and Positive Liberty
5.5 Summary
5.6 Key Words

CHAPTER 6 DEBATES ON FREEDOM-II 101-121
6.0 Introduction
6.1 Objectives
6.2 Liberty and Market
6.2.1 Economic System: Market, Capital, Regulation
6.3 Republican Determination
6.3.1 Quentin Skinner: Republican Freedom
6.4 Development as Freedom
6.4.1 Amartya Sen: Development as Freedom
6.5 Summary
6.6 Key Words
UNIT IV: DEBATES ON EQUALITY

CHAPTER 7 DEBATES ON EQUALITY-I 125-138
7.0 Introduction
7.1 Objectives
7.2 Equality: An Introduction
7.3 Value of Equality
7.4 Equality of Opportunity
7.5 Equality of What?
7.5.1 Equality of Welfare
7.5.2 Equality of Resources
7.5.3 Equality of Capability
7.6 Summary
7.7 Key Words


CHAPTER 8 DEBATES ON EQUALITY-II 139-147
8.0 Introduction
8.1 Objectives
8.2 Luck Egalitarianism and Its Criticism
8.3 Equality or Sufficiency?
8.4 Summary
8.5 Key Words
UNIT V: DEBATES ON JUSTICE

CHAPTER 9 DEBATES ON JUSTICE-I 151-166
9.0 Introduction
9.1 Objectives
9.2 Justice: An Introduction
9.3 Debating Justice: Consequentialist vs Deontological (Utilitarianism and Rawls)
9.4 Rawls’ Conception of “Justice as Fairness”
9.5 Summary
9.6 Key Words

CHAPTER 10 DEBATES ON JUSTICE-II 167–179
10.0 Introduction
10.1 Objectives
10.2 Communitarian Conception of Justice: Walzer and Sandel
10.3 Feminist Conception of Justice: Contributions of Susan Moller Okin
10.4 Global Justice: Ideas of Thomas Pogge
10.5 Summary
10.6 Key Words
UNIT VI: DEBATES ON RIGHTS

CHAPTER 11 DEBATES ON RIGHTS-I 183-193
11.0 Introduction
11.1 Objectives
11.2 Principles of Rights
11.2.1 Principle of Natural Rights
11.2.2 Legal and Moral Rights
11.2.3 Legal Principle of Rights
11.3 Principle of Choice and Principle of Interest
11.3.1 Principle of Right of Interest
11.3.2 Principle of Selection of Rights
11.4 Summary
11.5 Key Words

CHAPTER 12 DEBATES ON RIGHTS-II 195-203
12.0 Introduction
12.1 Objectives
12.2 Dispute among Rights
12.3 Rights as ‘Trumps’
12.4 Summary
12.5 Key Words
UNIT VII: DEBATES ON DEMOCRATIC POLITICAL

COMMUNITY
CHAPTER 13 DEBATES ON DEMOCRATIC POLITICAL COMMUNITY–I 207-220
13.0 Introduction
13.1 Objectives
13.2 Politics of Identity and Recognition
13.2.1 Basic Features of Politics of Recognition
13.3 Challenges of Democracy and Pluralism
13.3.1 Pluralism
13.3.2 Nature of Pluralism
13.3.3 Sources of Pluralism Conflict
13.3.4 Characteristics of Pluralism Conflict
13.3.5 Pluralistic Politics
13.4 Summary
13.5 Key Words

CHAPTER 14 DEBATES ON DEMOCRATIC POLITICAL COMMUNITY–II 221-232
14.0 Introduction
14.1 Objectives
14.2 Citizenship, Virtues and Democratic Education
14.2.1 Citizenship
14.2.2 Autonomy and Citizen Virtue
14.2.3 Patriotism and Universalism (Universal Brotherhood)
14.2.4 Citizen Society and Social Capital
14.2.5 Civic Objectives of School Education
14.2.6 Validity and Citizen Education
14.3 Summary
14.4 Key Words

UNIT I: INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 1 POLITICAL THEORY: AN

INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 2 DISAGREEMENTS AND DEBATES IN

POLITICAL THEORY: NORMATIVE
JUDGMENT IN A POLITICAL CONTEXT
Political Theory: An Introduction
CHAPTER 1 NOTES
POLITICAL THEORY: AN INTRODUCTION

Dr. Rohit Kumar Sharma
PhD Scholar, School of International Studies, JNU
Structure
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Objectives
1.2 What is a Theory?
1.2.1 Functions of Theories
1.3 Political Theory
1.4 Political Theory: Implications
1.5 Summary
1.6 Key Words
Self-Instructional
Material 3

NOTES
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Political theory is a multidisciplinary field that seeks to understand and analyse political
phenomena, institutions, and ideas. It encompasses the study of various aspects of
politics, including power, governance, justice, freedom, equality, rights, and citizenship.
Political theory explores the fundamental questions of how societies are organised,
how individuals interact within them, and how political systems can be justified or
criticised. At its core, political theory is concerned with normative questions about the
ideal or just society. It aims to develop frameworks and theories that can guide political
action and inform political decision-making. Political theorists critically examine different
forms of government, such as democracy, authoritarianism, and socialism, to assess
their merits and shortcomings. They also explore concepts like liberalism, conservatism,
feminism, and Marxism to analyse their impact on political systems and societal
structures.
Political theory draws on a wide range of philosophical, historical, and social
science perspectives. It engages with ancient and modern texts, such as those of Plato,
Aristotle, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Marx, and Rawls, among others,
to gain insights into the nature of politics and the role of individuals within society. By
analysing political concepts and ideologies, political theory aims to provide a deeper
understanding of political practices, institutions, and policies. It seeks to address
questions like the nature of political power, the legitimacy of authority, the distribution
of resources and opportunities, and the relationship between individuals and the state.
Political theorists often employ a range of analytical tools, including conceptual analysis,
comparative analysis, and normative reasoning, to evaluate and critique different political
ideas and systems. Political theory is an intellectual endeavour that investigates the
principles, values, and ideas that shape political life. It aims to shed light on the
complexities of politics and provides guidance for political actors and policymakers.
By exploring the foundations of political thought and examining different ideologies,
political theory contributes to our understanding of political systems and the pursuit of
a just and inclusive society. This chapter will discuss the meaning of theory and various
aspects of political theory.
Self-Instructional
4 Material

NOTES
1.1 OBJECTIVES
After going through this chapter, you will be able to:

 Understand the meaning of a theory
 Discuss the meaning of the term, political theory
 Explain the various aspects of political theory
1.2 WHAT IS A THEORY?
The term, theory refers to a systematic and coherent set of concepts, principles, and
explanations that aim to explain or predict a particular phenomenon or set of phenomena.
It provides a framework for understanding and interpreting empirical observations or
facts, allowing researchers to organise and make sense of complex phenomena in
various fields of study. In the broadest sense, a theory serves as a tool for knowledge
construction and development. It goes beyond mere speculation or guesswork by
providing a structured and logically consistent explanation of how and why certain
phenomena occur. Theories are developed through rigorous inquiry, analysis, and testing,
often drawing upon empirical evidence and logical reasoning.
1.2.1 Functions of theories
The main functions of theories are discussed as follows:

1. Explain: Theories seek to provide explanations by identifying the underlying
causes, mechanisms, or processes that generate the observed phenomena. They
aim to answer questions like “Why does this happen?” or “What are the key
factors influencing this phenomenon?”
2. Predict: Theories strive to generate predictions or hypotheses about future
events or behaviours based on the understanding of past and present patterns.
By identifying regularities and relationships, theories enable researchers to
anticipate and forecast outcomes. Self-Instructional
Material 5

NOTES 3. Organise: Theories help organise and systematise knowledge within a field of
study by providing a coherent framework for understanding complex phenomena.
They establish relationships between concepts and provide a structure for
categorising and classifying information.
4. Guide research: Theories guide research by suggesting what questions to
ask, what variables to consider, and what methods to employ. They provide a
roadmap for conducting empirical investigations and help researchers focus
their efforts on relevant aspects of a phenomenon.
5. Facilitate communication: Theories act as a common language within a field
of study, allowing researchers to communicate and share ideas effectively. They
provide a shared conceptual framework that facilitates collaboration and the
exchange of knowledge.
1.3 POLITICAL THEORY
Let us discuss the views of a few political thinkers on political theory in detail.
Catriona Mackinnon’s View on Political Theory
“Political theory encompasses the examination of how individuals ought to coexist

within a society. Considering the diverse facets of social life and cooperation, this field
can be broadly categorised into three interrelated dimensions: interactions among
individuals, relationships between the state and individuals, and global relations.”
Concerning interpersonal relations, a fundamental inquiry involves determining the fair
distribution of rewards and responsibilities in collaborative endeavours deciding who
should receive the benefits and bear the burdens. Additionally, it is crucial to establish
guidelines for self-defence against one another, specifying limits on acceptable behaviour
and the consequences for those who breach these boundaries within society.
Furthermore, we must address how individuals should interact within these established
limits, including whether those with differing beliefs and practices should face
condemnation and exclusion. Is it permissible to restrict their freedom of speech, and
what is the appropriate manner of treating those within our community who are reliant
Self-Instructional
6 Material

on others, i.e. the sick, the elderly, the infirm, and children? Determining the responsible NOTES
party for their well-being and defining the nature of that responsibility is essential.
Additionally, there is a need to understand how we should structure our relationships
within the smaller social groups to which we all inevitably belong at various stages in
our lives. What is the ideal functioning of families, and what responsibilities do employers
bear towards their workforce? Should the existence of classes and castes be eliminated,
and if so, what measures can be taken to achieve that? Additionally, in what ways, if
any, do voluntary associations such as religions, advocacy groups, and trade unions
contribute to fostering a harmonious coexistence among us?
Regarding state-personal relations, inquiries arise about the legitimacy of
individuals accepting the political authority of the state, the boundaries of that authority,
and the mechanisms by which those in power attain their positions. Has there been a
collective consent to subject ourselves to state authority? If so, when and how was
this consent granted? In the absence of such consent, does it render the state illegitimate,
allowing us to reject its directives? If we choose to acknowledge the state, what
limitations should be imposed on its authority? Is it permissible for the state to surveil
our actions, communications, and social interactions without our awareness? Can the
state compel us to render service whether in a military capacity or otherwise during
times of war or peace, under the threat of punishment? Can the state impose restrictions
on our speech and associations? Is it justified in taxing us for expenditures we disagree
with? Is it permissible for the state to intervene in the upbringing of our children?
Moreover, how should we determine the most suitable group to wield this significant
power? While the hereditary rule is generally disapproved in modern democracies,
what makes democracy more favourable, and why not opt for a benevolent dictatorship
instead? What are the defining characteristics that make a state truly democratic?
Lastly, there is a set of inquiries concerning the extent of justified principles for
social cooperation and justice. Should these principles solely apply within the confines
of a specific state or nation, or is there a case for their universal application across all
states globally? Could the principles guiding interactions between states be substantiated
by distinct arguments and possess different content than those applicable within states?
Alternatively, is it worth considering the elimination of states altogether in favour of a
global governance system? However, if we refrain from advocating for a world
government and instead assert that global relations between states should adhere to
Self-Instructional
Material 7

NOTES principles of justice, we encounter questions reminiscent of those pertaining to

interpersonal relations: What obligations, if any, do developed states have toward
developing states? In responding to a state that poses a threat, can another state take
unilateral or multilateral actions? Under what circumstances can a war be deemed
‘just’? Was the assertion by the radical British political philosopher, John Stuart Mill
(1806-73) accurate in contending that abstaining from participating in a war against an
unjust regime constitutes cowardice?
These categories are broad and obscure numerous intricate details and subsidiary
queries. Responses provided to questions within one category frequently influence
responses to questions in another. For instance, if we uphold the belief that every
individual is inherently equal by virtue of their humanity, and therefore entitled to an
equitable allocation of the
advantages and responsibilities of social cooperation, we must make a concerted
effort to argue against the notion that mere citizenship in a prosperous country renders
someone more deserving of the associated benefits than an individual who, through no
choice of their own, is born in a less affluent country. Alternatively, if the upbringing of
children within families is deemed a valid political concern acknowledging, for instance,
that every child has the entitlement to be shielded from violence and hunger, as well as
the right to an education substantial state intervention in the ostensibly “private” domain
of the family may become inevitable and, in some cases, necessary. Additionally, certain
themes in political theory necessitate simultaneous consideration of interpersonal, state-
personal, and global relations; issues related to environmental protection, particularly
those concerning climate change, serve as an apt illustration. Despite the intricate
nature of these matters and some areas left unexplored, the outlined categories and
questions offer a comprehensive overview of the extensive range of topics that occupy
the minds of political theorists.
Berlin’s View on Political Theory
Berlin discusses the status of political theory within the broader context of philosophy.
The author examines the criteria for a discipline to be considered a science, distinguishing
between empirical and formal sciences. The political theory, dealing with questions of
values and normative concepts like authority and justice, remains philosophical due to
Self-Instructional
the lack of consensus on these fundamental issues. The author argues that political
8 Material philosophy thrives in societies where multiple conflicting ends exist, implying that it can

only be pursued meaningfully in a pluralistic or potentially pluralistic society. In a society, NOTES

the focus would be on finding the most effective means to achieve the accepted end.
However, Berlin introduces the following two key qualifications:
 Complexity of Societal Goals: Berlin acknowledges that societal goals are
often broad and general, leaving room for various interpretations and secondary
ends. Even in a monistic society, conflicts can arise among subordinate ends,
requiring philosophical analysis rather than mere deductive reasoning.
 Interpretation and Meaning: It involves the potential for different individuals
to attribute different meanings to universally accepted formulas. Vague
expressions such as the common good may lead to disagreements about their
interpretation. This introduces a philosophical dimension, as differences in values
become apparent.
Berlin discussed the deep division between monists and pluralists. Monists believe
in objective human ends and seek to translate political problems into scientific terms,
relying on empirical or transcendental methods. In contrast, pluralists, often skeptical
of human perfection, see the quest for solutions as altering individuals and creating
new problems, making a fixed, empirical science elusive. The existentialists, romantic
thinkers, and modern Marxists are presented as examples of those aligned with pluralistic
perspectives. There was the influence of underlying models or paradigms on individuals’
beliefs and behaviour, particularly in the realm of political philosophy. It asserts that
people’s conception of themselves and the world is shaped by dominant models, such
as mechanistic, organic, aesthetic, logical, or mystical paradigms. These models influence
political perspectives, defining notions of human nature, purpose, freedom, and authority.
Berlin contrasts thinkers like Aristotle or Aquinas, who see purpose in nature,
with modern positivists who emphasise causal laws. Different models lead to diverse
answers regarding obedience, with some influenced by familial loyalty and others by
universal truths. Berlin questions whether political theory is purely empirical and utilitarian
or if it involves deeper questions of human nature, purpose, and validity. The notion of
models is discussed, emphasising that observations can be accommodated to fit various
theoretical models. Political theory, distinct from empirical political science, is portrayed
as concerned with human specificity and fundamental questions about human goals,
morality, and justice. As per Berlin, political theory cannot avoid evaluation due to its
inherent connection to human desires and interests and, rejects the idea that there Self-Instructional
Material 9

NOTES could be ages without political philosophy, asserting that all human activities involve
some form of general outlook, even if skeptical or nihilistic.
The discussion states the significance of models or paradigms in shaping human
thought and behaviour, particularly in the realm of political philosophy. It argues against
the notion that thinking can occur without analogies or models, asserting that comparison
and generalisation are inherent to the process of thinking. The role of the various
models is to provide analogies between different spheres of thought and action,
emphasising their importance in understanding and unifying human experience. Berlin
states that some models may become obsolete or misleading over time and argues that
even discredited models must have had initial validity to exert influence. Various historical
examples, such as the social contract or organic society, are cited to illustrate how
models illuminate different aspects of social experience. The idea is that individuals
often operate with multiple, sometimes inconsistent models, and bringing these models
into conscious awareness can lead to a better understanding of thought patterns.
The author contends that political theory, unlike empirical political science, involves
questions about human nature, purpose, and values, making it inherently evaluative.
Berlin’s critiques attempt to apply scientific methods to normative issues, arguing that
normative questions involve fundamental categories that are not purely empirical but
part of the framework through which humans perceive and interpret the world.
The intrinsic connection between fundamental human concepts and the definition
of humanity, emphasising that certain values and universal notions plays a crucial role
in how we perceive and define individuals. It argues against a complete separation of
descriptive and evaluative statements, suggesting that understanding human nature
requires more than empirical observation and formal deduction. Political theorists must
go beyond empirical data and consider overarching beliefs and philosophical
frameworks. The enduring relevance of ancient political philosophies is highlighted,
suggesting that these frameworks continue to influence contemporary debates.
The perception of a decline in political theory is subjective and can vary depending on
one’s perspective. However, there are a few factors that some observers may attribute
to a perceived decline in the prominence or influence of political theory:
Self-Instructional
10 Material

1. Specialisation and fragmentation: Over time, political theory has become NOTES
increasingly specialised, leading to a fragmentation of the field. Scholars may
focus on narrow topics within political theory, making it challenging to develop
a comprehensive understanding of the entire field. This specialisation can result
in a lack of cohesion and difficulty in connecting different theoretical perspectives.
2. Empirical turn: There has been a growing emphasis on empirical research and
data-driven approaches in political science. This shift towards empiricism may
have led to a devaluation of more abstract and theoretical inquiries. Some thinkers
argue that this trend has marginalised the importance of normative and conceptual
debates within political theory.
3. Pragmatism and applied research: There is a tendency in contemporary
political science to prioritise research that has immediate policy relevance and
practical applications. As a result, there may be less emphasis on abstract or
speculative theoretical work that does not directly address pressing political
issues.
4. Globalisation and pluralism: The increasing complexity and interconnectedness
of global issues have led to a proliferation of perspectives and theories within
political science. The sheer diversity of viewpoints may make it more challenging
for any single theoretical framework to dominate the discourse.
5. Challenges to the authority of academia: In some contexts, there has been
a growing skepticism towards academic expertise and institutions. This skepticism
can lead to a devaluation of theoretical work produced within academia, with
some questioning the practical relevance and real-world impact of political
theories.
It’s essential to recognise that while these factors may contribute to a perception
of decline, political theory continues to be a vibrant field with ongoing debates and
contributions.
Check Your Progress

1. What does the term ‘theory’ refer to?
2. What does theory provide?
3. How are theories developed? Self-Instructional
Material 11

NOTES
1.4 POLITICAL THEORY: IMPLICATIONS
Political theory has several important implications that extend beyond the realm of
academia. These implications shape our understanding of politics, inform policy
decisions, and influence societal debates. Here are some key implications of political
theory:
1. Justification of political systems: Political theory provides frameworks for
evaluating and justifying different forms of government and political systems. It
offers normative standards and principles against which the legitimacy and fairness
of political arrangements can be assessed. For example, theories of democracy
emphasise the importance of popular participation and equal representation,
while theories of authoritarianism focus on stability and efficient governance.
2. Analysis of power and authority: Political theory helps analyse the nature
and distribution of power within societies. It explores the sources of authority,
the exercise of power, and the ways in which individuals and groups can challenge
or resist oppressive systems. It sheds light on the dynamics of power relations
and provides insights into the functioning of institutions and decision-making
processes.
3. Understanding of political ideologies: Political theory contributes to our
understanding of various political ideologies and their implications. It examines
ideologies like liberalism, conservatism, socialism, feminism, and environmentalism,
among others, and evaluates their philosophical foundations, values, and policy
implications. Political theory helps identify the underlying assumptions and goals
of different ideologies, facilitating informed political debates.
4. Examination of political concepts and values: Political theory explores
fundamental concepts and values such as justice, freedom, equality, rights, and
citizenship. It critically examines different interpretations of these concepts and
their implications for policy and practice. For instance, theories of justice provide
frameworks for evaluating the fairness and distribution of resources, while theories
of rights help assess the legitimacy of certain claims and protections.
5. Critique of existing political arrangements: Political theory encourages
Self-Instructional
12 Material critical examination and criticism of existing political arrangements. It identifies

potential flaws, injustices, or contradictions within political systems and NOTES

institutions. By questioning prevailing norms and practices, political theory
contributes to the process of political reform and the pursuit of more equitable
and inclusive societies.
These implications of political theory highlight its practical relevance and impact
on real-world political dynamics. They demonstrate how theoretical insights can shape
political discourse, policy-making, and social movements.
Political theory encompasses a wide range of topics and content areas that contribute
to our understanding of politics and governance. While the specific contents may vary
depending on the particular approach or focus of a theory, here are some common
themes and areas of study within political theory:
1. State and sovereignty: Political theory examines the nature of the state, its
origins, and its role in governing societies. It explores questions related to
sovereignty, political authority, and the legitimacy of state power.
2. Democracy and citizenship: The study of political theory often includes an
analysis of democratic theory, examining different models of democracy, such
as direct democracy, representative democracy, and deliberative democracy. It
also explores the concept of citizenship, including rights, responsibilities, and
the inclusion/exclusion of individuals and groups.
3. Power and politics: Political theory investigates the dynamics of power, including
how power is exercised, distributed, and contested within political systems. It
examines the role of institutions, elites, social movements, and civil society in
shaping political processes and outcomes.
4. Justice and equality: Theories of justice and equality are central to political
theory. It explores different conceptions of justice, such as distributive justice,
procedural justice, and social justice. It examines debates surrounding the fair
allocation of resources, opportunities, and rights within societies.
5. Rights and liberties: Political theory examines the concept of rights and civil
liberties, including individual rights, human rights, and constitutional rights. It
explores debates about the justification, scope, and limitations of rights, as well Self-Instructional
Material 13
as the tensions between individual rights and collective interests.

NOTES 6. Ideologies and political thought: Political theory delves into various political
ideologies, such as liberalism, conservatism, socialism, feminism, and
environmentalism. It analyses their philosophical foundations, values, and policy
implications, providing critical assessments and comparisons.
7. International relations and global politics: Political theory extends beyond
the domestic sphere to examine international relations and global politics. It
explores theories of international relations, theories of global justice, and the
role of international organisations, states, and non-state actors in shaping global
governance.
The nature of political theory encompasses its characteristics, goals, and methodologies.
Understanding the nature of political theory helps us grasp its distinct features and
appreciate its contributions to the study of politics. Here are some key aspects that
describe the nature of political theory:
1. Normative inquiry: Political theory involves normative inquiry, which means it
is concerned with questions of how things ought to be rather than simply
describing how they are. It explores ethical and moral principles, ideals, and
values to evaluate and prescribe the proper functioning and organisation of
political systems.
2. Interdisciplinary approach: Political theory draws on various disciplines,
including philosophy, history, sociology, economics, and law. It incorporates
insights from these fields to understand political phenomena, ideologies, and
concepts. This interdisciplinary nature enriches the analysis and perspectives
within political theory.
3. Conceptual analysis: Political theory engages in conceptual analysis to examine
and define key political concepts such as power, democracy, justice, and rights.
It scrutinises the meaning, scope, and implications of these concepts, providing
clarity and precision to facilitate discussions and debates.
4. Historical and comparative perspectives: Political theory often adopts a
historical and comparative approach. It studies the evolution of political ideas
Self-Instructional and institutions over time, examining key thinkers and their contributions.
14 Material

Additionally, it compares different political systems and theories across different NOTES
contexts and societies to gain insights into their strengths, weaknesses, and
applicability.
5. Critical evaluation: Political theory involves critical evaluation of political
systems, institutions, and ideologies. It questions prevailing assumptions,
challenges power structures, and identifies potential injustices or contradictions.
By critically assessing existing frameworks, political theory aims to offer
alternative perspectives and pathways for improvement.
6. Practical and policy relevance: While political theory deals with abstract
and theoretical concepts, it also has practical and policy relevance. It provides
guidance and insights for political actors, policymakers, and activists by offering
frameworks for analysing and addressing real-world challenges. Political theory
informs policy debates and helps shape political agendas.
Political theory can be viewed as a form of history, as it involves the study of ideas,
thinkers, and the development of political thought over time. By examining the historical
context, intellectual traditions, and key figures within political theory, we can gain a
deeper understanding of its evolution and impact. Here is an exploration of political
theory as history:
1. Historical context: Political theory investigates the historical context in which
ideas and theories emerge. It analyses the social, cultural, and political conditions
that shape the development of political thought. Understanding the historical
context helps illuminate the motivations, challenges, and influences that drive the
formation of different theories.
2. Intellectual traditions: Political theory traces intellectual traditions and schools
of thought that have influenced political thinking. It examines how ideas and
theories evolve, interact, and respond to one another over time. By exploring
these traditions, political theory as history identifies key themes, debates, and
paradigms that have shaped political thought.
3. Key thinkers and texts: Political theory as history focuses on key thinkers
and their seminal works. It examines the ideas, arguments, and contributions of Self-Instructional
Material 15

NOTES influential political philosophers throughout history, such as Plato, Aristotle,

Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Marx, and Rawls, among many others.
Studying these thinkers and their texts provides insights into the intellectual
foundations and evolution of political theory.
4. Impact and evolution: Political theory as history investigates the impact and
reception of different political theories across time. It examines how ideas have
been interpreted, contested, and applied in different historical periods and
societies. By studying the reception and influence of political theories, political
theory as history sheds light on their practical relevance and enduring legacies.
5. Evolution and transformation: Political theory as history traces the evolution
and transformation of political thought over time. It explores how ideas and
theories have adapted and responded to changing political, social, and cultural
contexts. By examining these changes, political theory as history highlights the
dynamic nature of political thought and its continuous development.
Political theory can be understood as a branch of philosophy that explores fundamental

questions about politics, governance, and human society. It engages in philosophical
inquiry to critically analyse and develop theories about political phenomena. Here is an
exploration of political theory as philosophy:
1. Ontology and epistemology: Political theory as philosophy examines the nature
of political reality (ontology) and the ways in which we acquire knowledge
about politics (epistemology). It explores questions such as the nature of power,
the existence of political obligations, and the limits of political knowledge. Through
philosophical inquiry, political theory seeks to deepen our understanding of the
underlying concepts and principles that shape political life.
2. Ethical and moral foundations: Political theory as philosophy delves into
ethical and moral considerations underlying political thought. It explores questions
of justice, equality, freedom, and the ethical implications of political actions and
institutions. By engaging with ethical theories and frameworks, political theory
provides normative guidance for evaluating political systems and policies.
Self-Instructional
16 Material

3. Social and political philosophy: Political theory as philosophy encompasses NOTES

social and political philosophy, which examines the relationship between
individuals and society, as well as the moral and political principles that should
govern social interactions. It addresses questions such as the nature of citizenship,
the role of the state, and the ethical responsibilities of individuals within political
communities.
4. Normative and analytical reasoning: Political theory employs normative
reasoning to evaluate and prescribe what ought to be in the realm of politics. It
develops normative theories that provide ethical and moral standards for political
actions and institutions.
Additionally, political theory utilises analytical reasoning to analyse and understand
political phenomena, institutions, and practices.
5. Conceptual analysis: Political theory as philosophy engages in conceptual
analysis to clarify and define key political concepts. It critically examines concepts
such as power, democracy, rights, and justice to establish precise meanings and
explore their implications. Conceptual analysis enables rigorous and nuanced
discussions within political theory.
6. Critical reflection and dialogue: Political theory as philosophy encourages
critical reflection and dialogue about political ideas and practices. It challenges
assumptions, explores alternative perspectives, and fosters intellectual debate.
Through critical engagement, political theory contributes to the development of
nuanced and informed political discourse.
Political theory can be approached and understood as a scientific discipline that employs
systematic methods of inquiry to study political phenomena. While it may not fit the
traditional model of natural sciences, political theory shares certain characteristics with
scientific inquiry. Here is an exploration of political theory as a science:
1. Empirical analysis: Political theory engages in empirical analysis to examine
political phenomena and their consequences. It uses empirical evidence, such
as historical data, case studies, and surveys, to study patterns, test hypotheses,
Self-Instructional
Material 17

NOTES and develop theories. This empirical approach helps to generate knowledge
and insights about politics.
2. Theory building and testing: Political theory involves the construction and
testing of theories. It aims to develop explanatory and predictive frameworks
that can be tested against empirical evidence. By formulating hypotheses and
conducting empirical research, political theory seeks to understand causal
relationships and identify generalisable patterns in political behaviour and
outcomes.
3. Methodological rigor: Political theory emphasises methodological rigor in
research design and analysis. It employs systematic and structured approaches
to gather and analyse data. This includes the use of conceptual frameworks,
research methodologies, and statistical or qualitative methods to ensure accuracy,
validity, and reliability in the study of political phenomena.
4. Cumulative knowledge: Like other sciences, political theory contributes to
the accumulation of knowledge through cumulative research. Scholars build
upon existing theories, refine concepts, and engage in scholarly debates to expand
our understanding of political phenomena. This process of cumulative knowledge
generation fosters progress and refinement within the field.
5. Falsifiability and refutability: Political theory aims to develop theories that
are falsifiable and refutable. This means that theories should make specific
predictions or claims that can be tested against empirical evidence. If a theory
fails to withstand empirical scrutiny, it can be revised or discarded in favour of
more robust explanations.
6. Normative and descriptive dimensions: Political theory incorporates both
normative and descriptive dimensions, much like scientific inquiry. It seeks to
describe and explain political phenomena while also engaging in normative
evaluation and providing prescriptive guidance. This dual approach allows
political theory to address both empirical questions and normative concerns.
Political theory has undergone significant growth and evolution over time, reflecting
Self-Instructional changes in political contexts, social dynamics, and intellectual developments. The field
18 Material

has expanded in scope, diversified in approaches, and engaged with new perspectives. NOTES
Here is an exploration of the growth and evolution of political theory:
1. Classical foundations: The growth of political theory can be traced back to
ancient civilisations, particularly the works of influential thinkers such as Plato
and Aristotle. Their writings on topics like justice, citizenship, and forms of
government laid the groundwork for subsequent political thought.
2. Modern political theory: The emergence of modern political theory in the
17th and 18th centuries marked a significant shift in focus. Thinkers like Thomas
Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau explored themes such as
individual rights, social contract, and the legitimacy of political authority. This
period witnessed the development of liberal, republican, and contractualist
theories that continue to shape political discourse.
3. Ideological pluralism: The 19th and 20th centuries witnessed the rise of diverse
political ideologies, including socialism, conservatism, feminism, and
environmentalism. Political theory was engaged with these ideologies, analysing
their philosophical foundations and examining their implications for political
systems and social justice.
4. Critical theory and post structuralism: In the 20th century, critical theory
emerged as a prominent approach within political theory. Influenced by the
Frankfurt School, critical theorists like Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno,
and Jurgen Habermas offered critiques of power, capitalism, and ideology.
Additionally, poststructuralist thinkers like Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida
challenged traditional conceptions of power, knowledge, and subjectivity.
5. Global perspectives: The growth of political theory expanded beyond the
Western canon, incorporating global perspectives. Scholars increasingly engaged
with non- Western political thought, Indigenous political theory, and postcolonial
perspectives. This expansion broadened the intellectual horizons of political
theory and highlighted the need for diverse voices and perspectives.
6. Intersectionality and identity politics: In recent decades, political theory
has increasingly focused on issues of identity, intersectionality, and social justice.
Scholars have examined the impact of race, gender, sexuality, and other forms
of identity on political power and inequality. Intersectionality has become a
Self-Instructional
Material 19

NOTES critical framework for understanding how different systems of oppression intersect
and influence political dynamics.
7. Methodological pluralism: Political theory has also witnessed a growth in
methodological pluralism, incorporating a range of approaches. This includes
normative theory, empirical analysis, historical inquiry, qualitative and quantitative
research methods, and even experimental approaches. Methodological diversity
enriches the field and allows for a more comprehensive understanding of political
phenomena.
Classical political theory refers to the foundational works of political thought from
ancient civilisations to the Enlightenment era. These texts laid the groundwork for
subsequent developments in political theory. Here is an overview of classical political
theory and some key references:
1. Plato: Plato’s political philosophy, as articulated in works like “The Republic”
and “The Laws”, explores the ideal city-state and the nature of justice. He
examines different forms of government, the role of education in shaping a just
society, and the philosopher-king as the ideal ruler.
2. Aristotle: Aristotle’s political theory, found in works like “Politics” and
“Nicomachean Ethics”, emphasises the importance of the polis (city-state) as a
natural and essential human association. He analyses different forms of
government and discusses the concepts of citizenship, justice, and the common
good.
3. Niccolo Machiavelli: Machiavelli’s influential work “The Prince” challenges
traditional notions of morality in politics. He examines the acquisition,
maintenance, and exercise of political power, stressing the pragmatic and strategic
considerations that rulers must navigate.
4. Thomas Hobbes: Hobbes’s Leviathan” presents a social contract theory,
arguing for the necessity of a strong central authority to prevent the inherent
chaos and conflict in the state of nature. He emphasises the importance of absolute
sovereignty for the establishment of order and security.
Self-Instructional
20 Material

5. John Locke: Locke’s political theory, as outlined in works like “Two Treatises NOTES
of Government”, emphasises natural rights, limited government, and the consent
of the governed. He argues for the protection of life, liberty, and property and
discusses the right to revolution in the face of tyranny.
6. Jean-Jacques Rousseau: Rousseau’s “The Social Contract” explores the
idea of the general will and the importance of collective decision-making in a
just society. He discusses the tension between individual freedom and the needs
of the community, advocating for a participatory form of government.
7. Montesquieu: Montesquieu’s “The Spirit of the Laws” analyses different forms
of government and proposes the concept of separation of powers to prevent
the abuse of authority. He advocates for a system of checks and balances as
essential for maintaining liberty.
Modern political theory refers to the period from the Enlightenment era to the present,
during which significant developments in political thought took place. It encompasses
a wide range of thinkers and works that have shaped our understanding of politics and
governance. Here is an overview of modern political theory and some key references:
1. Immanuel Kant: Kant’s “Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch” (1795)
proposes principles for international relations, advocating for a world order
based on republican governments, cosmopolitan rights, and the rule of law to
achieve lasting peace.
2. Mary Wollstonecraft: Wollstonecraft’s “AVindication of the Rights of Woman”
(1792) is a foundational text in feminist political theory. She argues for the equal
rights and education of women, challenging prevailing gender norms and
advocating for their inclusion in the public sphere.
3. Karl Marx: Marx’s “The Communist Manifesto” (1848) and Capital (1867)
analyse the dynamics of capitalism, class struggle, and the potential for a socialist
revolution. His works have been influential in shaping Marxist political theory
and critiques of capitalism.
4. John Stuart Mill: Mill’s “On Liberty” (1859) defends individual freedom and
argues for limitations on state interference in the lives of individuals. He also Self-Instructional
Material 21

NOTES discusses the principle of utility in ethics and the importance of representative
democracy.
These works, among others from modern political theory, have had a profound
impact on political discourse and continue to shape our understanding of political
concepts and systems.
Contemporary political theory refers to the study of political ideas and concepts that
have emerged in the 20th and 21st centuries. It encompasses a wide range of
perspectives and debates on issues such as democracy, justice, globalisation, identity,
and environmentalism. Here is an overview of contemporary political theory and some
key references:
1. John Rawls: Rawls’s “A Theory of Justice” (1971) is a foundational work in
contemporary political theory. He introduces the concept of “justice as fairness”
and develops the idea of the original position and the veil of ignorance to construct
a theory of distributive justice.
2. Robert Nozick: Nozick’s “Anarchy, State, and Utopia” (1974) provides a
libertarian critique of Rawls’s theory. He argues for the importance of individual
rights, limited government, and voluntary exchanges, advocating for a minimal
state and a strong emphasis on individual freedom.
3. Jurgen Habermas: Habermas’s “The Theory of Communicative Action”
(1981) presents a critical theory of society and democracy. He emphasises the
importance of communicative rationality, discursive democracy, and the ideal of
an inclusive public sphere for a just and democratic society.
4. Iris Marion Young: Young’s “Justice and the Politics of Difference” (1990)
contributes to feminist political theory and explores issues of social justice and
oppression. She discusses the concept of the “politics of difference” and argues
for the recognition of group differences and the need to address systemic
inequalities.
5. Amartya Sen: Sen’s “Development as Freedom” (1999) focuses on the
relationship between development, democracy, and human capabilities. He argues
Self-Instructional
22 Material

for a broader understanding of development that goes beyond economic growth NOTES
and emphasises the importance of freedom and human well-being.
6. Martha Nussbaum: Nussbaum’s “Political Emotions: Why Love Matters for
Justice” (2013) examines the role of emotions in political life and the implications
for justice. She argues for the importance of emotions such as love, empathy,
and compassion in promoting a just society.
7. Achille Mbembe: Mbembe’s “Critique of Black Reason” (2017) explores
postcolonial perspectives and the legacy of colonialism. He discusses issues of
power, racism, and the possibilities for decolonisation and liberation in the
contemporary world.
Studying political theory offers numerous benefits and insights into the complexities of
politics, governance, and society. It provides a deeper understanding of political
concepts, ideologies, and historical developments, enabling individuals to critically
analyse and engage with political issues. Here are some key reasons why studying
political theory is valuable:
1. Understanding the foundations: Political theory allows us to grasp the
foundational ideas and principles that underpin political systems and institutions.
It explores the historical and philosophical roots of political thought, helping us
understand the origins and evolution of political ideas.
2. Developing critical thinking: Political theory encourages critical thinking skills
by promoting analysis, evaluation, and interpretation of complex ideas. It enables
individuals to question assumptions, challenge existing norms, and develop
independent thought.
3. Examining power and justice: Political theory delves into the nature of power,
authority, and justice in society. It provides frameworks for understanding
different forms of government, distribution of resources, social inequality, and
the ethical dimensions of political decisions.
4. Engaging with diverse perspectives: Studying political theory exposes
individuals to a variety of perspectives and ideologies. It fosters intellectual
Self-Instructional
Material 23

NOTES diversity, allowing for a more nuanced understanding of political debates and
encourages empathy and respect for differing viewpoints.
5. Informing political engagement: Political theory equips individuals with the
knowledge and tools to engage in informed political participation. It provides
the analytical skills to assess political policies, evaluate candidates and parties,
and contribute to meaningful discussions on societal issues.
6. Addressing contemporary challenges: Political theory helps us navigate the
complex challenges of our time, such as globalisation, climate change,
technological advancements, and social justice. It offers theoretical frameworks
and insights to understand and propose solutions to these pressing issues.
Before engaging in the study of political theory, there are several preparatory tasks
that can enhance one’s understanding and make the learning process more fruitful.
These tasks include:
1. Familiarise yourself with basic political concepts: It is helpful to have a
basic understanding of fundamental political concepts such as power, authority,
democracy, justice, and governance. This foundation will provide a framework
for grasping more complex political theories and ideas.
2. Study historical context: Political theory is deeply rooted in historical events
and developments. Gaining knowledge of key historical periods, such as ancient
Greece, the Enlightenment, or the Cold War, can provide valuable context for
understanding the ideas and theories that emerged during those times.
3. Read primary texts: Engage directly with primary texts of influential political
thinkers. Reading works such as Plato’s “The Republic”, Machiavelli’s “The
Prince”, or Rousseau’s “The Social Contract” will expose you to original ideas
and allow for a more direct understanding of the theories being discussed.
4. Explore secondary sources: In addition to primary texts, consult secondary
sources that provide analysis and interpretation of political theories. Textbooks,
scholarly articles, and academic journals can offer insights, critiques, and different
perspectives on various theories, helping to deepen your understanding.
Self-Instructional
24 Material

5. Develop analytical skills: Enhance your analytical skills by practicing critical NOTES
reading, logical reasoning, and argumentation. These skills will enable you to
critically assess and evaluate political theories, identify strengths and weaknesses,
and engage in meaningful discussions about the ideas being presented.
6. Understand different ideological perspectives: Political theory encompasses
a range of ideological perspectives. Familiarise yourself with different schools
of thought, such as liberalism, conservatism, socialism, and feminism, to better
appreciate the diverse approaches and debates within political theory.
7. Connect theory to real-world examples: Look for real-world examples and
case studies that illustrate the application of political theories. Understanding
how theories manifest in practical politics and governance will help you see their
relevance and implications in contemporary contexts.
Political theory holds great significance in the realm of politics and governance. It
offers valuable insights, frameworks, and perspectives that help us understand and
analyse political phenomena, shape political discourse, and inform policy-making. Here
are some key reasons highlighting the significance of political theory:
1. Understanding political concepts: Political theory provides a deeper
understanding of fundamental political concepts such as power, authority,
democracy, justice, rights, and citizenship. It explores the nature and dynamics
of these concepts, enabling us to critically analyse political systems and institutions.
2. Shaping political discourse: Political theory plays a vital role in shaping political
discourse by introducing new ideas, challenging existing norms, and providing
alternative perspectives. It offers a framework for evaluating and critiquing
political practices, policies, and ideologies, fostering a more informed and nuanced
public debate.
3. Guiding policy-making: Political theory offers normative frameworks and
ethical considerations that guide policy-making. It helps policymakers navigate
complex issues and make informed decisions that align with principles of justice,
equality, and the common good.
Self-Instructional
Material 25

NOTES 4. Promoting critical thinking: Political theory encourages critical thinking skills
by fostering analysis, evaluation, and interpretation of political ideas. It challenges
us to question assumptions, examine underlying power dynamics, and assess
the implications of political decisions, fostering a more engaged and informed
citizenry.
5. Informing political movements: Political theory provides intellectual resources
for political movements and activism. It offers theoretical frameworks, historical
examples, and ideological insights that inform the strategies and goals of social
and political movements seeking change and social justice.
6. Influencing political institutions: Political theory has a profound impact on
the development and evolution of political institutions. It shapes constitutional
frameworks, systems of governance, and the design of political institutions,
influencing the distribution of power, the protection of individual rights, and the
functioning of democracy.
Political theory serves as a valuable tool for understanding, analysing, and
critiquing the complexities of politics. It informs our understanding of political concepts,
shapes political discourse, guides policy-making, and influences the trajectory of political
institutions and movements.
Check Your Progress

4. Why is political theory viewed as a form of history?
5. What does classical political theory refer to?
6. What does modern political theory refer to?
1.5 SUMMARY
In this chapter, you have learnt about the meaning of theory and various aspects of
political theory. Political theory is a field of study that holds significant importance in
the realm of politics and governance. It helps us understand and analyse political
concepts, shapes political discourse, guides policy-making, promotes critical thinking,
Self-Instructional informs political movements, and influences political institutions. By delving into the
26 Material

foundational ideas and principles that underpin political systems, political theory provides NOTES
frameworks for evaluating and critiquing political practices, policies, and ideologies. It
offers normative frameworks and ethical considerations that inform policy-making,
ensuring decisions align with principles of justice, equality, and the common good.
Furthermore, political theory plays a crucial role in fostering a more informed and
engaged citizenry by encouraging critical thinking and challenging assumptions. It also
influences the design and functioning of political institutions and provides intellectual
resources for political movements seeking change and social justice. Political theory
holds great significance in understanding, shaping, and navigating the complexities of
politics.
1.6 KEY WORDS
 Theory: It is a systematically organised set of principles that explains and predicts

natural phenomena.
 Political Theory: It is the study and analysis of political ideas, concepts, and
principles that seek to understand and prescribe the organisation and functioning
of political systems.
 Environmentalism: It is a social and political movement advocating for the
protection and preservation of the natural environment, as well as sustainable
practices to address ecological concerns.
 Discursive Democracy: It is a political theory emphasising inclusive deliberation
and rational discourse among citizens as the basis for decision-making in a
democratic society.
1.7 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

QUESTIONS
1. The term, theory refers to a systematic and coherent set of concepts, principles,
and explanations that aim to explain or predict a particular phenomenon or set Self-Instructional
Material 27
of phenomena.

NOTES 2. Theory provides a framework for understanding and interpreting empirical

observations or facts, allowing researchers to organise and make sense of
complex phenomena in various fields of study.
3. Theories are developed through rigorous inquiry, analysis, and testing, often
drawing upon empirical evidence and logical reasoning.
4. Political theory can be viewed as a form of history, as it involves the study of
ideas, thinkers, and the development of political thought over time.
5. Classical political theory refers to the foundational works of political thought
from ancient civilisations to the Enlightenment era.
6. Modern political theory refers to the period from the Enlightenment era to the
present, during which significant developments in political thought took place.
1.8 SELF-ASSESSMENT QUESTIONS AND

EXERCISES
1. State Catriona Mackinnon’s view on political theory.

2. What is Berlin’s view on political theory?
3. Mention the reasons for the decline of political theory.
4. What are the functions of political theory?
5. What is the need to study political theory?
6. Discuss the contents and nature of political theory.
7. Explain the growth and evolution of political theory.
8. Discuss in detail the significance of political theory. Also, explain the preparatory
tasks that can enhance one’s understanding and make the learning process more
fruitful.
Self-Instructional
28 Material

NOTES
1.9 FURTHER READINGS
Beitz, C. R. 2009. Political Theory and International Relations. Princeton University

Press. Bentham, J. 1789. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and
Legislation.
Boardman, A. E., D. H. Greenberg, A. R. Vining, and D. L. Weimer. 2018. Cost-
Benefit Analysis: Concepts and Practice.
Elman, C., and M. F. Elman. 2003. Explanatory Typologies in Qualitative Studies
of International Politics. International Organization, 57(4), 765-788.
Held, D. 2003. Models of Democracy. Stanford University Press.
Kant, I. 1785. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.
Kuhn, T. S. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago
Press.
Mill, J. S. 1861. Utilitarianism.
Nozick, R. 1974. Anarchy, State, and Utopia.
Nussbaum, M. C. 2011. Creating Capabilities: The Human Development
Approach.
Pettit, P. 2012. On the People’s Terms: A Republican Theory and Model of
Democracy. Cambridge University Press.
Rawls, J. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
Self-Instructional
Material 29

Disagreements and Debates in Political Theory: Normative Judgment in a Politica...
CHAPTER 2 NOTES
DISAGREEMENTS AND DEBATES IN POLITICAL

THEORY: NORMATIVE JUDGMENT IN A
POLITICAL CONTEXT
Structure
2.0 Introduction
2.1 Objectives
2.2 Debates in Political Theory
2.2.1 Political Context
2.3 Normative Judgement in a Political Context
2.3.1 Introduction
2.4 Summary
2.5 Key Words
2.0 INTRODUCTION
In the realm of political theory, the landscape is characterized by a rich tapestry of Self-Instructional
perspectives, ideologies, and normative frameworks, giving rise to a continuous interplay Material 31

NOTES of disagreements and debates. At the heart of these discussions lies the fundamental
concept of normative judgment within a political context. Scholars and theorists engage
in profound deliberations over what principles should guide political action, governance,
and societal organization. These deliberations extend beyond the mere description of
political phenomena to the realm of prescribing how things ought to be. Disagreements
emerge as theorists grapple with questions of justice, equality, rights, and the role of
government. The multifaceted nature of political theory invites a diverse array of
normative perspectives, each vying for prominence and challenging the status quo.
This constant discourse not only defines the contours of political thought but also
shapes the direction of policy and governance, highlighting the intrinsic connection
between normative judgments and the complex tapestry of political theory. This chapter
will discuss the various debates in political theory.
2.1 OBJECTIVES

 Discuss the various debates in political theory
 Analyse the normative judgment in a political context
2.2 DEBATES IN POLITICAL THEORY
Political theory is a rich and diverse field, and as such, it encompasses a wide range of
disagreements and debates. Here are some key areas of contention within political
theory:
1. The nature of political authority: One fundamental debate revolves around
the question of how political authority is justified. Different theories propose
various sources of authority, such as divine right, social contract, utilitarianism,
or natural law. Disagreements arise regarding the legitimacy and limits of political
power.
Self-Instructional
32 Material

2. The role of the state: Political theorists differ in their views on the appropriate NOTES
role and size of the state. This ranges from minimalist perspectives advocating
for limited government intervention to more expansive views that endorse a
strong state with extensive regulatory and welfare functions.
3. Individualism vs. collectivism: This debate concerns the balance between
individual rights and collective well-being. Individualists prioritise personal liberty,
autonomy, and property rights, while collectivists emphasise social justice,
equality, and communal interests. Disagreements arise regarding the appropriate
balance between individual and collective rights.
4. Equality and distributive justice: The issue of distributive justice revolves
around how resources and opportunities should be distributed in society. Differing
theories, such as egalitarianism, libertarianism, and meritocracy, propose
contrasting principles for achieving a just distribution. Debates centre on the
role of taxation, social welfare programs, and affirmative action, among other
policies.
5. Liberalism vs. communitarianism: Liberalism emphasises individual rights,
freedoms, and a neutral state, whereas communitarianism emphasises the
importance of community, shared values, and cultural identity. This debate centres
on the tension between individual autonomy and communal obligations.
6. Multiculturalism and identity politics: There are disagreements regarding
how societies should handle cultural diversity and the recognition of minority
rights. These debates involve questions about cultural assimilation,
accommodation, affirmative action, and the extent to which group identities
should shape political decision-making.
7. The nature of democracy: Scholars disagree on the conceptualisation and
functioning of democracy. Debates focus on the appropriate electoral systems,
the role of civil society, the limits of majority rule, and the degree of citizen
participation.
8. Globalization and global justice: With increasing interdependence among
nations, debates arise about the ethical and political implications of globalisation.
Issues such as global poverty, human rights, environmental sustainability, and
the role of international institutions prompt discussions on global justice and
Self-Instructional
governance. Material 33

NOTES 2.2.1 Political Context
This is discussed as follows:

1. The Nature of Political Authority
 Democracy vs. authoritarianism: Debates exist regarding the merits and
drawbacks of democratic systems versus authoritarian regimes. Robert Dahl’s
work, “Oligarchy: Participation and Opposition”, and Francis Fukuyama’s
book, “The End of History and the Last Man”, provide insights into these
discussions.
 Legitimacy of political power: Disagreements arise concerning the sources
of political legitimacy and the criteria by which authority is justified. John
Locke’s “Second Treatise of Government” and Max Weber’s “Politics as a
Vocation” offer contrasting perspectives on the topic.
2. Role of the State
 Welfare State vs. limited government: Debates centre around the
appropriate role and size of the state, including discussions on the welfare
state and the scope of government intervention in economic and social affairs.
Milton Friedman’s “Capitalism and Freedom” and John Maynard Keynes’
“The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money” provide differing
viewpoints.
 State Power and civil liberties: Disagreements arise regarding the balance
between state power and the protection of civil liberties, particularly in
contexts such as national security or surveillance. Hannah Arendt’s “The
Origins of Totalitarianism” and Michel Foucault’s “Discipline and Punish”
shed light on these debates.
3. Individual Rights and the Common Good
 Free Speech vs. hate speech: Debates emerge concerning the boundaries
between freedom of speech and the regulation of hate speech or offensive
expression. Works such as John Stuart Mill’s “On Liberty” and Ronald
Dworkin’s “Taking Rights Seriously” provide contrasting perspectives on
this issue.
Self-Instructional
34 Material

 Individual rights and social justice: Disagreements arise regarding the NOTES
tension between individual rights and the pursuit of social justice. John Rawls’
“A Theory of Justice” and Robert Nozick’s “Anarchy, State, and Utopia”
offer divergent theories on the matter.
4. Equality and Distributive Justice
 Economic inequality: Debates centre around the causes and consequences
of economic inequality, as well as the appropriate measures to address it.
Thomas Piketty’s “Capital in the Twenty-First Century” and Amartya Sen’s
“Development as Freedom” contribute to these discussions.
 Affirmative action: Disagreements arise concerning the merits and fairness
of affirmative action policies aimed at addressing historical injustices and
promoting equality of opportunity. Ronald Dworkin’s “Justice for Hedgehogs”
and John Rawls’ “Political Liberalism” provide contrasting perspectives on
affirmative action.
1. Positive vs. negative freedom

 Positive freedom: Positive freedom refers to the capacity of individuals to
pursue their own self-realisation and development, often in the context of
social and political conditions that enable their full autonomy. This concept is
discussed by philosophers like Jean-Jacques Rousseau in “The Social
Contract” and Charles Taylor in “Sources of the Self: The Making of the
Modern Identity.”
 Negative freedom: Negative freedom emphasises the absence of external
constraints and interference, allowing individuals to act freely without
coercion. The works of John Locke in “Two Treatises of Government” and
Isaiah Berlin in “Two Concepts of Liberty” delve into the concept of negative
freedom.
2. Freedom of Speech and Expression
 Harm principle: The harm principle, popularised by John Stuart Mill in
“On Liberty”, argues that the only legitimate restriction on freedom of speech
Self-Instructional
Material 35

NOTES is when it directly harms others. Mill’s work emphasises the importance of
free speech in fostering the pursuit of truth and individual self-development.
 Critical theory and the public sphere: Jurgen Habermas’s concept of
the public sphere in “The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere”
explores the role of free speech in a democratic society, emphasising the
need for inclusive and rational deliberation in shaping public opinion.
3. Freedom and Social Justice
 Capabilities approach: The capabilities approach, developed by Martha
Nussbaum and Amartya Sen, focuses on individuals’ substantive freedoms
to lead lives they have reason to value. Nussbaum’s work, “Creating
Capabilities: The Human Development Approach,” and Sen’s book,
“Development as Freedom,” discuss the intersection of freedom and social
justice.
 Libertarianism and economic freedom: Libertarians, such as Robert
Nozick in “Anarchy, State, and Utopia”, argue for a minimal state and maximal
economic freedom, emphasizing individual property rights and voluntary
exchanges.
4. Freedom and Power
 Feminist perspectives on freedom: Feminist theorists, including Simone
de Beauvoir in “The Second Sex” and Nancy Fraser in “Justice Interruptus”,
analyse the limitations on women’s freedom imposed by social, political,
and economic structures, and advocate for emancipatory transformations.
 Discourse Theory: Michel Foucault’s works, such as “Discipline and
Punish” and “The Birth of Bio politics”, explore the relationship between
power and freedom, examining how social institutions and discourses shape
individuals’ capacities and choices.
Political theory is a branch of political science that examines and analyses the principles
and ideas behind political systems, institutions, and behaviour. Within political theory,
debates on justice play a central role as they explore questions regarding the fair
Self-Instructional
36 Material

distribution of resources, rights, and opportunities within a society. These debates NOTES
involve various perspectives and theories, each offering different conceptions of justice.
Here are three prominent theories and their key arguments, along with some notable
references for further reading:
1. Utilitarianism: Utilitarianism, associated with thinkers like Jeremy Bentham
and John Stuart Mill, emphasizes maximising overall happiness or utility as the
criterion for justice. According to this theory, justice is achieved when the greatest
amount of happiness is generated for the greatest number of people. This
approach often relies on cost-benefit analyses and considers the consequences
of actions.
2. Rawlsian Justice: Developed by philosopher, John Rawls, the theory of justice
as fairness focuses on the principles that would govern a just society under
conditions of fairness. Rawls proposes the “original position” thought experiment,
where individuals decide on principles without knowing their own social positions.
From this hypothetical standpoint, Rawls argues for two principles of justice:
the liberty principle and the difference principle. The liberty principle ensures
basic civil liberties, while the difference principle aims to minimise social and
economic inequalities by benefiting the least advantaged.
3. Libertarianism: Libertarianism, influenced by thinkers such as Robert Nozick,
stresses individual liberty and limited government intervention. From a libertarian
perspective, justice primarily involves the protection of individual rights, including
property rights. It argues that individuals have the right to freely acquire and
exchange property and that justice requires respecting these rights without
interference.
Debates on equality are central to political theory and encompass a range of perspectives
on the fair distribution of resources, opportunities, and rights in society. Here are three
prominent debates on equality, along with some notable references for further reading:
1. Equality of outcome vs. equality of opportunity: This debate centres around
the question of whether equality should be focused on equal outcomes or equal
opportunities. Proponents of equality of outcome argue that justice requires Self-Instructional
Material 37

NOTES redistributive measures to ensure that everyone has roughly equal material
conditions and outcomes. On the other hand, proponents of equality of
opportunity argue that justice is achieved when everyone has an equal chance
to succeed and that inequalities in outcomes may arise from differences in
individual talents and efforts.
2. Egalitarianism vs. libertarianism: This debate revolves around the tension
between egalitarian principles which advocate for reducing inequalities and
promoting social justice, and libertarian principles, which prioritise individual
liberty and limited government intervention. Egalitarians argue that justice requires
addressing and minimising social and economic inequalities, while libertarians
contend that justice is achieved through the protection of individual rights,
including property rights.
3. Intersectionality and equality: Intersectionality examines how various forms
of social identity (such as gender, race, class, and sexuality) intersect and interact
to produce unique systems of advantage and disadvantage. This perspective
highlights the complex and interconnected nature of inequality, emphasising that
justice requires addressing multiple dimensions of identity-based oppression
simultaneously.
Debates on democratic political community focus on the nature, scope, and ideals of
democracy and the community it creates. These debates revolve around issues such
as participation, representation, inclusion, and the relationship between individuals
and the political community. Here are three significant debates on democratic political
community, along with some notable references for further reading:
1. Deliberative democracy vs. agonistic democracy: This debate centres
around the question of how citizens should engage in democratic processes.
Deliberative democracy emphasises reasoned dialogue and public deliberation
as essential for making collective decisions and shaping public opinion.
Proponents argue that a democratic political community should prioritise rational
discourse and consensus- building. On the other hand, agonistic democracy
suggests that conflicts and disagreements are inherent in politics and should be
Self-Instructional
38 Material

openly acknowledged and contested. It argues that democratic engagement NOTES

should embrace diverse perspectives and encourage vigorous debate.
2. Cosmopolitanism vs. Communitarianism: This debate revolves around the
relationship between the democratic political community and the broader global
community. Cosmopolitanism emphasises the importance of global justice,
universal human rights, and the moral equality of all individuals. It argues that
democratic political communities should strive for inclusivity and recognise the
interests and rights of people beyond their borders. Communitarianism, on the
other hand, emphasises the significance of shared values, culture, and historical
attachments in shaping the democratic political community. It argues that
democratic practices and institutions should reflect the specific characteristics
and needs of the community.
3. Participatory Democracy vs. Representative Democracy: This debate
focuses on the ideal form of democratic governance. Participatory democracy
argues for the active involvement of citizens in decision-making processes and
emphasises direct participation in shaping policies and outcomes. It contends
that democratic political communities should maximise opportunities for citizen
engagement. Representative democracy, on the other hand, emphasises the
role of elected representatives who make decisions on behalf of the citizens. It
argues that democratic political communities should prioritise efficient decision-
making and delegate authority to elected officials.
Political theory explores the concepts and principles behind political systems, institutions,
and behaviour. Debates on rights are a crucial aspect of political theory, examining the
nature, scope, and justification of individual rights within a political and legal framework.
Here are three prominent debates on rights, along with notable references for further
reading:
1. Natural rights vs. legal positivism: The debate between natural rights and
legal positivism focuses on the source and foundation of rights. Natural rights
theorists argue that rights are inherent to individuals by virtue of their humanity
and exist independently of any legal or political system. They assert that certain
Self-Instructional
Material 39

NOTES fundamental rights exist universally and are discoverable through reason or moral
intuition. In contrast, legal positivists contend that rights are creations of legal
systems and derive their validity from legal norms and institutions.
2. Individual rights vs. communitarian rights: The debate between individual
rights and communitarian rights explores the tension between protecting individual
autonomy and considering the collective interests of the community. Advocates
of individual rights emphasise the importance of safeguarding individual liberties,
autonomy, and privacy. They argue that rights serve as barriers against undue
interference from the state or other individuals. Communitarian theorists, on the
other hand, stress the role of rights in fostering a flourishing and cohesive
community. They contend that rights should be balanced with social
responsibilities and the common good.
3. Positive rights vs. negative rights: The debate between positive rights and
negative rights centres on the distinction between different types of rights.
Negative rights are typically understood as rights that impose obligations of
non-interference on others, such as the right to free speech or freedom of religion.
Positive rights, on the other hand, entail entitlements to be provided with certain
goods or services, such as the right to healthcare or education. The debate
revolves around whether positive rights should be recognised and guaranteed
by the state or rights should be limited to negative rights.
Check Your Progress

1. What do liberalism and communitarianism emphasise?
2. What does positive freedom refer to?
3. Name any two thinkers who are associated with utilitarianism.
2.3 NORMATIVE JUDGEMENT IN A POLITICAL

CONTEXT
Normative judgment in a political context refers to the process of making value-based

Self-Instructional assessments or evaluations about what ought to be the case in politics. It involves
40 Material

applying ethical, moral, or philosophical principles to assess the desirability or NOTES

appropriateness of political actions, policies, or systems. In political discourse, normative
judgments often involve considerations of justice, fairness, equality, liberty, and other
fundamental values. They go beyond describing what is currently happening in politics
and delve into discussions about what should be happening. Normative judgments are
subjective and reflect individual or collective preferences, values, and beliefs about
how political systems should operate and what outcomes they should aim to achieve.
For example, someone might make a normative judgment by asserting that a specific
policy proposal is unjust because it disproportionately benefits the wealthy at the expense
of the poor. Another person might make a normative judgment by arguing that a
particular political system is preferable because it promotes individual liberty and
protects human rights.
Normative judgments play a crucial role in shaping political ideologies, influencing
policy debates, and guiding political activism. They help individuals and groups articulate
their visions of an ideal political order and advocate for specific changes or reforms.
However, it’s important to note that different people and political ideologies can have
contrasting normative judgments, leading to diverse and often contentious debates
within the political sphere.
2.3.1 Introduction
Normative political theory is a branch of political science that focuses on evaluating

and prescribing what ought to be in the realm of politics. It seeks to establish principles,
values, and norms that guide political systems, policies, and actions based on ethical,
moral, and philosophical considerations. In contrast to descriptive political theory,
which aims to understand and explain political phenomena as they are, normative
political theory is concerned with how things should be. The primary objective of
normative political theory is to analyse and assess the moral and ethical dimensions of
political arrangements. It delves into questions of justice, fairness, equality, rights, and
the distribution of power and resources within societies. By employing rigorous
reasoning, thought experiments, and conceptual frameworks, normative political theorists
explore the foundations of political legitimacy, the nature of rights, and the principles
that should govern political decision-making.
Self-Instructional
Material 41

NOTES Normative political theory draws upon a wide range of philosophical traditions,
including social contract theory, utilitarianism, egalitarianism, libertarianism,
communitarianism, and feminist theory, among others. Scholars in this field critically
engage with these philosophical perspectives to develop normative frameworks that
inform discussions about the ideal structure and functioning of political systems.
Prominent thinkers such as John Rawls, Robert Nozick, Amartya Sen, Martha
Nussbaum, and Hannah Arendt have made significant contributions to normative political
theory. Their works have shaped debates on justice, human rights, democracy, and
the role of the state in political theory.
Normative political theory plays a vital role in informing public discourse, policy
debates, and political decision-making. It provides a basis for evaluating and critiquing
existing political systems, policies, and actions, as well as for envisioning and advocating
for alternative political arrangements that align with ethical and moral principles.
Normative political theory is a branch of political science concerned with evaluating
and prescribing what should be in politics. It engages with moral, ethical, and
philosophical considerations to establish principles and values that guide political systems
and policies, aiming to foster justice, fairness, and the common good.
The normative approach is a framework used in various disciplines to analyse and

prescribe what ought to be done based on certain principles or values. It involves
evaluating actions, policies, or systems in terms of moral, ethical, or philosophical
standards rather than merely describing or explaining them. Let’s explore the normative
approach with references to different fields. The normative approach involves evaluating
actions, policies, or systems based on moral, ethical, or philosophical principles. It
provides a framework for making value-based judgments about what ought to be
done in various fields, including ethics, economics, and political theory.
1. Normative ethics: In the field of ethics, normative approaches aim to determine
the moral principles or theories that guide human behaviour. For example,
deontological ethics, as advocated by Immanuel Kant, emphasises moral duties
and obligations based on universal principles (Kant, 1785). Utilitarianism,
proposed by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, focuses on maximising
Self-Instructional overall happiness or well-being (Bentham, 1789; Mill, 1861). These normative
42 Material

ethical theories provide frameworks for assessing the moral rightness or NOTES
wrongness of actions.
2. Normative economics: Normative economics involves making value judgments
about economic policies, outcomes, and goals. While positive economics focuses
on describing and explaining economic phenomena, normative economics
addresses how economic choices should be made. For instance, economists
may use cost-benefit analysis to evaluate the desirability of public policies by
comparing the costs and benefits associated with different options (Boardman
et al., 2018). Normative economic theories like egalitarianism or libertarianism
provide normative principles for assessing the fairness or efficiency of economic
systems (Rawls, 1971; Nozick, 1974).
3. Normative political theory: Normative political theory explores principles,
values, and norms that should guide political systems and policies. Scholars
examine various theories to assess the legitimacy, justice, and morality of political
arrangements. For instance, John Rawls’ theory of justice as fairness proposes
principles that prioritise the well-being of the least advantaged members of society
(Rawls, 1971). Robert Nozick’s theory of entitlement emphasises individual
rights and limited state interference (Nozick, 1974). These normative theories
provide frameworks for evaluating political institutions, policies, and actions.
Normative political theory is a branch of political science that explores the principles,
values, and norms that should guide political systems, policies, and actions. It involves
examining ethical and moral considerations to evaluate the legitimacy, justice, and
morality of political arrangements. Let’s delve into normative political theory with
references to prominent scholars and their works.
1. John Rawls and justice as fairness: John Rawls’ theory of justice as fairness
is one of the most influential normative frameworks in political theory. Rawls
argues for a conception of justice that prioritizes the well-being of the least
advantaged members of society. In his book “A Theory of Justice”, Rawls
presents the original position and the veil of ignorance as thought experiments to
justify principles of justice that ensure fairness and equality (Rawls, 1971).
Self-Instructional
Material 43

NOTES 2. Robert Nozick and entitlement theory: Robert Nozick’s entitlement theory
provides a libertarian approach to normative political theory. In his book
“Anarchy, State, and Utopia”, Nozick argues that justice consists of respecting
individuals’ entitlements to their holdings. He emphasises the importance of
individual rights, voluntary transactions, and limited state interference (Nozick,
1974).
3. Amartya Sen and capabilities approach: Amartya Sen’s capabilities approach
offers a normative framework that focuses on expanding individuals’ capabilities
and freedoms. Sen argues that the assessment of a society’s well-being should
not be solely based on material wealth but also on people’s abilities to lead
valuable and fulfilling lives. His work, including “Development as Freedom”,
emphasises the importance of enhancing individuals’ substantive freedoms and
opportunities (Sen, 1999).
4. Martha Nussbaum and human development approach: Martha
Nussbaum’s human development approach is another influential normative
framework in political theory. Nussbaum proposes a list of central human
capabilities that should be protected and promoted by political institutions and
policies. Her book “Creating Capabilities” outlines these capabilities, such as
life, bodily health, education, political participation, and emotional well-being,
as essential for human flourishing (Nussbaum, 2011).
These are a few examples of the rich and diverse landscape of normative political
theory. Other scholars, such as Hannah Arendt, Michael Sandel, and Jürgen Habermas,
have also contributed significantly to the field with their normative perspectives on
politics and society. Normative political theory provides a critical lens for evaluating
political systems and policies, guiding discussions on justice, fairness, and the desirable
goals of political action.
Normative theory, in the context of political science, refers to a framework that seeks
to prescribe or establish what ought to be in politics based on ethical, moral, or
philosophical principles. It focuses on evaluating political systems, policies, and actions,
and providing guidelines for achieving desired outcomes or goals. Normative theories
Self-Instructional
44 Material

aim to address questions of justice, fairness, and the ideal functioning of political NOTES
institutions.
The role of normative theory is crucial in shaping political discourse, informing policy
debates, and guiding political action. It serves the following key functions:
1. Evaluating political arrangements: Normative theory provides a basis for
critically assessing the legitimacy, fairness, and effectiveness of existing political
systems, policies, and actions. It helps identify areas of concern and provides a
framework for analysing potential shortcomings and proposing improvements.
2. Setting standards and goals: Normative theory establishes standards and
goals for political systems and policies. By identifying principles or values that
should be upheld, it provides benchmarks against which the performance and
outcomes of political institutions can be measured. This helps in identifying areas
for reform or identifying the path toward achieving desirable political objectives.
3. Guiding political decision-making: Normative theory influences political
decision- making by offering normative frameworks and ethical guidelines. It
helps policymakers and individuals make value-based judgments and assess
the potential consequences and ethical implications of their choices.
4. Inspiring political activism: Normative theory plays a role in inspiring and
guiding political activism. By articulating ideals and values, it motivates individuals
and groups to advocate for change, challenge unjust or unfair political systems,
and work towards the realization of a more just and desirable political order.
The relationship between empirical research and normative theory in political science
is complex and multifaceted. Empirical research involves the systematic study of
observable phenomena, utilising data and evidence to describe and explain political
processes, behaviours, and outcomes. On the other hand, normative theory focuses
on prescribing what should be based on ethical, moral, or philosophical principles.
While they operate in different domains, there are important connections and interactions
between the two, which are discussed as follows:
1. Complementary roles: Empirical research and normative theory can
complement each other in political science. Empirical research provides the Self-Instructional
Material 45

NOTES empirical foundation for normative theory by offering evidence and insights into
the functioning of political systems and policies. It helps identify patterns, test
hypotheses, and understand the actual impact of political actions. Normative
theory, in turn, informs empirical research by providing a framework for identifying
relevant research questions, evaluating outcomes, and suggesting potential areas
for improvement.
2. Informing policy debates: Empirical research provides policymakers with
empirical evidence to inform policy debates. It helps assess the effectiveness
and consequences of existing policies, and provides insights into the potential
outcomes of different policy choices. Normative theory contributes to these
debates by providing a framework for evaluating policy options in light of ethical
and moral principles. It helps policymakers consider the normative implications
and desirability of different policy alternatives.
3. Ethical considerations in empirical research: Normative theory also plays
a role in guiding ethical considerations in empirical research. Researchers must
make decisions about research design, data collection methods, and interpretation
of results. Normative theories can provide guidelines for ensuring ethical conduct,
such as protecting participants’ rights, addressing power imbalances, and
avoiding biased analysis or interpretation.
4. Normative implications of empirical findings: Empirical research can have
normative implications by shedding light on the consequences and impact of
political actions. Findings from empirical studies can challenge or support existing
normative theories and assumptions. They can provide evidence to question or
revise normative principles, leading to new insights and perspectives on what
ought to be in politics.
Check Your Progress

4. What does normative judgment in a political context refer to?
5. What does normative judgment reflect?
6. What does empirical research involve?
Self-Instructional
46 Material

NOTES
2.4 SUMMARY
In this chapter, you have learnt about the various debates in political theory and
normative judgment in a political context. Debates in political theory constitute a dynamic
and essential aspect of the discipline, reflecting the diverse perspectives that scholars
bring to bear on fundamental questions of governance, justice, and societal organization.
These debates not only shape the trajectory of political theory but also contribute to a
deeper understanding of the complexities inherent in political systems and the ongoing
quest for ethical and effective governance.
Normative judgment in a political context involves the process of making value-
based assessments and evaluations about what should be the case in politics. It goes
beyond describing the current state of affairs and delves into discussions about what is
morally right, just, or desirable in political actions, policies, or systems. Normative
judgments are subjective and reflect individual or collective preferences, values, and
beliefs about how politics ought to operate and what outcomes it should aim to achieve.
Normative judgments play a crucial role in shaping political ideologies, influencing
policy debates, and guiding political activism. They provide a framework for individuals
and groups to articulate their visions of an ideal political order and advocate for specific
changes or reforms. However, it is important to acknowledge that different people
and political ideologies can have contrasting normative judgments, leading to diverse
and often contentious debates within the political sphere. By incorporating ethical,
moral, and philosophical principles, normative judgments in a political context help
establish standards of justice, fairness, equality, and liberty. They contribute to the
ongoing development and refinement of political theory and provide guidance for
decision-making processes in politics. Ultimately, normative judgment in a political
context is a reflection of the values and aspirations that shape the pursuit of a just and
equitable society. It fosters critical thinking and discourse about the kind of political
systems and policies that align with our moral and ethical principles, fostering the
potential for positive change in the political landscape.
Normative political theory plays a fundamental role in political science by
providing frameworks for evaluating and prescribing what should be in politics. It goes
Self-Instructional
Material 47

NOTES beyond descriptive analysis and delves into ethical, moral, and philosophical
considerations to establish principles, values, and norms that guide political systems,
policies, and actions. Normative political theory serves as a critical tool for assessing
the legitimacy, fairness, and effectiveness of political arrangements. It helps set standards
and goals for political systems, guiding decision-making processes and policy debates.
By offering ethical guidelines and normative frameworks, it inspires political activism
and calls for change to address social injustices and promote a more just and desirable
political order.
The relationship between normative theory and empirical research is
characterized by complementarity and mutual influence. Empirical research provides
the empirical foundation for normative theory, while normative theory guides and informs
the formulation of research questions, ethical considerations, and the interpretation of
empirical findings. Together, they
contribute to a comprehensive understanding of political phenomena and guide
policymakers in making informed decisions. Normative political theory continues to
evolve and shape political discourse, advocating for principles such as justice, fairness,
equality, and human rights. It encourages critical reflection, promotes dialogue, and
fosters the pursuit of a more equitable and just society. Normative political theory is a
vital component of political science, providing guidance for evaluating, critiquing, and
envisioning political systems, policies, and actions. By addressing questions of morality,
ethics, and ideals, it contributes to the ongoing quest for political excellence and the
promotion of a more just and inclusive world.
2.5 KEY WORDS
 Liberalism: It is a political and social philosophy advocating for individual

rights, representative democracy, free market economics, and the rule of law.
 Communitarianism: It is a political and social philosophy emphasizing the
importance of community values, shared responsibilities, and collective well-
being over individual autonomy.
Self-Instructional
48 Material

 Utilitarianism: It is a consequentialist ethical theory asserting that the right NOTES

action is the one that maximises overall happiness or pleasure.

QUESTIONS
1. Liberalism emphasises individual rights, freedoms, and a neutral state, whereas

communitarianism emphasises the importance of community, shared values, and
cultural identity.
2. Positive freedom refers to the capacity of individuals to pursue their own self-
realization and development, often in the context of social and political conditions
that enable their full autonomy.
3. Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill are the two thinkers who are associated
with utilitarianism.
4. Normative judgment in a political context refers to the process of making value-
based assessments or evaluations about what ought to be the case in politics.
5. Normative judgments are subjective and reflect individual or collective
preferences, values, and beliefs about how political systems should operate and
what outcomes they should aim to achieve.
6. Empirical research involves the systematic study of observable phenomena,
utilizing data and evidence to describe and explain political processes, behaviours,
and outcomes.
2.7 SELF-ASSESSMENT QUESTIONS AND EXERCISES
1. Mention the key areas of contention within political theory.

2. What are the three prominent theories associated with debates on justice?
3. State a few debates on rights.
4. What do you understand by normative political theory? Self-Instructional
Material 49

NOTES 5. What are the various functions of normative theory?

6. Write a short note on normative judgment.
7. Discuss various debates on equality and democratic political community.
8. Explain normative political theory with references to prominent scholars and
their works.
9. Analyse the relationship between empirical research and normative theory.
Beitz, C. R. 2009. Political Theory and International Relations. Princeton University

Press. Bentham, J. 1789. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and
Legislation.
Boardman, A. E., D. H. Greenberg, A. R. Vining, and D. L. Weimer. 2018. Cost-
Benefit Analysis: Concepts and Practice.
Elman, C., and M. F. Elman. 2003. Explanatory Typologies in Qualitative Studies
of International Politics. International Organization, 57(4), 765-788.
Held, D. 2003. Models of Democracy. Stanford University Press.
Kant, I. 1785. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.
Kuhn, T. S. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago
Press.
Mill, J. S. 1861. Utilitarianism.
Nozick, R. 1974. Anarchy, State, and Utopia.
Nussbaum, M. C. 2011. Creating Capabilities: The Human Development
Approach.
Pettit, P. 2012. On the People’s Terms: A Republican Theory and Model of
Democracy.
Risse, T. 2012. Normative International Relations Theory. In The Oxford Handbook
of International Relations (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Self-Instructional
50 Material

Sen, A. 1999. Development as Freedom. NOTES

Shapiro, I., and R. Smith (Eds.). 2002. Norms and Values: Essays on the Work of
Virginia Held. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Steinmetz, G. 2012. The Politics of Method in the Human Sciences: Positivism
and Its Epistemological Others. Duke
Self-Instructional
Material 51

UNIT II: UNDERSTANDING POWER
CHAPTER 3 THE FACES OF POWER: STEVEN LUKES
CHAPTER 4 CLASS, IDEOLOGY AND POWER:

ALTHUSSER AND FOUCAULT
The Faces of Power: Steven Lukes
CHAPTER 3 NOTES
THE FACES OF POWER: STEVEN LUKES

Mrs. Pinki
Guest Faculty, SOL, DU
Structure
3.0 Introduction
3.1 Objectives
3.2 Understanding Power
3.3 The Faces of Power
3.4 Summary
3.5 Key Words
3.0 INTRODUCTION
In his groundbreaking work “Power: A Radical View,” sociologist and political theorist
Steven Lukes introduced a compelling framework known as the “faces of power.”
Lukes’s conceptualization transcends conventional notions of power as overt coercion
and decision-making, offering a nuanced analysis that extends to more subtle and
insidious forms of influence. Through three distinct faces, Lukes delves into the
multifaceted nature of power, encompassing observable actions, the shaping of agendas
and perceptions, and, perhaps most profoundly, the manipulation of individual beliefs
to maintain a prevailing social order. This tripartite model provides a comprehensive
lens through which to understand the intricate and often hidden dynamics of power
within societies, shedding light on how power structures not only dictate actions but
also shape the very consciousness and preferences of those subject to its influence. Self-Instructional
Material 55

NOTES The faces of power, as articulated by Lukes, serve as a crucial framework for unraveling
the complexities inherent in the distribution and exercise of power in political and
social contexts. This chapter will discuss concept of the “faces of power”.
3.1 OBJECTIVES

 Discuss the meaning of power
 Explain the concept of the “faces of power” given by Steven Lukes
3.2 UNDERSTANDING POWER
“Understanding Power” refers to the title of a book by Noam Chomsky, an American

linguist, philosopher, and political activist. The full title of the book is “Understanding
Power: The Indispensable Chomsky” and it was originally published in 2002. In
“Understanding Power”, Chomsky compiles a series of interviews, discussions, and
debates that took place between 1989 and 1999. The book explores various aspects
of power, politics, and the media, offering Chomsky’s critical analysis of the structures
and mechanisms that shape society. Chomsky argues that power is not solely held by
governments or political leaders but is also exercised by institutions, corporations, and
other influential entities. He delves into topics such as media manipulation, propaganda,
economic inequality, imperialism, and the role of intellectuals in shaping public opinion.
The book serves as a comprehensive overview of Chomsky’s political and
social theories, providing readers with a deeper understanding of power dynamics
and the mechanisms through which power is exercised and maintained in modern
society. “Understanding Power” is considered one of Chomsky’s most influential works,
as it offers a concise and accessible introduction to his ideas and critique of existing
power structures. It encourages readers to critically analyse the world around them
and question the narratives presented by those in positions of power.
Self-Instructional
56 Material

In the field of political science, “Understanding Power” refers to the study and NOTES
analysis of power dynamics within political systems and institutions. Political scientists
examine how power is acquired, exercised, and distributed among individuals, groups,
and institutions in the political realm. “Understanding Power” in political science involves
exploring various dimensions and forms of power, including:
1. Authority and legitimacy: Authority refers to the power that is derived
from a recognised position or authority within a political system, such as
elected officials or institutional leaders. On the other hand, legitimacy refers
to the acceptance and consent of the governed to be governed.
2. Coercive power: It is the power that is based on the ability to punish or
enforce compliance through the use of force or threat of force, such as
military or police power.
3. Economic power: It is the power that arises from controlling and
influencing economic resources, wealth, and capital, which can shape
political decisions and outcomes.
4. Social power: It is the power that is derived from social influence,
reputation, or popularity, including the ability to shape public opinion and
mobilise support.
5. Institutional power: It is the power that is vested in governmental bodies,
bureaucratic organisations, or other formal institutions that make and
enforce policies and laws.
6. Soft Power: It is the power that is based on persuasion, attraction, and
the ability to shape ideas, culture, and values, as opposed to relying on
coercion or force.
Political scientists analyse power relationships within and between states, political
parties, interest groups, and other political actors. They study the mechanisms through
which power is acquired, exercised, and challenged, and examine the implications of
power imbalances for political stability, governance, policy-making, and democracy.
“Understanding Power” in political science helps researchers and scholars to better
comprehend political processes, policy outcomes, social movements, and the dynamics
of decision-making within political systems. It provides insights into the distribution of
power, the role of institutions, and the impact of power on individuals and societies.
Self-Instructional
Material 57

NOTES
3.3 THE FACES OF POWER
The phrase “The Faces of Power” does not directly correspond to a work by Steven
Lukes. However, Steven Lukes is a prominent political theorist known for his influential
book “Power: A Radical View” (1974). In this book, Lukes presents a three-
dimensional model of power, which can be considered as different “faces” or dimensions
of power.
Three- Dimensional Model of Power
Steven Lukes, a renowned political theorist, developed a ground-breaking framework

for understanding power in his book “Power: A Radical View”. Lukes argued that
power operates not only through overt coercion but also through more subtle and
systemic processes. He proposed a three-dimensional model of power that provides
a comprehensive analysis of power dynamics within societies. The model is discussed
as follows:
1. The First Dimension: The Visible and Coercive Face of Power
The first dimension of power, as described by Lukes, refers to the most visible and
tangible forms of power. It encompasses direct coercion and decision-making that
results in observable outcomes or behaviour. This dimension often involves explicit
acts of control, such as government legislation or the exercise of authority by individuals
or institutions. Lukes, focuses on the most visible and coercive forms of power. This
dimension encompasses direct acts of control and decision-making that result in
observable outcomes or behaviour. In order to understand this dimension more deeply,
it is important to explore Lukes’ conceptualisation and the sources he draws upon. It
involves explicit acts of control, coercion, and decision- making that shape social and
political outcomes.
Power in this dimension is exercised through the use of force, authority, or other
explicit mechanisms of control. Examples of the first dimension of power include
government legislation, the exercise of authority by individuals or institutions, and the
imposition of rules or regulations. Lukes builds on the works of previous scholars to
Self-Instructional
58 Material

develop his understanding of the first dimension of power. He draws on the ideas of NOTES
theorists like Max Weber, who emphasized the significance of authority and domination
in power relations. Weber’s concept of the state as having a monopoly on the legitimate
use of force is relevant to understanding the visible and coercive face of power. Steven
Lukes, focuses on the visible and coercive aspects of power. It encompasses overt
acts of control, coercion, and decision-making that shape social and political outcomes.
By studying this dimension, researchers gain insights into the explicit mechanisms through
which power is exercised and the ways in which authority and force are employed to
influence behaviour and outcomes in society.
2. The Second Dimension: The Hidden Face of Power
Lukes’ second dimension of power focuses on the more subtle and less apparent
ways in which power is exercised. It centres on the ability to shape and influence
agendas, setting the parameters of debate and determining which issues receive attention
and which are marginalised. Power in this dimension lies in the ability to define what is
considered “normal”, influencing the perception of reality and constraining the range of
options available for discussion and action.
In the field of political science, the concept of the second dimension of power,
often referred to as the “hidden face of power”, explores the more subtle and less
apparent ways in which power is exercised. This dimension focuses on the ability to
shape and influence agendas, control access to decision-making processes, and
determine which issues receive attention and which remain marginalised. In order to
delve into this dimension further, we can examine the contributions of notable scholars
in the field. In this dimension, power lies in the ability to determine what issues are
important, what questions are asked, and what solutions are considered acceptable.
One influential scholar in this field is Michel Foucault, who explored the concept of
“disciplinary power” and the ways in which power operates through knowledge,
surveillance, and systems of control. Another important scholar is Steven Lukes, who
discussed the second dimension of power in his book “Power: A Radical View,”
emphasising the role of power in shaping agendas and limiting the scope of political
debate.
Self-Instructional
Material 59

NOTES 3. The Third Dimension: The Internalised and Preemptive Face of Power
The third dimension of power, according to Lukes, delves into the realm of individuals’
beliefs, values, and preferences. It concerns the power to shape and manipulate the
desires, beliefs, and perceptions of individuals and groups, often leading them to act
against their own interests. This dimension operates through the internalisation of
dominant norms, values, and ideologies, which can result in self-censorship and
preemptive compliance with the perceived wishes of those in power. The third dimension
of power, as conceptualised by scholars, emphasises the internalisation of power within
individuals and groups, influencing their perceptions, preferences, and behaviours. It
goes beyond visible and overt forms of power and delves into the realm of shaping
desires and beliefs. Power in this dimension operates through the manipulation of
norms, values, ideologies, and cultural systems, leading individuals to internalise and
conform to dominant power structures. It involves preemptive compliance, where
individuals and groups anticipate the wishes of those in power and act accordingly.
Various scholars have contributed to our understanding of the internalised and
preemptive face of power. One influential scholar in this field is Michel Foucault, who
explored the concept of “biopower” and the ways in which power operates through
the regulation and normalisation of individuals and populations. Another notable scholar
is Steven Lukes, who discussed the third dimension of power in his book “Power: A
Radical View,” emphasising the power of shaping desires and preferences. It involves
the internalisation of norms and values, leading individuals to act in accordance with
dominant power structures.
Check Your Progress

1. When was the book “Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky”
published?
2. Which aspects are explored in the book “Understanding Power: The
Indispensable Chomsky”?
3. What does power mean according to Chomsky?
Self-Instructional
60 Material

NOTES
3.4 SUMMARY
In this chapter, you have learnt the meaning of power and a detailed analysis of the
book “Understanding Power”. “Understanding Power” refers to the title of a book by
Noam Chomsky, an American linguist, philosopher, and political activist. The full title
of the book is “Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky” and it was originally
published in 2002. In “Understanding Power”, Chomsky compiles a series of interviews,
discussions, and debates that took place between 1989 and 1999. The book explores
various aspects of power, politics, and the media, offering Chomsky’s critical analysis
of the structures and mechanisms that shape society. The book serves as a
comprehensive overview of Chomsky’s political and social theories, providing readers
with a deeper understanding of power dynamics and the mechanisms through which
power is exercised and maintained in modern society. In the field of political science,
“Understanding Power” refers to the study and analysis of power dynamics within
political systems and institutions.
Steven Lukes, a renowned political theorist, developed a ground-breaking
framework for understanding power in his book “Power: A Radical View”. Lukes
argued that power operates not only through overt coercion but also through more
subtle and systemic processes. He proposed a three-dimensional model of power that
provides a comprehensive analysis of power dynamics within societies.
3.5 KEY WORDS
 Legitimacy: It is the perceived or acknowledged justification and acceptance

of authority, governance, or a political system by individuals or a community
based on shared norms, values, or legal principles.
 Coercion: It is the use of force or threats to compel someone to act against
their will.
 Biopower: It refers to the governance of populations through the control and
regulation of biological and social life, as conceptualized by philosopher Michel
Foucault. Self-Instructional
Material 61

NOTES
QUESTIONS
1. The book “Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky” was originally

published in 2002.
2. The book “Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky” explores various
aspects of power, politics, and the media, offering Chomsky’s critical analysis
of the structures and mechanisms that shape society.
3. Chomsky argues that power is not solely held by governments or political leaders
but is also exercised by institutions, corporations, and other influential entities.
3.7 SELF-ASSESSMENT QUESTIONS AND EXERCISES
1. What does the book “Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky”

serve?
2. Why is “Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky” considered one
of Chomsky’s most influential works?
3. Explain the various dimensions and forms of power.
4. Analyse the three-dimensional model of power proposed by Steven Lukes.
Schoeffel, J. and N. Chomsky. 2011. Understanding Power: The Indispensable

Chomsky. (n.p.): ReadHowYouWant.com, Limited.
Chomsky, Noam. 2003. Understanding Power. India: Penguin Group.
Lukes, S. 2021. Power: A Radical View. United Kingdom: Bloomsbury Academic.
Self-Instructional
62 Material

Class, Ideology and Power: Althusser and Foucault
CHAPTER 4 NOTES
CLASS, IDEOLOGY AND POWER:

ALTHUSSER AND FOUCAULT
Mrs. Pinki
Structure
4.0 Introduction
4.1 Objectives
4.2 Class, Ideology and Power
4.3 Power and the Subject: Foucault
4.4 Summary
4.5 Key Words
4.0 INTRODUCTION
The intricate interplay between class, ideology, and power forms the crux of sociopolitical
dynamics, shaping the contours of societies and influencing the distribution of resources,
opportunities, and influence. Class, rooted in economic structures, delineates social
hierarchies and delineates access to material resources. Concurrently, ideology,
comprising shared beliefs and values, functions as a legitimising force that justifies
prevailing power structures and class divisions. The nexus between class and ideology
unfolds through the mechanisms of power, where dominant classes wield influence not
only through economic means but also by shaping the narrative and disseminating
ideologies that reinforce their authority. This intricate web of class, ideology, and power
Self-Instructional
underpins the functioning of societies, influencing social relations, institutional structures, Material 63

NOTES and the distribution of benefits and burdens, thereby providing a lens through which to
analyse the complexities of human interaction within various sociocultural contexts.
This chapter will discuss the concepts of class, ideology, and power.
4.1 OBJECTIVES

 Discuss the concepts of class, ideology, and power
 Explain the concept of power and the subject
4.2 CLASS, IDEOLOGY AND POWER
The concepts of class, ideology, and power within capitalist societies have been
extensively explored by Louis Althusser, a French Marxist philosopher and theorist.
Althusser’s work provides valuable insights into the interconnections between social
classes, ideology, and power, shedding light on the mechanisms through which dominant
classes maintain their control. To delve into this analysis further, we can examine
Althusser’s key concepts and the sources from which they originate.
1. Class: Althusser’s analysis begins with the fundamental concept of social classes
within capitalist societies. He argues that society is structured by a dominant
capitalist class (the bourgeoisie) and a subordinate working class (the proletariat)
with conflicting economic interests. Class struggle is inherent in capitalist systems,
as the bourgeoisie seeks to preserve its control and exploitation of the proletariat
while the proletariat strives to challenge and transform the existing social order.
His works offer valuable insights into the nature of class, its role in society, and
its relationship to other social and economic factors. Althusser’s analysis of
class emphasises the antagonistic relationship between the bourgeoisie (the
capitalist class) and the proletariat (the working class) within capitalist societies.
He explores how class positions are determined by individuals’ relationship to
Self-Instructional the means of production, with the bourgeoisie owning and controlling the means
64 Material

while the proletariat sells their labour power. Class struggle, for Althusser, is NOTES
inherent to capitalism and arises from the conflicting economic interests of these
two classes. Louis Althusser’s analysis of class provides a valuable perspective
on the nature and significance of class within capitalist societies. His work
emphasises the antagonistic relationship between the bourgeoisie and the
proletariat and explores the role of class struggle in shaping society. By referring
to Althusser’s works, such as “Reading Capital”, “Lenin and Philosophy and
Other Essays” and “Essays in Self-Criticism” researchers can gain a deeper
understanding of his analysis of class.
2. Ideology: Central to Althusser’s analysis is the role of ideology in the maintenance
and reproduction of power structures. Althusser defines ideology as more than
a mere collection of ideas or beliefs but as a system of representations and
practices that shape individuals’ subjectivities and their understanding of the
world. Ideology functions to mask and justify the inequalities and exploitative
relations of capitalist societies, presenting them as natural, necessary, and
inevitable. Louis Althusser, a prominent Marxist philosopher, made significant
contributions to the understanding of ideology within capitalist societies. His
works provide valuable insights into the nature of ideology, its role in shaping
social consciousness, and its relation to power and class. The key concepts of
Althusser’s analysis of ideology are that Althusser defines ideology as more
than a collection of ideas or beliefs and it is a system of representations and
practices that shape individuals’ subjectivities and their understanding of the
world. For Althusser, ideology is not neutral but operates to maintain and
reproduce existing power relations within society. It functions to mask and justify
the inequalities and exploitative relations of capitalist societies, making them
appear natural and inevitable. Althusser explores the concept of ideology and
its relationship to power. He argues that ideology is not solely a set of abstract
ideas but is materialised through institutions and practices that exist within society.
Althusser introduces the concept of ideological state apparatuses (ISAs) and
discusses their role in reproducing and perpetuating dominant ideology. In “Essays
on Ideology”. Althusser delves into the nature and functions of ideology within
capitalist societies. He examines how ideology operates through various
institutions such as the educational system, religious institutions, and media.
Self-Instructional
Material 65

NOTES Althusser argues that these ideological state apparatuses play a crucial role in
interpellating individuals and shaping their subjectivities. Louis Althusser’s analysis
of ideology provides a valuable perspective on its role in shaping social
consciousness and maintaining power relations within capitalist societies. His
work emphasises that ideology operates through practices, institutions, and
representations that mold individuals’ subjectivities and perpetuate dominant
social structures. By referring to Althusser’s works, such as “Ideology and
Ideological State Apparatuses” and “Essays on Ideology,” students/researchers
can gain a deeper understanding of his analysis of ideology.
3. Repressive State Apparatuses (RSA) and Ideological State Apparatuses
(ISA): Althusser distinguishes between two forms of state power: repressive
state apparatuses (RSA) and ideological state apparatuses (ISA). The RSA,
such as the police and the military, maintains social order through coercion and
physical force. Conversely, ISAs encompass institutions like education, religion,
media, and family, which disseminate and reinforce dominant ideology. ISAs
operate through persuasive means, shaping individuals’ subjectivities and creating
consent to existing power relations. Louis Althusser introduced the concepts of
the RSA and ISA to analyse mechanisms through which power is exercised and
maintained within society. These concepts highlight the dual nature of state power
and the role of ideological practices in sustaining dominant social structures.
The key concepts of Althusser’s analysis of the RSA and ISA are discussed as
follows:
A. Repressive State Apparatuses (RSA): Althusser defines the RSA as
visible, physical institutions and practices through which the state exercises
direct control and coercion to maintain social order. Examples of the RSA
include the police, the military, and the legal system. These apparatuses use
force and repression to ensure compliance with existing power structures
and deter potential challenges to the status quo.
B. Ideological State Apparatuses (ISA): Althusser introduces the concept
of the ISA to emphasise the more subtle and pervasive mechanisms of social
control and ideological domination exercised by the state. ISAs are
institutions, practices, and systems that produce and disseminate dominant
Self-Instructional
ideology, shaping individuals’ beliefs, values, and subjectivities. Examples of
66 Material

the ISA include education, religion, media, family, and cultural institutions. NOTES
Through the ISA, the ruling class perpetuates its hegemony by instilling and
reproducing its ideology in the broader population.
C. Althusser’s Works on RSA and ISA: The essay “Ideology and Ideological
State Apparatuses” is given in “Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays”.
This essay by Althusser is a seminal work where he introduces the concepts
of the RSA and ISA. He explores the function and interplay of these
apparatuses in maintaining social order and reproducing dominant ideology.
In the collection of essays “Essays on Ideology”, Althusser further develops
his analysis of the RSA and ISA, examining the complex relationship between
state power, ideology, and social reproduction. He highlights the ideological
dimensions of the state and the role of ISAs in consolidating the ruling class
dominance. The RSA and ISA provide insights into the dual nature of state
power and the mechanisms through which dominant ideologies are
disseminated and maintained. The RSA operates through visible coercion,
while the ISA functions through ideological practices and institutions. By
referring to Althusser’s works, such as “Ideology and Ideological State
Apparatuses” and “Essays on Ideology,” researchers can gain a deeper
understanding of his analysis of the RSA and ISA.
4. Interpellation: Althusser introduces the concept of interpellation to elucidate
how individuals are constituted as subjects within ideology. Interpellation refers
to the process by which individuals are hailed or called into subject positions
through ideological practices and institutions. It operates through everyday
practices and rituals that reinforce the existing social order, leading individuals
to identify with their assigned roles and identities. Interpellation is a crucial concept
in understanding the ways in which ideology shapes individuals’ subjectivities
and their relationship to power and social structures. It involves the recognition
and internalisation of dominant ideological norms, values, and practices.
Interpellation shapes individuals’ identities, beliefs, and behaviours, thereby
perpetuating existing power relations. In “Lenin and Philosophy and Other
Essays”, Althusser introduces the concept of interpellation. He discusses how
ISAs interpellate individuals, molding them into specific subject positions and
reinforcing dominant ideology.
Self-Instructional
Material 67

NOTES Althusser’s analysis of class, ideology, and power provides valuable insights
into the functioning of capitalist societies. His concepts shed light on the ways in which
dominant classes maintain power through ideological mechanisms that shape individuals’
subjectivities, perpetuating the existing social order. Althusser’s work contributes to
Marxist perspectives on social and political analysis, emphasising the complex interplay
between economic relations, ideology, and power.
Check Your Progress

1. How is society structured according to Althusser?
2. How does Althusser define ideology?
3. What does interpellation refer to?
4.3 POWER AND THE SUBJECT: FOUCAULT
Michel Foucault, a prominent French philosopher and social theorist, extensively

examined the relationship between power and the subject. His works offer a unique
perspective on power dynamics and how they shape individuals and their subjectivities.
Foucault’s analysis of power and the subject is discussed as follows:
1. Power as a productive force: Foucault challenges the traditional understanding
of power as solely repressive or coercive. He argues that power operates as a
productive force, shaping and producing social reality and subjectivities. Power
is not only negative; it generates knowledge, identities, and discourses that
regulate and control individuals. Foucault argues that power is not only solely
repressive or coercive but also functions as a productive force in society. Rather
than simply prohibiting or suppressing, power generates and shapes social
relations, knowledge, and subjectivities. Power operates through various
discursive practices and institutional mechanisms, actively producing and
regulating individuals and social systems.
A. Power as a shaper of social reality: Foucault contends that power is not
something possessed or held by individuals or institutions, but is diffused
Self-Instructional throughout social interactions and structures. It is exercised in a network of
68 Material

relationships and practices that shape social reality. Power creates norms, NOTES
categories, and hierarchies, defining what is considered normal, acceptable,
or deviant within a given society.
B. Power and truth: Foucault emphasises the intimate connection between
power and truth. Power is deeply entwined with the production of knowledge
and the establishment of truth regimes. Power influences what knowledge is
valued, produced, and disseminated within society. Truth becomes a product
of power, serving the interests of those in positions of power and reinforcing
existing social structures.
C. Transformation of power: Foucault explores the transformation of power
in modern societies and introduces the concept of disciplinary power. He
analyses how power operates through surveillance, discipline, and
normalisation, creating disciplined subjects and shaping social order.
Foucault’s analysis of power as a productive force provides a unique
perspective on how power shapes and produces social reality and
subjectivities. Power operates beyond repression, actively generating
knowledge, norms, and social hierarchies.
2. Power or knowledge: Foucault emphasises the interconnection between power
and knowledge. Power operates through various knowledge systems and
discourses that define what is considered true, normal, or deviant. Knowledge
is not neutral but is shaped by relations of power, and in turn, knowledge
reinforces and legitimates existing power structures.
A. Power or knowledge nexus: Foucault argues that power and knowledge
are inseparable; they are intimately connected and mutually constitutive.
Power operates through knowledge, and knowledge is imbued with power.
Power or knowledge refers to the way in which power structures and regulates
what counts as valid knowledge, while knowledge reinforces and legitimates
existing power relations.
B. Role of power in the production of knowledge: Foucault challenges the
notion that knowledge is an objective, neutral pursuit. He argues that power
influences the production and dissemination of knowledge, shaping what is
considered true, valid, or acceptable within a given society. Power determines
Self-Instructional
Material 69

NOTES the boundaries of knowledge, controls access to it, and influences the
formation of discourses and truth regimes.
C. Knowledge as a tool of power: Foucault highlights that knowledge is not
merely a reflection of reality but is a tool of power which is used to regulate
and control individuals and populations. Knowledge is employed by those
in power to categorise, classify, and surveil individuals, enabling the exercise
of disciplinary practices. Knowledge provides the basis for systems of
normalisation and social control.
D. Foucault examines the operation of power in modern societies and its
connection to knowledge. He explores the ways in which disciplinary power
and knowledge intersect, shaping and regulating individuals through
mechanisms of surveillance and discipline. Foucault’s analysis of power/
knowledge reveals the intertwined nature of power and the production of
knowledge. Power influences the formation and dissemination of knowledge,
while knowledge serves as a mechanism of power, regulating and controlling
individuals and society.
3. Disciplinary power: Foucault introduces the concept of disciplinary power,
which operates through systems of surveillance, discipline, and normalisation.
This power is exercised through institutions such as prisons, schools, hospitals,
and workplaces, where individuals are subjected to constant observation and
regulation. It shapes individuals’ behaviours, bodies, and subjectivities, creating
obedient and docile subjects. He introduced the concept of disciplinary power
to analyse the mechanisms of power that operate within modern societies.
Foucault’s analysis of disciplinary power focuses on the ways in which power is
exercised through systems of surveillance, discipline, and normalisation.
A. Understanding disciplinary power: Foucault defines disciplinary power
as a form of power that operates through systems of observation, control,
and regulation. It emphasises the organisation and normalisation of individuals
and societies. Disciplinary power operates through various institutions,
practices, and techniques that shape individuals’ behaviours, bodies, and
subjectivities.
B. Panopticism and surveillance: Foucault’s concept of disciplinary power
Self-Instructional is closely tied to the idea of the panopticon, a metaphorical structure of
70 Material

surveillance and control. The panopticon, as a disciplinary mechanism, relies NOTES

on the constant observation and potential visibility of individuals. This constant
scrutiny instills a sense of self- discipline and conformity within individuals,
as they are never certain when they are being observed.
C. Techniques of discipline: Disciplinary power relies on a range of techniques
designed to regulate and control individuals. These techniques include
hierarchical observation, normalising judgment, examination, and
individualisation. They are employed through various institutions such as
schools, hospitals, prisons, and workplaces, shaping individuals’ behaviours,
knowledge, and identities.
D. Normalisation and power: Foucault highlights the role of normalisation in
disciplinary power. Through disciplinary practices, society establishes norms,
standards, and expectations that individuals are encouraged or coerced to
conform to. Normalisation functions as a mechanism of social control,
reinforcing dominant power relations and maintaining social order. Foucault’s
analysis of disciplinary power offers valuable insights into the mechanisms of
power that operate within modern societies. Disciplinary power relies on
surveillance, discipline, and normalisation to regulate and control individuals.
4. Technologies of the self: Foucault explores how power operates on the level
of individual subjectivity through technologies of the self. Technologies of the
self refer to the practices and techniques individuals employ to shape themselves
and their identities according to societal norms and expectations. These practices,
such as self- discipline, confession, and self-surveillance, are internalised and
contribute to the regulation of individuals’ thoughts, desires, and behaviours.
Foucault’s analysis of technologies of the self sheds light on how power operates
on the level of individual subjectivity. It is discussed as follows:
A. Understanding technologies of the self: Foucault defines technologies
of the self as the practices and techniques individuals employ to transform
themselves, shape their identities, and conform to societal norms. These
technologies involve self-discipline, self-surveillance, confession, and other
practices that individuals internalise to mold themselves according to prevailing
norms and ideals.
Self-Instructional
Material 71

NOTES B. Ethics and the care of the self: Technologies of the self are closely linked
to ethical considerations and the notion of caring for oneself. Foucault argues
that individuals engage in these practices as a form of ethical self-fashioning,
seeking to become a certain kind of person in line with societal expectations.
Technologies of the self are guided by moral values and ideals.
C. Confession and Self-Knowledge: Foucault emphasises the role of
confession in technologies of the self. Confession involves the act of self-
disclosure, the examination of one’s thoughts, desires, and behaviours in
order to achieve self-knowledge and self- transformation. Confessional
practices allow individuals to reflect upon themselves and align their actions
with societal norms and moral standards.
D. Technologies of power and resistance: While technologies of the self
are mechanisms through which power operates on individuals, Foucault also
recognises the potential for resistance within these practices. He argues that
individuals can employ technologies of the self as tools for self-empowerment
and as a means to challenge existing power structures. By critically engaging
with the norms and ideals imposed upon them, individuals can subvert and
transform power relations. Foucault discusses the ethical dimensions of
technologies of the self and their relation to freedom and self-transformation.
Foucault’s analysis of technologies of the self illuminates the practices
individuals employ to shape themselves and conform to societal norms. These
practices involve self-discipline, self-surveillance, confession, and other
techniques. While technologies of the self are mechanisms of power, they
also provide possibilities for resistance and self-empowerment. By referring
to Foucault’s works, such as “Technologies of the Self” and “The Ethics of
the Concern for the Self as a Practice of Freedom,” researchers can gain a
deeper understanding of his analysis of technologies of the self.
5. Resistance and subversion: While acknowledging the pervasive nature of
power, Foucault also emphasises the possibilities of resistance and subversion.
Power is not all-encompassing or monolithic; it is relational and contingent.
Foucault highlights the importance of exploring spaces and strategies for
resistance, whether through individual acts of defiance or collective struggles
Self-Instructional
for emancipation. Foucault recognised the potential for resistance and subversion
72 Material

within power relations. His analysis challenges the notion that power is solely NOTES
repressive and dominant. Foucault’s analysis of resistance and subversion
explores how individuals and collectives can challenge and transform power
structures.
A. Power as relational and contingent: Foucault emphasises that power is
not an all-encompassing, monolithic force but operates relationally and
contingently within social systems. Power is not simply imposed from above,
but is dispersed throughout social interactions. It is exercised through various
techniques, discourses, and institutions, shaping and regulating social reality.
B. Spaces of Resistance: Foucault acknowledges that power relations are
not fixed and unchangeable. He identifies the existence of spaces and moments
of resistance within power structures, where individuals and groups challenge
and contest dominant power relations. These spaces can emerge in everyday
practices, discourses, and collective actions, disrupting and subverting
existing power dynamics.
C. Micropolitics of power: Foucault’s analysis of power extends to the
micropolitical level, focusing on the power dynamics that operate within
individual relationships and everyday interactions. He highlights how power
relations are negotiated, contested, and transformed within these micro-
level contexts. Resistance and subversion can be manifested through acts of
defiance, refusal, and alternative practices that challenge dominant power
dynamics.
D. Technologies of the self as resistance: Foucault suggests that
technologies of the self, which are practices individuals employ to shape
themselves according to societal norms, can also serve as a form of resistance.
By critically engaging with and reworking these practices, individuals can
resist the normalisation and control imposed by dominant power structures.
Technologies of the self can become tools of empowerment and self-
transformation.
E. Relational nature of power: Foucault explores the relational nature of
power and the potential for resistance. He argues that resistance is not
necessarily a direct confrontation but can be manifested through strategies
Self-Instructional
Material 73

NOTES that disrupt power dynamics. Foucault discusses the ways in which power
operates within discourses of sexuality. He highlights the existence of counter-
discourses and practices that challenge dominant power structures. Foucault’s
analysis of resistance and subversion provides a critical perspective on power
relations. He emphasises that power is not invincible and that spaces for
resistance exist within power structures. By referring to Foucault’s works,
such as “The Subject and Power” and “The History of Sexuality,” Students/
Researchers can gain a deeper understanding of his analysis and explore the
strategies and practices through which resistance and subversion can challenge
dominant power relations.
Michel Foucault’s analysis of power and the subject provides a nuanced
understanding of how power operates beyond overt repression. His exploration of
power as a productive force, the interplay between power and knowledge, disciplinary
power, technologies of the self, and the possibilities of resistance offers valuable insights
into the complex dynamics between power and subjectivity.
Check Your Progress

4. How does disciplinary power operate?
5. How does Foucault define disciplinary power?
6. What do technologies of the self refer to?
4.4 SUMMARY
In this chapter, you have learnt the concepts of class, power and ideology given by
Althusser and Foucault. The concepts of class, ideology, and power within capitalist
societies have been extensively explored by Louis Althusser, a French Marxist
philosopher and theorist. Althusser’s work provides valuable insights into the
interconnections between social classes, ideology, and power, shedding light on the
mechanisms through which dominant classes maintain their control. Althusser’s analysis
of class, ideology, and power provides valuable insights into the functioning of capitalist
Self-Instructional
74 Material

societies. His concepts shed light on the ways in which dominant classes maintain NOTES
power through ideological mechanisms that shape individuals’ subjectivities,
perpetuating the existing social order. He introduced the notion of the “ideological
state apparatuses” (ISAs), arguing that institutions such as education, media, and religion
play a crucial role in shaping and maintaining dominant ideologies that perpetuate the
existing social order. Additionally, he examined the concept of “repressive state
apparatuses” (RSAs), such as the police and legal system, which enforce the dominant
class’s interests through coercion. Althusser’s work illuminates the complex interplay
between economic structures, ideological apparatuses, and mechanisms of power
within capitalist societies, providing a nuanced understanding of how social relations
are maintained and perpetuated.
Michel Foucault, a prominent French philosopher and social theorist, extensively
examined the relationship between power and the subject. His works offer a unique
perspective on power dynamics and how they shape individuals and their subjectivities.
Michel Foucault’s analysis of power and the subject provides a nuanced understanding
of how power operates beyond overt repression. Foucault examines the interplay
between power and knowledge, asserting that knowledge is inseparable from power
and that institutions shape our understanding of truth. In his exploration of the subject,
Foucault discusses how individuals are constructed by societal discourses, norms,
and institutions, emphasizing the role of self-discipline and internalized forms of control.
4.5 KEY WORDS
 Capitalist: It is someone who supports or participates in an economic system

characterized by private ownership of the means of production and the pursuit
of profit.
 Proletariat: It refers to the working class in a capitalist society, typically those
who sell their labor for wages and do not own the means of production.
 Bourgeoisie: It refers to the capitalist class in society, characterized by ownership
of the means of production and accumulation of wealth.
Self-Instructional
Material 75

NOTES  Interpellating: It refers to the process by which individuals are addressed or

recognized by ideological systems, shaping their identity and reinforcing societal
norms through communication or external influences.
 Power: It is the ability or capacity to influence, control, or direct the behavior of
others or the course of events.
 Technologies of Self: It involves practices and tools individuals use for self-
improvement, self-discipline, and personal development, often influenced by
philosophical or cultural frameworks.

QUESTIONS
1. Althusser argues that society is structured by a dominant capitalist class (the

bourgeoisie) and a subordinate working class (the proletariat) with conflicting
economic interests.
2. Althusser defines ideology as more than a mere collection of ideas or beliefs but
as a system of representations and practices that shape individuals’ subjectivities
and their understanding of the world.
3. Interpellation refers to the process by which individuals are hailed or called into
subject positions through ideological practices and institutions.
4. Foucault introduces the concept of disciplinary power, which operates through
systems of surveillance, discipline, and normalisation.
5. Foucault defines disciplinary power as a form of power that operates through
systems of observation, control, and regulation.
6. Technologies of the self refer to the practices and techniques individuals employ
to shape themselves and their identities according to societal norms and
expectations. These practices, such as self- discipline, confession, and self-
surveillance, are internalised and contribute to the regulation of individuals’
thoughts, desires, and behaviours.
Self-Instructional
76 Material

NOTES
EXERCISES
1. What do you understand by class and class struggle?

2. What do you understand by ideology?
3. Write a short note on disciplinary power.
4. Analyse the key concepts of Althusser’s analysis of the RSA and ISA.
5. Explain the interconnection between power and knowledge.
6. Discuss the concept of technologies of self.
Althusser, L. 1970. “Contradiction and Over determination”. In Reading Capital by

Louis Althusser, Étienne Balibar, Roger Establet, Pierre Macherey, and Jacques
Ranciere (pp. 99- 186). Verso.
Althusser, L. 1970. “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses”. In Lenin and
Philosophy and Other Essays (pp. 121-176). Monthly Review Press.
Althusser, L. 1971. “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses.” In “Essays on
Ideology” (pp. 61-126). Verso.
Althusser, L. 1971. “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses.” In Lenin and
Philosophy and Other Essays (pp. 121-176). Monthly Review Press.
Althusser, L. 1971. “Ideology and the State.” In “Essays on Ideology” (pp. 61-126).
Verso.
Althusser, L. 1976. “Ideology and the Ideological State Apparatus.” In “Essays on
Ideology” (pp. 1-60). Verso.
Althusser, L. 2006. “Ideology and Interpellation.” In Critical Social Theory: An
Introduction (pp. 104-108). Routledge.
Self-Instructional
Material 77

NOTES Althusser, L. 2008. “Ideology and the State.” In The Essential Works of Foucault,
1954-1984, Volume 2: Aesthetics, Method, and Epistemology (pp. 85-123).
New Press.
Bachrach, P., and M. S. Baratz. 1970. Power and Poverty: Theory and Practice.
Oxford University Press.
Foucault, M. 1975. “Panopticism.” In “Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison”
(pp. 195-228). Vintage Books.
Foucault, M. 1977. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Vintage Books.
Foucault, M. 1978. The History of Sexuality, Volume I: An Introduction. Vintage
Books.
Foucault, M. 1980. “Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972-
1977.” Pantheon Books.
Foucault, M. 1980. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings
1972-1977. Pantheon Books.
Foucault, M. 1980. The History of Sexuality, Volume I: An Introduction. Vintage
Books. Foucault, M. 1982. “The Subject and Power.” Critical Inquiry, 8(4),
777-795.
Foucault, M. 1983. The Birth of the Clinic: An Archaeology of Medical Perception.
Vintage Books.
Foucault, M. 1984. “The Ethics of the Concern for the Self as a Practice of Freedom.”
In “The Foucault Reader” (pp. 52-53). Pantheon Books.
Foucault, M. 1988. Technologies of the Self: A Seminar with Michel Foucault.
University of Massachusetts Press.
Gaventa, J. 1980. Power and Powerlessness: Quiescence and Rebellion in an
Appalachian Valley. University of Illinois Press.
Lukes, S. 1974. Power: A Radical View. Palgrave Macmillan.
Lukes, S. 2005. Power: A Radical View (2nd ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.
Weber, Max. “Politics as a Vocation.” In “From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology.”
Translated and edited by H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mill
Self-Instructional
78 Material

UNIT III: DEBATES ON FREEDOM
CHAPTER 5 DEBATES ON FREEDOM-I
CHAPTER 6 DEBATES ON FREEDOM-II

Debates on Freedom-I
CHAPTER 5 NOTES
DEBATES ON FREEDOM-I
Kaushik Kumar
Structure
5.0 Introduction
5.1 Objectives
5.2 Ancient Vs. Modern Liberty
5.3 Liberty in the Form of Autonomy
5.3.2 J.S. Mill: Liberty in the Form of Autonomy
5.4 Negative and Positive Liberty
5.5 Summary
5.6 Key Words
5.0 INTRODUCTION
Freedom, a concept deeply ingrained in the fabric of human society, has been a subject
of intense and multifaceted debates throughout history. This chapter explores the diverse
perspectives that have shaped the discourse surrounding this fundamental and complex
notion. As societies evolve and confront new challenges, the meaning and extent of
freedom continue to be redefined, prompting scholars, philosophers, and policymakers
to engage in rigorous discussions.
The concept of freedom spans a spectrum, encompassing political, economic,
social, and personal dimensions. At the heart of these debates lies the tension between
Self-Instructional
Material 81

NOTES individual liberties and collective responsibilities. Philosophers from John Locke to
Jean-Jacques Rousseau have contributed foundational ideas that have influenced the
understanding of freedom in different cultural and historical contexts.
This chapter will focus majorly on the interdisciplinary exploration that considers
the role of technology, globalisation, and cultural diversity in shaping contemporary
perspectives on freedom. As the first installment in an ongoing series, this collection of
discussions aims to foster a nuanced understanding of freedom, encouraging participants
to critically examine the foundations and implications of this timeless and evolving
concept.
5.1 OBJECTIVES

 Identify key philosophical and cultural factors that distinguish ancient and modern
perspectives on liberty
 Evaluate the societal structures and political contexts that shaped the
understanding and practice of liberty in ancient civilisations
 Analyse Immanuel Kant’s philosophical framework regarding autonomy and its
interconnection with morality
 Define and differentiate between negative and positive liberty as distinct
conceptualisations of freedom
5.2 ANCIENT VS. MODERN LIBERTY
The notion of liberty is one of those concepts in which a number of attempts have been
made to explain and define the same. The term “Liberty”, is simply known as “absence
of restrictions”. But we mainly see two differences relating to liberty, which is still quite
new among the thinkers and has not been paid attention till now, or at least it has not
been given proper attention. One is the liberty which the ancient people gave more
Self-Instructional
82 Material

importance to, which we know as “ancient liberty”. The second is that liberty which is NOTES
especially valuable for modern nations, which we know as “modern liberty”. The issue
of ancient versus modern liberty points to the generality of the concept of liberty in
political science. The credit for raising this controversy is mainly attributed to Benjamin
Constant, who drew our attention to this issue by comparing ancient and modern
liberty.
Ancient liberty can be seen mainly in the systems prevalent during the Greek
and Roman Empire, where we see more sovereignty of the state or ruler. Here individual
freedom was nil and, a person’s life, his freedom, his rights were all controlled by the
state or ruler. In this regard, we can see the idea of sovereignty of the ruler or state in
the thoughts ranging from Plato (428 AD) to Rousseau (1712). In their views, the
sovereign has been given more importance than individual freedom. Even if individual
freedom is given, it is either very limited or in the form of collective freedom (general
will). Whereas modern liberty mainly focuses on the individual, which considers personal
freedom supreme and considers the state or ruler as its protector. In modern liberty,
the state conducts its functions keeping in mind the interests of the individual. The
rights of the state become limited here. If the state fails to protect the individual liberty
as well as the life, rights, justice, opportunity, welfare etc. of the individual, it has to
face criticism and then the people transfer the power of the state (power to govern) to
someone else. Under modern liberty, representative governance is given importance
whereas it was lacking in ancient liberty. Here the power to govern was handed over
to the sovereign power (an individual or group of individuals).
Ancient Liberty
Ancient liberty follows old ideas/systems/beliefs/customs. It has been in use mainly

since the time of ancient Greece. We can see evidence of this in the thoughts of
philosophers like Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli, Hobbesy. For example, many thinkers
believe that Sparta had a representative government, but Benjamin Constans believes
that “Sparta’s government was not a representative government in any way”. As the
power of the aristocracy and the kings was indeed limited, but it was limited by the
magistrates, and not by the people whom we today elect as the protectors of our
liberty, so, it would not be fair to say that there was any representative system in place.
There is no doubt that after the creation of institutions by kings, their magistrates were
Self-Instructional
Material 83

NOTES nominated by the people. Their authority was as much religious as it was political; they
also participated in the actual administration i.e. the executive power of the government.
On the other hand, in this regard, a similar trend is seen in the rule of Gauls in France,
where religious and military supremacy prevailed over liberty. The rule of the Gauls
was exactly the kind that a certain group would like to restore for us! Here the priests
had unlimited power, as well as the military class and the nobility had very arrogant
and oppressive privileges. People had no rights and no safeguards. Similarly, in ancient
Rome, Tribunes was representative to some extent. He acted on behalf of the majority
of the people of Rome who had been forced into harsh slavery by the aristocracy.
Despite this, people exercised considerable political rights directly. They banded together
to vote for lawmaking and to seek justice for those accused of wrongdoing. It is
therefore believed that there were only weak traces of a representative system in
ancient Rome. Whereas representative government (system) is a modern invention in
which the government represents the public and works for their freedom, their rights
and their welfare. Whereas in ancient times it was lacking. Ancient liberty did not
include the present meaning of liberty, rather the people of ancient times were neither
able to realise the need for present liberty nor could they appreciate its benefits. The
social system of their time led them to want a certain type of freedom which was
completely different from the present representative government. Benjamin Constant
in his famous article “The Liberty of Ancients Compared with that of Moderns (2010)”
has described the liberty of the ancients in the following points:-
1. To discuss and take decisions about war and peace.
2. Forming alliances with foreign governments.
3. Voting in new law making.
4. To examine the accounts, functions and management of the Magistrate.
5. To summon the magistrate to appear before the court.
People of ancient times called it independence. No space was given for individual
autonomy or especially religious autonomy. While we modern people value the right to
choose our religious affiliation, the ancients considered it criminal and unholy. If it was
violated, the person was eligible for punishment. You must remember the murder of
Socrates by the Athenians. Furthermore, the persecution of Christians shows that a
Self-Instructional
84 Material

Roman citizen could not choose his religion. Their speech, dress, manners and actions NOTES
were controlled by the censors.
Thus in all matters which we believe to be significant to us, collective authority
intervenes itself and restricts the will of individuals. Hence in the ancients, the individual
was almost sovereign in public affairs (see point 5 above) but subservient (slave) to
the ruler in all his private relations. As a citizen he decides on peace and war whereas
as a private individual all his movements are restricted, monitored, and repressed. The
state has a tight control on the personal liberty of the individual, the individual is not
free to do anything, and rather he has been given some limited autonomy by the state.
Modern Liberty
The main identity of modern liberty is individual’s liberty. Political liberty is its guarantee,
hence we will consider only those states as full of modern liberty where a person has
both these liberties (personal and political). Under the despotism of the Orient, individual
liberty was completely unknown, the life, work and property of the individual being
entirely at the mercy of the ruler.
The Greeks were familiar with the idea of liberty, but they linked liberty with
popular sovereignty. They had political freedom but lacked personal freedom in the
modern sense. In the Greek city-republics the citizens (except slaves, of course, who
had no legal rights of any kind) made laws, decided on peace or war, elected magistrates,
acted as judges, and performed the duties assigned to them. But there was no area of
life in which there was no government interference. The autocracy of the state prevented
the development of private rights. The Greeks were mainly just citizens. Their existence
was for the state, however state was not for them. Family life, religion, property, time,
all activities of the individual were under the control of the state. Whereas in modern
autocracy liberty, special emphasis is given to individual freedom and rights. The main
objective of the state includes working for the welfare of the individual, giving equal
importance to all religions instead of monopoly of any one religion, running the state
according to the rule of law instead of autocratic rule, etc. The following characteristics
of modern independence can be seen in a state:-
1. Under modern liberty, law is given more importance. A person can be
sentenced only in accordance with the law and not on the orders of a single
person as existed in ancient society. Self-Instructional
Material 85

NOTES 2. A person has freedom of thought, expression, to move anywhere, to settle,

to do business, to adopt any religion and to personally enjoy and allocate
property. In modern liberty, emphasis is laid on individual freedom.
3. Freedom to move anywhere and do anything without any fear or interference,
provided that the freedom of others is not infringed.
4. Freedom of individuals to form associations to discuss their interests and
other issues.
5. Here people influence the administrative system of the government and the
government is also bound towards the citizens.
Difference between Ancient and Modern Liberty
1. In ancient times, emphasis was laid on collective autonomy. Liberty was related
to the public sphere and the individual was important as a community. But in
modern times, emphasis is laid on individual liberty (ideas, expression, residence,
property, politics, religious freedom etc.).
2. In ancient times, there was no representative government but there was monarchy
or arbitrary dictatorial government, at that time religion had an important place
in politics. The Pope, Church, etc. had unlimited powers and people did not
have religious liberty.
3. Whereas, on the contrary, representative government is a modern invention. In
ancient times, the meaning of liberty was completely different from the
representative government of present times.
4. In ancient times, there were narrow geographical areas due to which there used
to be a situation of war. As a result, there was always a situation of insecurity.
On the contrary, in modern times, the geographical areas are much larger, much
wider and more populous than those of Sparta and Rome. Here, trade and
commerce are given priority because its progress has brought nations closer to
each other, gave them qualities and habits which are almost common to all.
Now the national flag may be the enemy but the people there are compatriots.
5. In modern times, there is no worry about insecurity because it becomes the
duty of the state to protect the individual. Apart from this, it becomes the
Self-Instructional responsibility of the citizens of the state to serve and protect the state.
86 Material

NOTES
Check Your Progress
1. What is the main difference between ancient and modern liberty?
2. Who raised the controversy on ancient versus modern liberty?
3. What is the main identity of modern liberty?
5.3 LIBERTY IN THE FORM OF AUTONOMY
Liberty and autonomy both show interdependence, in the absence of liberty, it seems
difficult to imagine autonomy. The main credit for defining liberty in the form of autonomy
and presenting this idea before us goes to Immanuel Kant and J.S. Mill, who have
presented ideas related to liberty in their books. At the same time, they have tried to
explain the debate among freedom, autonomy and power. To understand liberty as a
principle of autonomy, it is necessary to make a comparative distinction between Kant
and Mill’s views on liberty.
Immanuel Kant’s views on liberty as a form autonomy are a central aspect of his moral
philosophy. He has mentioned his views in this regard in his book “Groundwork for
the Metaphysics of Morals and Critique of Practical Reason (1785)”. Leaving behind
the old definitions of liberty, Kant tries to define liberty in a new sense. The “Oxford
Political Dictionary” defines liberty as “the absence of interference or hindrances,”
while the “Dictionary of Philosophy” defines liberty as “the possibility of a man of
thinking, behaving, acting, deciding or choosing as per his will, without any external
pressure.” Kant’s view of liberty in the form of autonomy differs from other conceptions
of autonomy, such as liberty “in the absence of external constraints”, “in the absence of
violence or coercion”, or “in the form of increase in the individual’s capabilities”. Kant
has his own views related to liberty apart from all these ideas.
Kant presented his concept of liberty in a form different from the ideas of liberty
of Plato, Aristotle and Hobbes. They consider liberty to be related to transcendental
Self-Instructional
ideas, which established moral laws as facts of reason and established liberty as authentic Material 87

NOTES law. Kant’s philosophy of critique includes his three main works: - “Critique of Pure
Reason (1981)”, “Critique of Practical Reason (1788)” and “Critique of Judgment
(1970)”. In the Critique of Pure Reason, the term liberty is used in a practical sense,
which is the antinomy of liberty against the laws of nature: “whether the world determined
entirely from the standpoint of reason, or there is some causation through this also.’’
He has defined liberty as follows: ‘’liberty is only a practical postulate, i.e. a necessary
basis, according to which the rational being must determine his will. Rational beings
are beings capable of making their own decisions, and their liberty is an idea, not the
result of any possible experience.” Kant explains that freedom is only an idea, the
objective reality of which cannot be controlled by natural laws and which is determined
by the will. Therefore, Kant spoke of liberty as a condition that implies an unprovable
postulate which is not to be rejected, but which is necessary in the moral process.
Kant’s idea of liberty in the form of autonomy can be briefly presented as follows:-
 Autonomy of the Will: Kant begins with the concept of “will,” which he
defines as the rational capacity to choose and act according to principles.
He separates will from desire and inclination. Whereas desires and
inclinations are heterogeneous (determined by external factors), will, when
acting autonomously, is self-determined by rational principles.
 Moral Law and Rational Principles: Kant argues that true liberty is
exercised when individuals act in accordance with moral laws that they give
themselves through rational deliberation. This means that individuals are
libertarian when they follow principles that are based on reason and are not
influenced by outside influences or mere inclination.
 Categorical Imperative: Kant formulates the moral law as a categorical
imperative, which is a universal and unconditional principle of rationality. He
expressed this principle in various sutras, but the most famous sutra is the
Sutra of Universal Law: “Act only in such a passion that at one point of time
you expect that your work should become a universal law.” In other words,
act in such a way that your work becomes a universal law without any
contradiction.
 Moral Autonomy: Moral autonomy, according to Kant, is the ability to act
in accordance with the moral law because one recognises this as a rational
Self-Instructional
88 Material

duty. It involves the self-determination of moral principles and being guided NOTES
by them, regardless of external influences or desires. In doing so, individuals
respect their own rational nature and the rational nature of others.
 Moral Responsibility: Kant’s concept of freedom also includes moral
responsibility. Individuals are responsible for their actions when they are the
authors of their own moral principles and act in accordance with them. Moral
culpability arises when someone willingly deviates from his or her self-
regulated principles.
Kant’s view of liberty as autonomy is based on his deontological ethics, which
emphasises the inherent worth of every rational being. He believes that rational will is
the source of moral value and that true moral freedom is found in acting in accordance
with reason and logic and duty.
Kant’s Concept of Autonomy and Morality
Kant mainly presents the relationship between the actual concept of autonomy and the
theoretical concept of best liberty and Kant considers the concept of best liberty as
hypothetical liberty. Similarly, Kant considers fatalism as a threat to morality. This is
one of the most powerful factors that threaten morality. On the basis of metaphysics,
Kant also rejects fatalism. Kant also presents the concept of individualism for which
autonomous and free will can only be achieved through real powers. Therefore,
according to Kant, liberty, rationality are achieved through morality and free will. In
the context of freedom, Kant believes in the absence of any kind of obstacles in
fulfilling one’s will and actions. Kant presents the concepts of liberty related to state
morality and freedom related to noble liberty in his book “Critique of Practical Reason”.
In the concept of state liberty, Kant tries to know whether any action has been done
freely or not, whereas the moral concept of liberty is the source of moral rules and
originality which are related to responsibility and the concept of best liberty is rationality.
And morality is achieved by combining both. Kant talks about two types of world, the
symbolic world or the indirect world and the direct world. In the symbolic world,
things are determined on the basis of reality. The concept of free will is also found in
the world, whereas in the apparent world, it is determined by a person on the basis of
his observation ability.
Self-Instructional
Material 89

NOTES 5.3.2 J.S. Mill: Liberty in the Form of Autonomy
John Stuart Mill’s views on liberty are mainly seen in his famous book “On Liberty
(1859)”, apart from this, he presented his views regarding liberty and power in “The
Subjection of Women (1869)”. Mill’s view of “liberty as autonomy” differs from
Immanuel Kant’s concept. Mill’s concept of liberty focuses more on individual liberty,
the absence of outside interference, and the idea that individuals should be free to act
as they please, as long as they do not harm others. It is important to note that Mill’s
views on liberty are utilitarian in nature, emphasising the greatest happiness for the
greatest number. The main points of Mill’s view on liberty as autonomy are as follows:
 The Harm Principle: Mill’s central idea in “On Liberty” is what he calls the
“harm principle.” He argues that the only legitimate reason for society to interfere
with an individual’s liberty is to prevent harm to others. In other words, individuals
should be free to do what they want as long as their actions do not harm others.
This principle sets a limit on the authority of society and the state to regulate
individual conduct.
 Individual Autonomy: While Mill emphasises individual autonomy, this is within
the boundaries of the harm principle. He believes that individuals should be free
to make their own choices, express their opinions, and pursue their own
happiness, provided they do not harm others. This conception of autonomy is
more permissive than Kant’s, because it does not require individuals to obey
universal moral laws or categorical imperatives.
 Experiments in Living: Mill promotes the idea of “experiment in life”, meaning
that individuals should be free to choose and live their own values, even if those
values and lifestyle differ from those of the majority. He believes that this diversity
of choices and lifestyles can lead to social progress and discovery of new,
better ways of living.
 Individuality: Mill values individuality and argues that it is essential to human
progress and a prosperous and more enlightened society. He argues that a
society that suppresses individuality and enforces conformity prevents intellectual
and moral development.
Self-Instructional
90 Material

 Limits to Social Control: Mill criticises social and government efforts to impose NOTES
conformity and control on individuals. He is concerned about the “tyranny of
the majority” and warns of the dangers of suppressing dissent and nonconformity,
as they can lead to intellectual stagnation.
Liberty, Autonomy and Power: J.S. Mill
JS Mill has presented the relationship between liberty and power in his book “The
Subjection of Women (1869)” in which he has tried to show that liberty is the opposite
of power, that is, power restricts liberty. Whereas liberty provides the ability to self-
governance and self-development or self-determination. Another thinker, named Jesse
Rees believes that Mill has presented a negative concept of liberty. Skinner saw liberty
as the absence of constraints that prevent a person from achieving his or her goals.
Mill tries to understand liberty in the context of economic, political, social and sexual
liberty.
Mill considers power to be necessary in the context of four things: power over
the individual, intellectual freedom and autonomy, materialistic resources, partnership
democracy, in which Mill believes that the more power is exercised over the individual,
the greater will be the autonomy. Therefore, Mill considers it appropriate to use power
based on the individual’s personality. In materialistic use of resources, Mill considers
these resources necessary for the individual to do what he wants to do, whereas in
participatory democracy, the individual considers who governs him? And what is he
free to do? Let’s give more emphasis on these two questions.
Liberty and Autonomy
Mill believes that the more autonomy there will be, the greater will be the liberty, that
is, Mill sees liberty and autonomy as complementary to each other. He believes that
only through liberty, a person gets sovereignty and as such he is free to perform the
tasks determined by him. When a person is in a community and he wants to achieve
his welfare through the path decided by him, he needs liberty. According to Mill,
liberty covers a wide area in which the individual exercises his own self-governance
and self-determination. Mill also sees liberty, autonomy and individuality as
complementary to each other and considers the relationship between the three to be
Self-Instructional
Material 91

NOTES negative liberty, in which a person determines his individuality and his well-being
according to himself and the path decided by him.
Educational power and social opinion together are considered a threat to
individuality, liberty and autonomy because they restrict the individuals to act as per
their wish and the individuals are not able to exercise free will. Similarly, Mill considers
communist and capitalist liberty as dull because they also do not have free will and
intellectual freedom. According to Gray, autonomous thinkers see liberty as lack of
interference from outsiders in people’s affairs. Similarly, Mill believes that women
should also have equal rights in achieving all types of freedoms, be it political, economic
or social, and they should be free to marry of their own free will or to do whatever they
want. Mill sees culture as a threat to freedom because culture is considered patriarchal
and culture is the main reason for women’s apathy, according to which a person starts
scheduling traditions and the person does not use his intelligence and discretion. In this
way, Mill protect individuals from using such constraints to perform their tasks and
they reject any kind of gender inequality between men and women. For Mill, freedom
is as important as autonomy. Therefore, Mill considers autonomy as complementary
to liberty.
Check Your Progress

4. What is Kant’s view of freedom as presented in the ‘‘Critique of Pure Reason’’?
5. What is Mill’s central idea in “On Liberty”?
5.4 NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE LIBERTY
In the history of political theory till date, different thinkers have understood the concept
of liberty in different ways. Thinkers have also tried to define it by associating it with
different ideologies, and we can see few of these main ideologies as liberalism, socialism,
marxism, feminism etc. But there is a common center point in all these, “liberation”
which we also call freedom or independence. The opposite of freedom is slavery,
which we often hear as “das” or “slave.” A slave cannot do whatever he wants on his
own; on the contrary, he has to do whatever his master wants. A free man is one who
Self-Instructional
92 Material is not a slave to anyone, who is capable of doing anything as per his wish. Thus, liberty

is the “absence of restrictions”. Liberty is the absence of any kind of interference in a NOTES
person’s work. Now the question arises whether each type of restriction/intervention
is bad? Will a person attain freedom if he is left free in the society (state)? Whether the
state or government cannot interfere in an individual’s freedom of expression?
Due to such questions under political theory, it has been divided into two different
streams, the group of thinkers who consider liberty as “absence of constraints” and
we know it as “Negative Liberty”. On the other hand, the group of thinkers who
consider “bondage as necessary” for individual liberty, we know it as “Positive Liberty”.
Positive liberty is in favour of giving equal opportunity to all the people in the state,
since not every person living in the state is equal in social, economic and intellectual
status. For this reason, we see diversity and inequality in the state, and to eliminate this
inequality, positive liberty considers intervention or restriction necessary. According to
it, only then will every person in the state feel liberal when common people will be
treated normally and abnormal people will be treated abnormally. Isaiah Berlin, in his
famous book “Two Concepts of Liberty (1969)” has described this difference between
the negative and positive concept of liberty in detail. Apart from this, the debate on
liberty can be seen in J.S. Mill’s book “On Liberty (1859)”.
What is Liberty?
The English equivalent of Independence, “Liberty”, is derived from the Latin word
“Liber”, which literally means “absence of restrictions”. But this meaning of liberty has
not been completely accepted. In Leviathan (1651), Thomas Hobsell has defined
liberty as “Absence of Opposition”, while on the other hand, Karl Marx sees it as
‘End of Necessity’. Karl Popper describes liberty as “Non-Interference”. Thus, there
is no fixed definition of liberty, it has been defined by different thinkers based on
different contexts: -
According to McKenzie, liberty is not the absence of all types of restrictions,
but the arrangement of appropriate restrictions in place of inappropriate restrictions.
T. H. Green says that liberty is a positive power to do what can be done or to
enjoy what can enjoyed.
In Prof. Laski’s terms, what I mean by liberty is that there should be no restrictions
on the existence of social conditions, which is absolutely necessary for the happiness
of a man in modern civilisation. Self-Instructional
Material 93

NOTES According to Gettel, liberty means that positive power which gives pleasure by
doing those things which are capable of being done.
In other words, when we hear from someone that “you are completely
independent”, then being independent for a person means giving the desired shape to
one’s life, the ability to convert one’s ideals into reality. And it is about being able to
give shape to the capabilities of your personality. So, what is autocracy? The direct
answer to this question cannot be the absence of external restrictions or constraints on
the individual. However, the absence of restrictions is only one aspect of liberty. Liberty
also means expanding a person’s capacity for self-expression and developing the
capabilities within him. In this sense, liberty is a situation in which people can develop
their creativity and abilities. Similarly, a free society will be one which enables its
members to develop their potential with minimum social constraints. Liberty is
considered valuable because it enables us to make decisions and choices. It is only
because of liberty that individuals are able to use their discretion and power of taking
decision.
Negative Liberty
The word “negative” in liberty indicates that it rejects anything that limits the freedom
of an individual. It is assumed that a person is the master of his mind and body, he is a
rational being, and he understands his own good and bad. Therefore, any kind of
interference or restriction in a person’s work is bad. Generally, negative liberty is seen
as freedom from interference or intervention. The thinkers of this aspect of liberty see
liberty as “absence of restrictions”. Under negative liberty, it is believed that if a person
wants to do something and can do it, then he cannot be stopped from doing it. As
Isaiah Berlin says, “If others prevent me from doing what I am able to do had they not
prevented me from doing, in such a situation, I am not completely free.’’ Suppose your
examination is going on and you have gone to your college to take the examination and
you have also prepared for this examination, and you also want to sit in this examination.
But some people do not let you sit in the examination by using force. This means that
your liberty has been suppressed here. According to Berlin, if a person is unable to
achieve any goal, it does not mean that he is not free.
‘If I say that I am unable to jump more than ten feet in the air, or I am unable to
Self-Instructional
understand or read the deep meanings (of his writings) of Hegel because I am blind, it
94 Material

would be wrong to say that I am not independent. [E. Berlin, Two Concepts of Liberty NOTES
(1962)]
He has written that “Only restrictions imposed by others affect my freedom.”
Thus, negative liberty prohibits any kind of interference by the state (government) in
the life of an individual because according to it, the role of state is very limited, hence
the state cannot decide about the goals and objectives of the individual. This kind of
liberty is not enough for the common man. When a society suffers from huge economic
inequalities, positive liberty adopts an attitude of indifference towards these inequalities.
Under the guise of the autocracy which leaves everyone free, powerful and weak, rich
and poor, the powerful will definitely persecute the weak and the rich will surely
persecute the poor. In such a situation, to provide true liberty to the weak and the
poor, the state will have to impose some restrictions on the powerful and the rich,
provide security to the weak, and improve the economic condition of the poor. Only
then, will they be able to enjoy liberty in the state. It is from this situation of interference
by the states in the individual’s liberty, positive liberty begins.
Main features of Negative Liberty
The basic features of negative liberty are as follows:

1. Non-interference:- Negative liberty is about the absence of external interference
or restrictions. For example, freedom of speech is a negative liberty because it
allows individuals to express their views without censorship or punishment.
2. Limited power of the state:- Under negative liberty, the power of the state to
interfere in the personal life and work of an individual has been limited.
Constitutional protections, legal rights, and checks on government authority are
often seen as safeguards for negative liberty.
3. Liberty as a “non-interference zone”:- Negative liberty sees the freedom
of all individuals within the state as a “non-interference zone”. Here all the rights
of the individual and his actions are immune from external interference. The
larger this “non-interference zone”, the greater your negative liberty.
4. Private sphere:- Negative liberty is associated with the idea of a private sphere
in which individuals can make choices and live their lives free from state or
societal interference, as long as they do not harm others or violate their rights.
Self-Instructional
Material 95

NOTES Positive Liberty
Positive liberty means that the state should make concrete efforts to remove the social
and economic disabilities of the weaker sections so that everyone gets the opportunity
to acquire the means for their happiness. Positive liberty involves the basic idea that
every person’s self has two parts: a higher self and a lower self. Positive democracy
does not just mean that there should be no interference. Rather, it also includes the fact
that the person is his own master and his higher self has dominance over his lower self.
Positive liberty is the freedom to act. Under this, it is expected from the person that he
should take advantage of the opportunities provided by the state, whereas in negative
liberty, the existence of opportunities is enough. As J.S. Mill says, “Liberty means the
real development of the individual.” A free person is one who develops his desires and
interests independently and internally. Liberty is not just the absence of obstacles, but
it is self-knowledge.
Main features of Positive Liberty
The basic features of positive liberty are as follows:

1. Development of capabilities: Positive liberty underlines the importance of
providing necessary resources and conditions to individuals to develop their
capabilities. This includes access to education, health care, and economic
opportunities.
2. Self-actualisation: Positive liberty suggests that true autonomy is achieved
when individuals have the resources and opportunities to become their best
selves, pursue their aspirations, and reach their full potential.
3. Collective action: Positive liberty also refers to collective action, where
individuals work together to create conditions that enhance freedom for all
members of society. This includes political participation, social justice advocacy,
or other forms of collaboration.
4. State interference: Under positive liberty, the state intervenes to provide
opportunities and welfare to the individual. Through this intervention, the state
tries to ensure that individuals have the necessary resources and opportunities
to exercise their autonomy. This sometimes includes policies such as social
Self-Instructional welfare programs, public education, and health care.
96 Material

In short, positive liberty will be important for those people who are capable of NOTES
shaping their own lives. But for those who are surrounded by socio-economic
constraints and are completely incapable of improving their lives, arrangements for
positive liberty will be necessary. The distinction between positive and negative liberty
is not always absolute, and these concepts may be interrelated. In business, societies
often try to balance these two forms of liberties. While negative liberty focuses on
freedom from interference, positive liberty emphasises the presence of opportunities
and resources to live a self-determined life. The two concepts are often considered
together when discussing issues of individual liberty, social justice and the role of the
state in society.
Check Your Progress

6. What does negative liberty emphasise?
7. Who distinguished between negative and positive concepts of liberty?
8. What is the main idea behind positive liberty?
5.5 SUMMARY
In this chapter, you have learnt the concept of liberty, highlighting two distinct
perspectives: ancient and modern. Ancient liberty, prevalent in Greek and Roman
times, centered on state sovereignty, controlling individual life and freedoms. In contrast,
modern liberty prioritises individual freedoms, considering the state as a protector.
The differences between ancient and modern liberty encompass collective autonomy,
absence of representative government, religious freedom, geopolitical contexts, and
the state’s role in ensuring security.
It explains the relationship between liberty and autonomy, with a focus on
Immanuel Kant and J.S. Mill’s perspectives. Kant, in his deontological approach,
defines liberty as the self-determination of rational principles, emphasising moral
autonomy and responsibility. Mill, rooted in utilitarianism, introduces the harm principle,
limiting societal interference to prevent harm. Mill’s autonomy emphasises individual
choices and diversity, challenging conformity.
Self-Instructional
Material 97

NOTES The chapter also explores various definitions of liberty by thinkers like Hobbes,
Marx, and Popper, highlighting the contrasting views of Isaiah Berlin and J.S. Mill.
While negative liberty centers on non-interference, positive liberty underscores the
development of individual capabilities and collective action, acknowledging the nuanced
interplay between state intervention and personal freedom.
5.6 KEY WORDS
 Representative Government: It is a system where the government represents

the public, working for their freedom, rights, and welfare, a key feature of modern
liberty.
 Collective Autonomy: It refers to emphasis on community or collective decision-
making, characteristic of ancient liberty.
 Political Sovereignty: It is the authority and power of the state or ruler over
political matters, a key aspect of ancient liberty.
 Deontological Ethics: These theories emphasise the inherent worth of every
rational being and the adherence to moral duties and principles, as seen in Kant’s
philosophy.
 Non-Interference Zone: It is the concept associated with negative liberty,
depicting an area where individual rights and actions are immune from external
interference.
 Self-Actualisation: It is the realisation and fulfillment of one’s talents, potential,
and capabilities.
 Collective Action: It involves collaborative efforts by individuals working
together to create conditions that enhance freedom for all members of society.
Self-Instructional
98 Material

NOTES
QUESTIONS
1. Ancient liberty emphasises state sovereignty, while modern liberty prioritises

individual rights.
2. Benjamin Constant is credited for raising the controversy by comparing ancient
and modern liberty.
3. The main identity of modern liberty is individual liberty, with political liberty as
its guarantee.
4. Kant views freedom as a practical postulate, a necessary basis for rational
beings to determine their will.
5. Mill’s central idea in “On Liberty” is the “harm principle,” stating that societal
interference is justified only to prevent harm to others.
6. Negative liberty emphasises freedom from external interference or restrictions.
7. Isaiah Berlin distinguished between negative and positive concepts of liberty.
8. Positive liberty emphasises state efforts to eliminate social and economic
disparities and provide opportunities for individual development.

EXERCISES
1. Define the characteristics of ancient liberty.

2. State the key characteristics of modern independence in a state.
3. How does Kant define liberty in the form of autonomy in contrast to older
definitions?
4. Write a short note on the concept of a “non-interference zone” in negative
liberty.
Self-Instructional
Material 99

NOTES 5. What is the main focus of positive liberty, and how does it differ from negative
liberty?
6. Evaluate the role of representative government in shaping modern liberty.
7. Examine the views of ancient philosophers like Plato and modern thinkers like
Benjamin Constant on the concept of liberty.
8. Compare and contrast Kant and Mill’s views on liberty as autonomy, highlighting
their philosophical foundations and implications.
9. Analyse Kant’s concept of autonomy of the will and its implications for moral
freedom, using examples from his works.
10. Discuss Isaiah Berlin’s critique of positive liberty and its implications for individual
freedom.
Pettit, Philip. “Freedom in the Market.” Politics, Philosophy & Economics 5, no. 2.
2006: 131–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594x06064218.
Coleman, James S. “Individual Rights and the State: Anarchy, State, and Utopia.
Robert Nozick.” American Journal of Sociology 82, no. 2. 1976: 428–42.
https://doi.org/10.1086/ 226324.
Shaw, Carl K.Y. “Quentin Skinner on the proper meaning of Republican liberty.”
Politics, vol. 23, no. 1, 2003, pp. 46–56, https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-
9256.00179.
Sellers, M. N. “The concept of Republican liberty.” The Sacred Fire of Liberty, 1998,
pp. 73–77, https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230371811_16.
Sen, Amartya Kumar. Development as Freedom, Oxford University Press, Oxford,
2001, pp. 3– 11.
Self-Instructional
100 Material

Debates on Freedom-II
CHAPTER 6 NOTES
DEBATES ON FREEDOM-II
Kaushik Kumar
Structure
6.0 Introduction
6.1 Objectives
6.2 Liberty and Market
6.3 Republican Determination
6.4 Development as Freedom
6.5 Summary
6.6 Key Words
6.0 INTRODUCTION
In the sequel to the exploration of freedom’s landscape, this chapter ventures deeper
into the mesh of ideologies, offering a nuanced panorama of the ongoing discourse.
Progressing forward, the chapter embarks on a journey through the records of
philosophical treatises, historical revolutions, and contemporary quandaries, seeking
to explore the threads that weave the fabric of freedom.
Self-Instructional
Material 101

NOTES At the heart of this chapter lies an inquiry into the very essence of liberty, probing
the tensions between individual freedoms and societal obligations. Drawing inspiration
from a spectrum of intellectual traditions, we navigate the divergent paths carved by
thinkers who have grappled with the delicate balance between personal autonomy
and the collective welfare.
From the revolutionary fervour that birthed nations to the ethical quandaries
posed by modern technological advancements, the debate on freedom takes center
stage, presenting itself as a dynamic force that shapes the contours of our societies.
This chapter will motivate readers to critically examine the evolving narratives,
encouraging a thoughtful engagement with the enduring questions surrounding freedom
in an ever-changing world.
6.1 OBJECTIVES

 Discuss the interaction between individual freedom and market dynamics
 Analyse the contributions and limitations of republican ideals in contemporary
societies
 Explain the potential synthesis of republican and negative freedom concepts
 Evaluate the role of freedom as a catalyst for societal progress and well-being
 Define the basic features of development from a liberty-centric perspective
6.2 LIBERTY AND MARKET
In political theory, liberty refers to a broad area. It plays an important role in social,
political and economic fields. In the economic field, the meaning of liberty is not limited
only to the economic activities of a person in his life (job, business, trade), but now its
scope has become wide. Now people mainly demand more freedom in the economic
Self-Instructional
system. The demand for more freedom in the economic system is not a new concept,
102 Material

but its beginning is considered to be from the time of Adam Smith and John Locke. NOTES
Giving more importance to the liberty of the individual, they supported the principle of
free will in the economic field. They support the complete rights and freedom of the
individual over land, labour and capital and oppose any kind of interference by the
state. The issue of freedom in economic system was mainly started by liberal and neo-
liberal thinkers. The 19th century, which mainly included Adam Smith, David Roccardo,
John Locke, etc., emphasised that there should be no state interference in the economy
or the market. These thinkers advocated for a complete ban of the interference of the
state in the economic activities of the individual. In 20th century, thinkers like Robert
Nozick, Friedman, Hayek, etc., believed that the state could interfere with individual
freedom only to a certain extent in the context of “the development and welfare of the
individual”. Interference in the freedom of an individual is necessary because the whole
world is anarchic and in this world, not only human is the enemy of other human but
there are also some natural things which affect the nature of human being.
When we talk about freedom within the economic system, we mainly limit our thoughts
around these three things: market, capital (labour) and regulation. In the last few years,
thinkers have given their different views regarding freedom in the economic system.
Among them, Philippe Petit Mukherjee is the one who has described freedom in the
economic system in his writing “Freedom in the Market (2006)”. Apart from this, A.
F. A. Hayek’s work “The Constitution of Liberty (1960)” was written. In Friedman’s
famous book “Capitalism and Freedom (1962)” and Robert Nozick’s “Anarchy, State,
and Utopia (1974)”, we see ideas related to freedom in the economic system.
The market has traditionally been seen as an example of a system within which
people enjoy freedom. Especially liberals and neo-liberals who see freedom as non-
interference in an individual’s life and support negative liberty. They are in favour of
limiting the interference of the state in the economic fields of the individual. In his book
“Wealth of Nation”, Adam Smith, while giving his views on the freedom of the individual
in the economic system, mentioned that “A person is a logical creature, a person
knows his good and bad, moral and immoral and hence the state should not make any
kind of interference in the economic activities of the individual (especially the market).
He believed that the individual is governed by natural laws which are universal. The Self-Instructional
Material 103

NOTES state cannot make any rules or laws and impose them on individuals, therefore the
state should not interfere in economic activities. Control of economic activities will be
based on the market, which Adam Smith has named the “Invisible Hand”. He believes
more in the autonomy of the individual. He believed that “leaving all the individuals free
will benefit the entire society” because if a person does any work in the society, he
does it for his own benefit, which also includes public interest.
According to him, the basis of beginning of market system is also self-interest
because a person wants to develop himself, that is why he gradually moves towards
the market, contributes to the economic system by earning capital, but in this process,
there must also be some limits of the market, so that the negative forces prevalent in
the state cannot create obstacles in the freedom of expression of any other person.
But these boundaries can be created only by natural rules and laws and not by the
state. Adam Smith believes that a clear line should be drawn between the private
sector and the public sector; neither the state will interfere in the personal freedom of
the individual nor the individual will interfere in the functioning of the state.
John Locke talks about natural rights which include the right to life, the right to
liberty, and the right to property. Locke believes that the right to property is a natural
right of the individual, because he believed that the individual had the right to property
even before the advent of states. But at that time the property did not belong to any
one person but belonged to all the persons, i.e. it was a shared property.
Property becomes private property when a person accumulates it through his
own hard work. A person should accumulate only as much property as he needs, so
that property can be left for other people also. John Locke talks about three types of
limitations:-
1. Limit of not being wasteful: Locke believes that a person should use or
acquire only as much property as he can consume. (Property should not be
acquired more than necessary)
2. Limit of sufficiency: A person should use only as much as is necessary as
per his need and requirement so that adequate amount of property can be
left for other people also. (The property must also reach other persons.
3. Limitation of labour: A person can acquire only as much wealth as he
could earn through his own labour. (Accumulation of wealth should be done
Self-Instructional
104 Material by oneself)

Friedman presented ideas related to liberty in his book “Capitalism and freedom”. NOTES
He believed that freedom is a delicate plant which we should protect. The biggest
threat to liberty comes from the totality of power, that is, working only to increase
power will destroy liberty. While giving great emphasis on individuality, Friedman
believed that an individual is capable of doing any kind of work and the state will act as
a means to reach the individual to his goals. He also believed in the division of private
and public sector and opined that political sector and economic sector are different
things. But after state’s involvement, both get together. Betham believes that political
freedom is a means to reach economic freedom but after the arrival of the state,
political freedom has become a mere instrument.
Hayek, while criticising Bentham, opined that political liberty is a means of
economic liberty, but he talks about three topics. What is the role of market? A person
does only that work which is in his interest. He believed that when a person’s self-
interests are driven by self-love, the interests of one person collide with the interests of
another person, that is, the differences of opinion arise. To end this conflict, it is necessary
to have a state. But there should be minimal interference from the state.
Friedman says that state should play the role of an empire, it should intervene
only in the context of right or wrong interests. He also talks about self-determination
versus power. Hayek believes that the market is a system in which the individual
enjoys his freedom and at the same time there exists increasing competition in the
market. As competition increases, a person enjoys more options. Thinkers like Robert
Nozick have also questioned the regulation and taxes imposed by the state in the
economic system. He refuted the “principle of progressive taxation” and said that “the
state will impose only that much taxation as is necessary for maintaining law and order
and security of the state”. These give a person the right to acquire unlimited property,
because according to him, the person has established control over this property
(objects) through his talent and ability and the property acquired by the person is a
part of his personality. Therefore, the state has no right to interfere in this property
through tax or regulation. Similarly, Hayek also supported Nozick’s ideas and he also
opposed “progressive taxation”, because it is against the principle of ‘equal work and
equal pay’. According to him, the state punishes the skilled person through progressive
taxation. It is Free Exchange that is also called the Fair Exchange.
Self-Instructional
Material 105

NOTES Freedom in Market
When we talk about freedom in the market, it refers to the economic philosophy of
free-market capitalism, which emphasises individual economic freedom, voluntary
exchange, and minimal government interference in economic transactions. In this context,
“market freedom” refers to the idea that individuals, businesses, and other economic
actors should have the freedom to make economic decisions and transactions without
excessive government regulation or pressure. The main aspects of this idea can be
seen as follows:-
1. Individual economic freedom: It is rooted in the idea that individuals have the
right to make choices about their economic activities. This includes the freedom
to start and run a business, choose one’s own business, and contract with others.
2. Voluntary Regulation: The market operates on the principle of voluntary
exchange. People make financial transactions voluntarily with mutual consent.
Buyers and sellers agree to trade because they believe it will benefit them, and
no one is forced to participate in such activities.
3. Right to property: Security of property rights is essential in a free-market
system. People have the freedom to own, use and dispose of their property,
which includes articles, land and intellectual property.
4. Competition: Competition is seen as a driving force of market freedom. It
encourages innovation, efficiency and better products and services. In a
competitive market, individuals are free to enter and exit businesses at any time,
and consumers have multiple choices.
5. Minimal government interference: It supports limited government
interference in economic activities. And argues that government intervention
should focus primarily on property rights, enforcing contracts, and preventing
fraud.
6. Consumer choice: Market freedom provides consumers with a wide range of
choices, allowing them to make decisions that reflect their preferences and values.
Self-Instructional
106 Material

NOTES
Check Your Progress
1. What does John Locke consider as natural rights?
2. Why does Locke believe that the right to property is a natural right of the individual?
6.3 REPUBLICAN DETERMINATION
The past two decades have seen a revival of republicanism in the field of political
theory. Most importantly, it discusses the concepts of freedom related to revivalism,
due to which we get an opportunity to know new concepts like Republican Liberty.
Republicanism is derived from Roman ideas of what it means to be a free citizen. Is
this just not being a slave? Quentin Skinner is the most prominent thinker to present
the relevance of republican freedom to contemporary political theory, who has tried to
reorganise republican freedom as a method of negative liberty. Applying Machiavelli’s
republicanism, he attempts to distinguish democratic liberty from the Aristotelian theory
of eudaimonia and the tradition of positive liberty. Furthermore, Skinner attempts to
demonstrate that republican thinkers take a different view on the relationship between
liberty and legal constraints, such that law becomes a normal condition of individual
liberty rather than a mere interference. Thus, he concludes that republicanism provides
a better solution for maintaining liberty than liberalism, which privileges individual rights
at the expense of public duties.
Republican Freedom
Republican freedom is an idea that emphasises the absence of domination or arbitrary

interference as a central element of freedom. Commonly called “Republican Liberty”
or the “Republican Theory of liberty”, this concept of liberty has its roots in classical
and early modern political thought and is different from other conceptions of liberty,
such as negative liberty and positive liberty. Republicans place greater importance on
libertarian law, which emphasises the importance of laws and regulations in promoting
Self-Instructional
Material 107

NOTES the common good, or the well-being of everyone in society. According to this theory,
true freedom can exist only when laws exist and these laws must be followed by one
and all. In other words, freedom doesn’t mean doing whatever you want without any
rules; this would be considered harmful and chaotic. To ensure this type of freedom, a
special form of government is required which is called “Republican Constitution”. This
government has certain protections and rights for its citizens, such as the right to vote.
In this system, elected representatives take decisions after careful consideration to
determine what is best for the common interest.
Under this, laws and regulations are considered legitimate only if their purpose
is to promote the well-being of society as a whole, and this is determined through
public discussions and elections. The government must also have a system of checks
and balances, where no one part of the government has too much power, and the rule
of law must be maintained. This doctrine emphasises the need to create a strong and
stable government, which is necessary to protect self-government, as the Founding
Fathers of the United States recognised when they established the Constitution. This
concept of republican autocracy has deep historical roots, stretching back to the times
of ancient Rome and Cicero.
Main Features of Republican Freedom
Following are the features of republican freedom which attempts to look at the concept
of liberty from a new perspective:
 Absence of Domination: Republican libertarian claims that true freedom is
the absence of domination by others. Being free from direct pressure is not
enough, individuals should also be free from the arbitrary power of others. This
means that political and social institutions or groups should be structured to
prevent them from exercising arbitrary power over each other.
 The common good and civic virtue: Republicans emphasise the importance
of the common good and civic virtue in maintaining liberty. Civic engagement,
participation, and a sense of responsibility to the community are considered
essential in maintaining republican freedom.
 Civic engagement and participation: Active civic engagement, participation
in self-governance, and a strong sense of political responsibility are seen as
Self-Instructional
108 Material

important components of republican liberty. Citizens are encouraged to play an NOTES

active role in the political process and hold their leaders accountable.
 Mixed Government: Republican theorist Aksener advocates a mixed or
balanced form of government that combines elements of monarchy, aristocracy,
and democracy. This system is designed to prevent any one faction from gaining
too much power and potentially dominating others.
 Rule of law: The rule of law in a republic is important to ensure that decisions
and actions are based on established laws and principles rather than the whims
of individuals in power.
Prominent figures associated with the development of republican liberty include
thinkers such as Niccolo Machiavelli, Jameson Harrington, and Montesquieu. Their
work contributed to the development of the concept and its application in a variety of
political contexts.
In order to understand the origins and development of the concept of Skinner

Republicanism, emphasis has been given on the importance of studying the political
thoughts of Machiavelli and other early modern and classical writers of Roman Republic.
Skinner argues that the key to understanding the theory of republican liberty is to
analyse the language and terminology used by these thinkers in their historical context.
According to Skinner, autonomy in the republican sense is not only the absence of
external pressure but also includes the absence of arbitrary power and domination. He
distinguishes between two forms of liberty: the “neo-Roman” concept and the “neo-
Athenian” concept. The Neo-Roman concept, with which Skinner is more closely
associated, focuses on the idea that freedom involves non-domination and the absence
of arbitrary power. He also stressed the importance of reconciling different concepts
of liberty, such as negative liberty (freedom from interference) and positive liberty
(freedom in the form of self-realisation).
Harmony between republican and negative freedom
After completing “The Foundations of Modern Political Thought (1978)” and

“Machiavelli (1981),” Skinner began to elaborate on the contemporary-relevance of Self-Instructional
Material 109

NOTES republican autocracy in a remarkable series of works, the “Oxford Past Masters series.”
(Skinner, 1983, 1984, 1986, 1990, 1992 and 1998). These writings establish two
important aspects of logic.
Firstly, he argued that the concept of republican freedom should be seen as a
form of negative liberty, meaning freedom from the interference or control of others,
rather than the commonly held positive liberty, which implies freedom from the
interference or control of others. It is about the ability to achieve one’s goals and self-
realisation.
Secondly, Skinner emphasised that civic duty, or citizens’ focus on their
responsibility to actively participate in their community, is more appropriate in maintaining
liberty in liberal societies (those that value individual rights and freedom).
Skinner mainly tries to establish harmony between republican freedom and
negative liberty. He advances his views by refuting thinkers such as Berlin and Taylor.
In contrast to both Isaiah Berlin and Charles Taylor, Quentin Skinner argues that
neither negative nor positive liberals truly understand the basic meaning of republican
liberty. Both sides agree that republican independence should be based on Aristotelian
principles. Skinner believes that this shared belief is wrong. He claims that the Aristotelian
view of citizenship, where citizens share moral goals and a conception of the good, is
not the only way to conceptualise republicanism. Skinner adopts Berlin’s ideas to
distinguish between negative and positive liberty and believes that positive liberty is
related to metaphysical monism, which is the idea that everything is connected and
unified. For this, Skinner emphasises Machiavelli’s idea about republicanism which is
presented in “Discourses (1531)”.
Skinner associates Machiavelli with negative liberty, because Machiavelli has
no contradiction with the Hobbesian notion. Both believed that the true meaning of the
term “liberty” is “the ability to pursue one’s goals without hindrance.” The republican
theory of liberty can, therefore, be accommodated ‘within a general negative analysis
of political liberty’. Skinner highlights that Machiavelli rejects the Ciceronian correlation
between justice and the common good. According to Skinner, the most important
method used by Machiavelli is to establish law as the guardian of liberty. Skinner’s
main conclusion is that, given the inevitable tendency to corruption inherent in human
nature, ‘laws can and should be used to make us free.’ Since the common good must
Self-Instructional
110 Material

preserve individual freedom in a free state, this means that citizens must be dedicated NOTES
to the preservation of the common good as a prerequisite to their liberty. If they fail in
this task, their failure is a sign of political irrationality.
Concept of Law
Skinner believes that for liberals, there are two contradictions in the republican concept.
The first is that republicanism links freedom with self-government and the protection
of individual liberty with public service. The second paradox is the idea of being ‘forced
to be free’. Skinner believes that these contradictions can be resolved if we abandon
the liberal foundation that views legal constraints as intrusive, taking a different view of
the institutional framework within which individual liberty can be maintained.
A common theme in republicanism is that a good system should have the rule of
law. However, it has been observed that Skinner saw some theoretical shortcomings
with the proper functioning of laws in an autocratic state. To overcome these
shortcomings, he presents two concepts of law in different contexts:
 Law as a liberatory institution: According to this concept, an effort is
made to reduce corruption which arises from personal interest. In this, people
are reformed through the power of law and public good is considered of
utmost importance. Therefore, Skinner regards law as a liberatory agency
and sees it as a civic virtue. By this, we can also protect the common good
and freedom. The law behaves in such a way that it allows the personal
interest of the people to remain personal interest and takes it towards the
public interest and also promotes the individual freedom of the people because
individual freedom is protected only by common good. The function of law
is to free citizens from the bondage of their natural self-interest and to secure
their state of freedom by the use of force. According to Skinner, individuals
should have laws as restraints that compel them to act properly so that the
common good and liberty can be preserved.
 Law as an invisible hand: To protect the idea of republican liberty as
negative liberty, he offered another idea of law that is similar to the ‘invisible
hand’ that he deployed against liberals. Skinner has criticised the liberal
state on the grounds that it leads to corruption and gives more importance to
Self-Instructional
Material 111

NOTES individual interest whereas in republican liberty individual liberty is protected

by the public interest. The imagination of the invisible hand is free from
bondage, hence it is negative liberty.
In short, Skinner has made an important contribution in expanding republican
freedom into contemporary political theory. He has tried to visualise this theory as a
new approach different from other forms of liberty. However, he has criticised liberty
by presenting proper arguments on the other views made on liberty (negative and
positive). But in elaborating on the contemporary relevance of republican freedom,
Skinner does not go beyond Berlin’s dualistic framework. Skinner accepts Berlin’s
notion of positive auto ethnology, which separates republican autoethnography from
the spiritual idea of self-realisation, which creates theoretical difficulties.
Check Your Progress

3. What are the main features of Republican Freedom?
4. What is the role of law in maintaining individual freedom according to Skinner’s
concept of law as a liberatory institution?
6.4 DEVELOPMENT AS FREEDOM
Under contemporary political theory, freedom has been studied by linking it with
development, which has been defined as “development as self-government”.
Development can be seen as a process of expanding the real freedom of people. This
concept of independence mainly gives a new identity to independence and defines it as
development. The word “development” is associated with increase in national product,
increase in personal income, industrialisation, technological progress, and social
modernisation. This view of freedom has been mainly propounded by Nobel Prize
winning economist Amratya Sen in his book “Development as Freedom (1999)”. He
argued that the growth of personal income could certainly be important as a means of
expanding the freedom enjoyed by members of society. But if freedom is defined in
terms of development, autonomy also depends on other determinants, such as social
and economic conditions (for example, access to education and health care), as well
Self-Instructional
112 Material
as political and civil rights (for example, freedom to participate in public discussion

and investigation). Similarly, industrialisation, technological progress, and social NOTES

modernisation can contribute significantly to the expansion of individual freedom, but
freedom cannot be limited to these parameters alone. It also depends on other
influences. Development in the form of self-regulation carries a broader meaning in
which ups and downs are seen on daily basis.
In his book “Development as Freedom (1999)”, Sen has tried to look at freedom as
a form of development from a new dimension. He also developed a critique of forms
of economic evaluation that relied on utilitarianism or libertarianism, or on the work of
John Rawls on the distribution of primary goods. These inspired him to emphasise the
importance of ‘expansion of independence as both the primary goal and principal
means of development’. Moreover, not only directly but also indirectly: Sen’s works
have stimulated important debates on many other topics, including the measurement of
inequality, the causes of famine, capital and savings, and the role of savings and non-
market institutions. This is the important factor which forced Sen to see freedom linked
with development. According to Sen, despite the increase in overall prosperity, the
contemporary world deprives a large number of people of basic freedoms (food,
clothing, shelter), sometimes the lack of real freedom is directly related to the economic
poverty that people experience that deprives the individual of the ability to obtain
adequate nutrition, receive treatment for curable diseases, be adequately clothed, seek
shelter, or enjoy voluntary pleasures. Thus, non-freedom is closely related to the lack
of public facilities and social care, such as absence of promotional programs for the
treatment of diseases, lack of organised system for health care and educational facilities,
maintenance of local peace and order, absence of effective institutions, thereby meaning
that freedom of an individual is not only violated by interfering in his work but the lack/
absence of these facilities in a person’s life also violates his freedom. Violations of
liberty result directly from the government’s denial of political and civil liberties and
restrictions on individuals’ freedom to participate in social, political, and economic life.
Freedom is not only an important component of development itself, but it also
contributes to strengthening other types of liberties and autonomous agencies of
development. Amratya Sen takes this idea forward by defining some important aspects
of “Development as Freedom”. Self-Instructional
Material 113

NOTES Political Liberty and Quality of Life
The difference that comes to us by seeing self-reliance as the goal of development, can
be analysed in some points, such as increase in Gross National Product (GNP) or
development in terms of industrialisation, per capita income, role of market. However,
the complete scenario of this perspective can emerge only through more comprehensive
analysis. Sen explains the nature of the idea of “development as freedom” with three
examples:
 First example: Increase in Gross National Product or as we understand it in
the context of industrialisation. According to Sen, when some people think about
development, they focus on things like making more money (gross national
product or GNP) or industrialisation. They do not realise that things like political
freedom, the ability to participate in politics, or access to basic education are
necessary for development. But if we look at development as freedom, we
realise that these freedoms are a fundamental part of self-development.
 Second example: It relates to the discrepancy between per capita income and
the freedom of individuals to live a long and good life. For example, the level of
per capita income in some countries like Gabon or South Africa may be higher
than in countries like Sri Lanka or China. However, people in the latter countries
live longer and healthier lives. Thus, freedom here is not just about making
money (higher income), it is also about the freedom to live a good life and life
expectancy (long life).
According to Sen, even within rich countries, there can be significant differences
in living conditions. For example, African Americans in the United States may
have a lower average income than white Americans, but they may be less likely
to live to old age than people in some developing countries such as China or Sri
Lanka. This shows that development is not just about making money; that is,
this rule is generally applicable in all countries (developed and developing). It
supports factors such as health care, education and community support even in
developed countries. The idea of “development as freedom” means that
development is not just about economic growth, but also about the fundamental
freedoms and opportunities that people have, which play an instrumental role in
improving their lives.
Self-Instructional
114 Material

 Third example: It relates to the role of markets in development. Markets, NOTES

where people buy and sell goods and services, are considered essential for
economic growth and progress. However, Sen emphasises that markets are
not merely instruments of economic development; they are also related to the
basic freedoms of the people. He refers to the ideas of economist Adam Smith,
who highlighted that the freedom to engage in exchanges and transactions is one
of the fundamental freedoms that people naturally value. According to Sen,
while markets are indeed important for economic development, it is equally
important to recognise that the freedom to exchange goods, services and ideas
is a fundamental human right and a key aspect of development.
Transactions, Market and Economic Freedom
The contribution of the market mechanism to economic development is important, but

this comes only after accepting the obvious importance of freedom of exchange of
ideas, goods and services. One of the key development challenges in many developing
countries today involves the need to free labour from its inherent constraints. These
countries deny themselves access to “free labour markets”. It would be difficult to
imagine that any process of substantial development could go on without the extensive
use of markets, but this does not preclude the role of social support, public regulation
or governance. To understand economic freedom, Sen narrates an incident from his
childhood:-
“I lived in Dhaka city, which is now the capital of Bangladesh, for about ten
years. One afternoon, I was playing in the garden of our house when I saw a man
screaming pitifully, bleeding profusely. I saw him outside the gate, he had been stabbed
in the back. Those were the days of communal riots (in which Hindus and Muslims
were killing each other). The bloodied man, named Kader Miyan, was a Muslim daily
wage labourer, who had come to a neighbour’s house for work (for a small reward)
when he was stabbed on the road by some communal thugs. As I gave him water,
while also appealing to the elders in the house for help, and moments later, when my
father took him to the hospital, Kader Miyan told us that his wife had asked him not to
go to the hostile area. But Kader Mia had to go out in search of work and a little
earning because his family had nothing to eat. The punishment for his “economic
freedom” came in the form of death, which later took place in a hospital.”
Self-Instructional
Material 115

NOTES Sen also pointed out the noteworthy fact that economic un-freedom in the form
of extreme poverty can make an individual a helpless victim of the violation of other
types of freedom. Kader Mia would not have needed to come to a hostile area in
search of a little income in those terrible times if his family had been financially well off
and would have been able to survive without this income. Economic un-freedom can
give rise to social un-freedom, similarly social or political un-freedom can also give
rise to economic un-freedom.
Organisation and Value
In the process of development, it allows the integration of the important roles of many
different institutes, which include market organisations, local authorities, political parties,
civil society institutions, and educational institutions etc. It also allows us to acknowledge
the role of social values and prevailing customs, which can influence the freedoms that
people enjoy. Prevailing values and social customs also influence the presence or
absence of corruption and the role of trust in economic, social and political relations.
Freedom is exercised as mediated by values, but values are in turn influenced by
public discussions and social interactions, which are themselves influenced by
participatory freedom. The fact that freedom of economic transactions is generally a
major engine of economic growth is widely accepted, even though it has strong critics.
But here it is important not only to give markets their due, but also to appreciate the
role of economic, social and political autonomy in giving people a better life.
Development as Liberty: Basic Features
Sen argues that development should not be measured only by traditional economic
indicators such as GNP growth, GDP growth, industrialisation, per capita income,
labour and markets, technological progress, but should be understood as expansion in
the freedom and capabilities of individuals. The following features of “Development as
Freedom” propounded by him can be seen:
1. Human Capabilities: Sen argues that development should be seen as a process
of expanding the capabilities and options available to individuals. He emphasises
that people should have the freedom to live the lives they value and make choices
that enable them to achieve their aspirations.
Self-Instructional
116 Material

2. Freedom as both a means and an end: Sen sees autonomy as both a necessary NOTES
means of development and a fundamental end. He believes that increasing
individual freedom and capabilities is not only a desirable outcome of
development but also a necessary condition for achieving it.
3. Inequality and poverty: Sen’s approach emphasises the importance of
eliminating inequalities in access to education, health and care, and economic
opportunities. He argues that reducing poverty and inequality is central to
promoting freedom and development.
4. Functioning and Capabilities: Sen introduces the concepts of “functioning”
and “capabilities” to assess development. Activities refer to the various things a
person can value doing or being (for example, having good health, being literate),
while capabilities are the actual opportunities people have to achieve these tasks.
5. Public Policy and Social Choice: Sen’s approach to development underlines
the role of public policy and the importance of democratic decision making. He
argues that societies should collectively make choices that promote freedom
and expansion of capabilities, and that development policies should be evaluated
based on their impact on human well-being.
6. Focus on individual agency: Sen’s work emphasises the role of individual
agency in development. He believes that people should have the freedom to
participate in decisions that affect their lives, and development should empower
individuals to exercise their agency.
In short, freedom is not only the primary goal of development but also one of its
principal means. Political liberty (in the form of free speech and elections) helps promote
economic security. Social opportunities (in the form of education and health facilities)
facilitate economic participation. Economic facilities (in the form of opportunities to
participate in trade and production) can help generate public resources for individual
abundance as well as social amenities. In this way, different types of autonomy can
strengthen each other.
Self-Instructional
Material 117

NOTES
Check Your Progress
5. According to Sen, what does development involve beyond economic indicators
like national product and industrialisation?
6. According to Sen, what does the term “development as self-government”
imply?
6.5 SUMMARY
In this chapter, you have learnt the concepts of freedom and market, republican
conception and freedom as development. Beginning with historical figures like Adam
Smith and John Locke, the discourse evolves through 19th-century liberal thinkers to
20th-century scholars like Robert Nozick and Friedman. The economic system,
encompassing market, capital, and regulation, takes center stage. Philosophical
perspectives, including Adam Smith’s “Invisible Hand” and Locke’s natural rights, are
explored. Friedman advocates for protecting the delicate plant of freedom, while Hayek
emphasises minimal state interference.
It dissects the concepts of republican freedom and its relevance, challenging the
dichotomy of negative and positive liberty. Skinner advocates for a form of negative
liberty within republicanism, aligning civic duty with individual rights. Republican freedom
is portrayed as a system emphasising the common good, civic virtue, and the rule of
law.
“Development as Freedom” by Nobel laureate Amartya Sen redefines
development by linking it to real freedom. Sen argues that focusing solely on economic
indicators like GNP growth overlooks crucial aspects of development. He asserts that
true development expands individual capabilities and freedoms, emphasising human
well-being, equality, and democratic decision-making. Sen’s critique challenges utilitarian
and libertarian economic evaluations, urging a holistic view where development is not
just about economic growth but about fundamental freedoms.
Self-Instructional
118 Material

NOTES
6.6 KEY WORDS
 Progressive Taxation: It is a tax system where the rate increases as the taxable
amount increases.
 Free Exchange: It, also known as Fair Exchange, is a concept advocating
equal work and equal pay in economic transactions.
 Republican Liberty: It is an idea emphasising the absence of domination or
arbitrary interference as central to freedom, rooted in classical and early modern
political thought.
 Mixed Government: It is a balanced form advocated by Republican theorist
Aksener, combining elements of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy to
prevent the concentration of power.

QUESTIONS
1. According to John Locke, natural rights include the right to life, liberty, and
property.
2. Locke believes that the right to property is a natural right of the individual,
because he believed that the individual had the right to property even before the
advent of states.
3. Absence of domination, common good, civic virtue, civic engagement, mixed
government, and the rule of law.
4. It acts to free citizens from the bondage of their natural self-interest and secures
their state of freedom.
5. Development involves expanding real freedom, including political, social, and
economic conditions.
6. The term ‘developmenet as self-government’ implies that development is a
process of expanding the real freedom of people, giving new identity to Self-Instructional
independence and defining it as development. Material 119

NOTES
EXERCISES
1. List the three limitations on property accumulation according to John Locke.

2. How does Hayek reconcile the role of the state in resolving conflicts arising
from self interest in the market?
3. State the main features of republican freedom.
4. How does Skinner establish harmony between republican freedom and negative
liberty?
5. How does Sen emphasise the role of markets in development?
6. Briefly explain the relationship between different types of autonomy, as highlighted
by Sen.
7. Discuss the evolution of the debate on freedom in the economic system from
the 19th century to the 20th century, highlighting key thinkers and their
contributions.
8. Evaluate the arguments presented by Robert Nozick against progressive
taxation, emphasising the connection between property rights and individual
autonomy.
9. Examine the role of civic engagement and civic virtue in maintaining republican
liberty.
10. Evaluate Quentin Skinner’s contributions to expanding the concept of republican
freedom in contemporary political theory.
Pettit, Philip. “Freedom in the Market.” Politics, Philosophy & Economics 5, no. 2.
2006: 131–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594x06064218.
Self-Instructional
120 Material

Coleman, James S. “Individual Rights and the State: Anarchy, State, and Utopia. NOTES
Robert Nozick.” American Journal of Sociology 82, no. 2. 1976: 428–42.
https://doi.org/10.1086/ 226324.
9256.00179.
pp. 73–77, https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230371811_16.
2001, pp. 3–11.
Self-Instructional
Material 121

UNIT IV: DEBATES ON EQUALITY
CHAPTER 7 DEBATES ON EQUALITY-I
CHAPTER 8 DEBATES ON EQUALITY-II

Debates on Equality-I
CHAPTER 7 NOTES
DEBATES ON EQUALITY-I
Rupal
Structure
7.0 Introduction
7.1 Objectives
7.2 Equality: An Introduction
7.3 Value of Equality
7.4 Equality of Opportunity
7.5 Equality of What?
7.5.2 Equality of Resources
7.6 Summary
7.7 Key Words
7.0 INTRODUCTION
Equality is an important topic of study in normative political theory, because the concept
of equality is linked to the principle of liberty on one hand and the principle of justice
on the other. Dworkin has said that the social value of the existence of all political
principles is the same – ‘equality’. In this chapter we will discuss questions like value
of equality, equality of opportunity, equality of what should be there, etc. Apart from
this, an attempt has been made to explain egalitarianism so that a comprehensive
understanding of the topic of equality can be developed.
Self-Instructional
Material 125

NOTES
7.1 OBJECTIVES

 Understand meaning and value of equality for individual and society
 Evaluate the ethical and moral considerations associated with the value of
equality
 Analyse how societal structures can either promote or hinder equal opportunities
 Discuss different dimensions of equality, including welfare, resources, and
capabilities
7.2 EQUALITY: AN INTRODUCTION
The idea of equality holds an important place in political discussions. The idea of
equality is a complicated idea. The notion of equality can be understood in a specific
context or only from a relative perspective, not at an abstract level. Equality is a notion
of multiple concepts. It is necessary to make it clear that equality is an element of
which demand is made. This is not a quality that we are describing. We can say that
humans should be treated equally, but do not say that humans are actually equal.
When we talk about equality in a metaphorical sense, we say that “all human beings
are equal by birth” or it is said that man is a rational being and from this point of view
all human beings are equal. The meaning of all these logics is that we all human beings
should have equal rights. We do not claim that the physical, mental capabilities, talent
etc. of all human beings are equal or equivalent. Appointing different people on different
positions on the basis of ability, experience, talent is not against the principle of equality.
Equality does not exist factually. The supporters of equality demand to remove those
inequalities of social life which appear unfair or illogical. Equality achieves certain
values. In doing so, it strengthens its moral appeal and its unique position as an
autonomous value. Equality is most important in the context of achieving different
goals. The four values of equality are as follows:
Self-Instructional
126 Material

1. First, equality is needed to maintain fairness. NOTES

2. Second, equality is necessary for self-respect.
3. Third, along with equality, there is also a duty to show respect towards others.
4. Fourth, equality is necessary to promote the feeling of fraternity.
The four goals of equality described above are complementary to each other.
Together they confirm equality. At the same time, they also express the importance of
particular aspects of equality when taken separately. The argument for fairness based
on distributive justice emphasises satisfying the basic needs of all people equally. The
argument in favour of equality from the point of view of self-respect presents an argument
in favour of equality of status. The argument emphasising the equal respect aspect
highlights that all individuals should get equal opportunities for their development (Miller:
1996). Finally, the argument advocating viewpoint of fraternity emphasises on social
equality.
Check Your Progress

1. What is the metaphorical expression used for equality?
2. How does the argument for distributive justice relate to fairness in equality?
7.3 VALUE OF EQUALITY
Bernard Williams has discussed the concept of equality in detail in his article “The Idea
of Equality”. Bernard says that in political discourse, the idea of equality emphasises
the fact that people are equal and that people should be treated equally. Williams has
analysed two types of equality claims.
1. As a descriptive claim, we believe that all people are equal. Being human beings,
all are equal.
2. As a matter of genuine fact, we believe that all people should be treated equally.
As humans, we believe that we are fundamentally equal and that we all have
equal dignity. In particular, we try to achieve this ideal in the social, economic and
political structures of our society. When we want to be treated equally, we resort to Self-Instructional
Material 127

NOTES the concept of equality. Similarly, when we have to claim that we are equally entitled to
social goods, we insist on applying the concept of equality. But what does it mean to
be treated equally? It is argued that we humans may have inequality in some respect,
but as humans we all have equal importance. As humans we have a social existence.
We have different levels of intelligence and unequal abilities, and we live in different
types of societies. But there are similarities between human beings in terms of basic
aspects. All humans have the capacity to experience attachment or connection to
others. Additionally, humans also have the capacity to absorb the consequences of
such attachment. In fact, such capabilities also have a moral significance.
Bernard Williams believes that these capacities are moral capacities, which are
universal to all humanity. However, as humans we have other characteristics as well.
These characteristics connect us to other human beings in important ways. The desire
for self-respect is one such characteristic. It helps us to achieve our goals without
becoming the instrument of others’ will. In short, there are some common things in our
collective experiences that form the core of our egalitarian ideas. It enables us to
achieve certain specific objectives. Also, with its help we are able to achieve some
important goals in our struggles against unequal relations and unequal social systems.
Equality, along with other political values such as justice and freedom, forms a
framework with which we make political decisions and explain certain viewpoints.
Besides, with the help of this framework we can also decide the form of political
action. (Bhargava: 2011:61)
Check Your Progress

3. What are the two types of equality claims discussed by Bernard Williams?
4. What role does equality play alongside justice and freedom in political decision-
making?
7.4 EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY
In his book “A Theory of Justice”, Rawls has propounded an egalitarian theory whose
objective is to establish fair equality of opportunity. Equality of opportunity is a political
Self-Instructional
128 Material
ideal that advocates fair social stratification in society, which opposes inequality based

on race, gender, ethnicity, or social status. Equality of opportunity means that there NOTES
should be no artificial basis for discriminating among people of the society in any way.
Rawls believes that there should be equal distribution of all primary goods such as
freedom and opportunity, income and wealth, and self-respect. This should be done
until the unequal distribution of all goods benefits the least advantaged. Rawls says that
people’s claim to social goods should not be dependent on natural endowment.
Rawls believes that we do not behave with people by treating them as equals
and by removing all types of inequalities. Rather, we eliminate only those inequalities
that harm someone. If everyone benefits from certain types of inequalities, from giving
more importance to socially useful talent and energy, then everyone will accept it. If
inequalities increase the initial equal share, they can be accepted. Rawls says that this
can be seen as a veto given to the weak people (Rawls: 1971: 64). Rawls’s simple
idea is that inequality can be allowed only if it is beneficial to those in the lowest
position. The prevailing approach to economic distribution in our society is based on
the idea of ‘equality of opportunity’. Inequalities in income and status etc. are justified
only when if there is fair competition for these posts and positions. Even if the national
average income is $20,000, it may be acceptable to pay someone a salary of $100,000.
(Kymlicka: 2010:46) But the condition is that there must be equality of opportunity
without any discrimination, that is, no one should be at a disadvantage because of his
race, gender or social background. A Rawlsian society can give such people more
than the average only if doing so benefits all members of the society. In the discriminatory
theory, people have a greater claim to a resource only if they can show that it benefits
those who have a smaller share of the resources. In contrast, the idea of equality of
opportunity, the least fortunate do not have the power to veto these inequalities.
Equality of opportunity ensures that people’s destiny is determined by their
choices rather than their circumstances. Suppose I try to fulfill some of my ambitions in
a society where there is equality of opportunity, then my success or failure in this
society will be determined by my own performance and not by my race, class or
gender. In a society where there is equality of opportunity, inequality of income is
justified. This is because success is ‘based on talent’ and comes to those who deserve
it. If inequality is created by the individual’s own actions and choices, then it is justified
to be unequal in social goods. But it is wrong for any person to be in a position of
deprivation or privilege because of arbitrary and unearned differences in his social
Self-Instructional
circumstances. The share of distribution should not be influenced by factors which are Material 129

NOTES morally arbitrary. People’s moral claims should not depend on brute luck. Therefore
the prevailing ideal of equality of opportunity is ‘temporary’. The prevailing view states
that eliminating social inequalities provides everyone with an equal opportunity to receive
social benefits. Therefore we see a created difference in the income of people. This is
the result of people’s own efforts. But people with natural disabilities do not have
equal opportunities to gain social benefits. If we are interested in eliminating unearned
inequalities, we must recognise that the prevailing view of equality of opportunity is
inadequate for this. Discussing social and natural inequalities Rawls says:
“Neither is anyone entitled to greater natural endowments, nor is entitled to a
favourable starting position in the society...This does not mean that one should erase
these differences. Another way to deal with them is to arrange the infrastructure in
such a way that these uncertainties advance the interests of the least fortunate. Therefore,
if we wish to create a social system in which no one is advantaged or disadvantaged
by his arbitrary place in the distribution of natural qualities or by his initial position in
society; and also, if we do not have to give or take any benefit as compensation from
anyone, then we arrive at the principle of discrimination”. (Rawls: 1971:102)
Rawls uses the social contract system whose main objective is to determine the
principles of justice in a situation of equality. Rawls’s original position is similar to the
idea of the state of nature. But it is also different from this, because Rawls’s view is
that the general state of nature ‘is not the initial condition of equality’. In Rawls’s
original position, people live behind a ‘veil of ignorance’, in which no one knows their
place, class, position or social status in society. Also, no one knows what his position
is in the distribution of natural qualities, talents, intelligence and strength etc. They only
have general knowledge regarding economics and psychology. The principles of justice
have been chosen behind a veil of ignorance and the veil of ignorance ensures that no
natural coincidence should be in the position of gain or loss in the selection of principles
due to uncertainty of social conditions. Rawls’s basic view aims to show that human
beings are equal as moral persons. The main feature of Rawls’s principles is that ‘all
people agree to it as equal persons’. Rawls does not argue that a certain concept of
equality arises from hypothetical agreement. Rather, Rawls removes sources of
discrimination and tries to achieve consensus. In this way, Rawls hopes to find a solution
that will be acceptable to all from an equality perspective. This solution must be one
that respects every person’s claim to be treated as a free and equal person.
Self-Instructional
130 Material

Rawls’s idea is a way to actualise the concept of equality. Every person wants NOTES
to live a good life and for this he needs certain things, which include rights, freedom,
income and wealth, dignity and self-respect. In the original situation, people are rational
negotiators who are unaware of their interests and abilities, in such a situation no one
wants to take risks. In such a situation, Rawls says that people will make a rational
choice, which maximises profits and minimises losses, this strategy is called Rawls
Maximum-Minimum. As an example, imagine that three people in the world have a
choice of the following plans;
1. 10:8:1
2. 7:6:2
3. 5:4:4
Rawls’s strategy asks you to choose the last option. If you don’t know whether
you will be in the best or worst case scenario, choosing the third plan is the most
logical choice. Some other scholars, such as Parfit, argue that the logical strategy is a
kind of ‘prioritarianism’, which gives more importance to the people of inferior status.
But the reality is that it will still accept big gains for the rich over small losses for the
poor.
Rawls’s differential theory ensures that capable people do not acquire maximum
of social goods simply because of their arbitrary position in the distribution of natural
qualities. Also, it should be kept in mind that people with disabilities should not be
deprived of social goods simply because of their weak condition. The discriminatory
principle ensures that a disabled person receives the same set of social goods as
everyone else. But a disabled person faces an additional medical burden, and it is a
burden that is not caused by his choices, but by his circumstances. The discriminatory
principle does not remove this burden. The differential theory does not distinguish
between selected and unselected inequalities. Will Kymlicka says that Rawls considers
equality of opportunity to be the prevalent and most influential ideology of distributive
justice.
Check Your Progress

5. What does Rawls argue about inequalities that benefit everyone?
6. What does Rawls differential theory ensure? Self-Instructional
Material 131

NOTES
7.5 EQUALITY OF WHAT?
The most important topic of debate among contemporary political philosophers is

equality of which aspect should be there. While Rawls focuses his views on the
distribution of social goods, Utilitarian emphasise equality of welfare. Dworkin presents
ideas on equality of resources. In contrast to both of them, Amartya Sen talks about
making people’s capabilities equal. Therefore, it becomes necessary to explain these
ideas related to equality.
Regarding equality, utilitarian theories proceed with equality of welfare, in which Bentham
has made a significant contribution. They accept welfarist hedonism and believe that
the measure of welfare of individuals should be how much pleasure a person receives
in comparison to suffering. To know how happy a person is in his life, it is necessary to
know how much happiness he has, because every person always wants to reduce his
sorrows and increase his happiness. Bentham put his idea in this regard that if Pushpin
(children’s play) and reciting poetry both give equal amount of pleasure, then Pushpin
is as good as poetry. (Kymlicka: 2010:10)
According to utilitarians, every person should have the ability to decide his
preferences independently and is asked to satisfy all types of preferences equally.
They consider human welfare equal to the satisfaction of preferences, even if there is
inequality in the society due to distribution of resources. For example, we can see this
idea of welfare and inequality in this way that on one hand a person prefers an
expensive car for himself and on the other hand there is a person who is satisfied with
a bicycle also. If seen from utilitarian point of view, both these people are equal in
satisfaction of preferences. Utilitarians see these two people as equal in terms of welfare,
although their preferences are economically unequal. In fact, supporters of equality of
welfare believe that only by satisfying the basic needs of all people in the society, all
people in the society will achieve the same level of welfare. Will Kymlicka believes
that this theory has no valid and logical basis. If people are to be treated equally, we
must protect certain rights and freedoms.
Self-Instructional
132 Material

7.5.2 Equality of Resources NOTES
Ronald Dworkin is associated with the resourceful view of equality. Dworkin believes
that his idea is better than the reciprocal principles of equality. Dworkin encapsulates
the ideas of liberal equality in his book “Sovereign Virtue” and his seminal essay “What
is Equality?” There is no place for choice sensitivity in traditional theories of equality
and these theories do not provide any theoretical criterion to counter unequal natural
abilities. Dworkin believes that equality of resources means that ‘when a distribution
scheme distributes resources treating people equally, any further transfer of resources
will make people’s shares more equal’. (Dworkin: 1981:186) Now the question arises
under what conditions equality of resources can be achieved. Dworkin explains about
a two-level process in this context-
1. Ambition-sensitive auction
2. Insurance scheme
Dworkin uses a philosophical story to describe this which is as follows. Imagine
that some people are going somewhere on a ship and on the way the ship gets damaged
and reaches a deserted island. There are many resources on that island and no one
lives here. People decide among themselves that they will divide the available resources
equally among themselves. They choose one person from among themselves who will
distribute the resources equally among all. The resources will be distributed through an
auction process. In this auction process, one can bid for the items of his choice. All
people are given 100 clamshells (a type of currency) which they can use according to
their preferences. Some will use their clamshells to buy land, some will spend them to
buy land along the seashore. Each person will bid for different resources according to
his ambitions. In the end, each person will have the resources of his choice and will not
want to exchange them for someone else’s resources. Thus, this distribution of different
but equal shares of resources through the auction process satisfies the envy-test. This
means that if after the process of sharing resources is over, a person desires another
person’s resources in exchange for his own set of resources, then it will be considered
that there has not been an equitable distribution of resources.
Dworkin’s proposal is similar to the idea of Rawls’s original position. We can
imagine that people are behind the curtain of modified ignorance and at the time of
auction no one knows what kind of physical disability he has. In such a situation, the Self-Instructional
person’s discretion will use an insurance plan to avoid this risk and he will keep some Material 133

NOTES part of his initial amount reserved for it. All this money will be deposited in a common
fund, to help those people who may be or are victims of some kind of disability or
impairment. The aim of this principle is to provide a protective cover to those who are
victims of natural calamities. The main goal of this theory of Dworkin is to provide
people with a protective blanket that they are entitled to from natural losses. In this
way, we can use the tax system to collect insurance premiums from people who are in
a naturally advantaged position. (Dworkin: 1981: 312) In conclusion, it can be said
that an important part of Dworkin’s theory is that when people enter the market, their
abilities should already be equal and similarly, in real world also, in the beginning of life,
people must have some resources. (Kymlicka: 2010:66)
Equality of capability has been supported by Amartya Sen. In his work “Inequality
Re-examined”, he presented the idea that distributional equality should not only focus
on people’s resources and income. If true equality is to be achieved in the society, we
should focus on equalising the capabilities of the people of the society. Sen argues that
we should focus on the real freedoms that people enjoy, i.e. being able to read, be
healthy, be politically active, have self-respect, etc. People should not focus on how
much resources are allocated to people, but rather on what kind of work people are
capable of doing. (Bhargava: 2011:88) Sen believes that social policy should focus on
the strengths of the people. Ability or capability is the ability to perform a certain type
of work. Literacy is a capability and reading is a task. In a society where people are
illiterate, the state should actively promote people’s ability to read. A resource egalitarian
might insist that in areas where literacy is lacking people should be given resources
such as books and educational services. On the other hand, ability egalitarians emphasise
that it is more important to promote people’s internal capacity to read and write than
to provide them with external resources. Thus, this method of solving inequality is very
unique. Social policy must take into account the fact of human diversity. A simple
approach may not be effective in correcting complex forms of inequality.
Check Your Progress

7. According to Dworkin, what is the true explanation of equality of resources?
Self-Instructional
134 Material
8. What is Amartya Sen's focus in advocating equality of capability?

NOTES
7.6 SUMMARY
In this chapter, you have learnt that the concept of equality, central to political discourse,
is complex and context-dependent. Bernard Williams, in “The Idea of Equality,” talks
about political discourse, asserting two types of equality claims. Descriptively, all humans
are deemed equal, and normatively, they should be treated as such. While
acknowledging human differences, Williams argues for fundamental equality and dignity.
In his book, “A Theory of Justice,” Rawls proposes an egalitarian theory centered
on fair equality of opportunity, opposing discrimination based on race, gender, or
social status. Rawls advocates for the equal distribution of primary goods until benefiting
the least advantaged. He contends that inequalities harming no one may be accepted,
emphasising a veto for the disadvantaged.
Contemporary political philosophers engage in a crucial debate on the aspect
of equality, with Rawls focusing on social goods, Utilitarians on welfare, Dworkin on
resources, and Amartya Sen on capabilities. Utilitarians prioritise equal satisfaction of
preferences, regardless of resource distribution. Dworkin proposes equality of resources
through an ambition-sensitive auction and insurance scheme, ensuring fairness. Amartya
Sen advocates equality of capabilities, emphasising real freedoms and strengths, rather
than mere resource allocation.
7.7 KEY WORDS
 Distributive Justice: It refers to the idea of fair distribution of resources,

emphasising meeting basic needs equally.
 Fraternity: It refers to the promotion of social equality and a sense of
brotherhood among individuals.
 Metaphorical Sense: It refers to the symbolic or figurative understanding of
equality, acknowledging human differences.
 Social Contract System: It refers to a concept wherein principles of justice
are determined behind a veil of ignorance, ensuring fairness and equality. Self-Instructional
Material 135

NOTES  Veil of Ignorance: It refers to a hypothetical state in which individuals are

unaware of their characteristics, promoting unbiased decision-making.
 Maximum-Minimum Strategy: It refers to Rawls’s rational choice strategy,
maximising gains and minimising losses in a situation of uncertainty.
 Welfarist Hedonism: It refers to utilitarian belief that the measure of welfare is
the balance between pleasure and suffering.
 Resource Egalitarian: It refers to a supporter of Dworkin’s theory,
emphasising equal distribution of resources.
 Ability Egalitarian: It refers to a supporter of Sen’s theory, focusing on
promoting people’s internal capacities and abilities.

QUESTIONS
1. When we talk about equality in a metaphorical sense, we say that “all human
beings are equal by birth” or it is said that man is a rational being and from this
point of view all human beings are equal.
2. The argument for fairness based on distributive justice emphasises satisfying the
basic needs of all people equally.
3. Bernard Williams has discussed two types of claims namely the descriptive
claim (all humans are equal) and the normative claim (all humans should be
treated equally).
4. Equality, along with other political values such as justice and freedom, forms a
framework with which we make political decisions and explain certain viewpoints.
Besides, with the help of this framework we can also decide the form of political
action.
5. Rawls’s simple idea is that inequality can be allowed only if it is beneficial to
those in the lowest position. If inequalities increase the initial equal share, they
can be accepted. Rawls says that this can be seen as a veto given to the weak
Self-Instructional
people.
136 Material

6. Rawls’s differential theory ensures that capable people do not acquire maximum NOTES
of social goods simply because of their arbitrary position in the distribution of
natural qualities.
7. Dworkin believes that equality of resources means that ‘when a distribution
scheme distributes resources treating people equally, any further transfer of
resources will make people’s shares more equal’.
8. Amartya Sen emphasises that if true equality is to be achieved in the society, we
should focus on equalising the capabilities of the people of the society.

EXERCISES
1. How does the argument for fairness in distributive justice relate to equality?
2. Write a short note on the role of self-respect in the context of equality.
3. How does Bernard Williams reconcile the acknowledgment of human differences
with the assertion of fundamental equality?
4. State the significance of the veil of ignorance in Rawls’s original position.
5. Briefly explain Rawls’s primary objective in “A Theory of Justice”.
6. What distinguishes Amartya Sen’s concept of equality of capability from resource
egalitarianism?
7. Discuss the four values of equality and how they complement each other.
8. Evaluate the argument for equality based on the viewpoint of fraternity.
9. Examine the interconnected role of equality, justice, and freedom as a framework
for political decisions.
10. Explore the implications of Rawls’s idea of equality in the context of eliminating
unearned inequalities.
Self-Instructional
Material 137

NOTES
Pettit, Philip. “Freedom in the Market.” Politics, Philosophy & Economics 5, no. 2
(2006): 131–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594x06064218.
Coleman, James S. “Individual Rights and the State: Anarchy, State, and Utopia.
Robert Nozick.” American Journal of Sociology 82, no. 2 (1976): 428–42.
https://doi.org/10.1086/ 226324.
9256.00179.
pp. 73–77, https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230371811_16.
2001, pp. 3– 11.
Self-Instructional
138 Material

Debates on Equality-II
CHAPTER 8 NOTES
DEBATES ON EQUALITY-II
Rupal
Structure
8.0 Introduction
8.1 Objectives
8.2 Luck Egalitarianism and Its Criticism
8.3 Equality or Sufficiency?
8.4 Summary
8.5 Key Words
8.0 INTRODUCTION
In the ongoing discourse of societal progress, the theme of equality stands as a perennial
cornerstone, subject to continuous examination, reevaluation, and debate. This chapter
proves pivotal in this dynamic conversation, with contemporary discussions on equity,
justice, and fairness.
The debates unfold against the backdrop of a rapidly changing world, marked
by technological advancements, geopolitical shifts, and societal transformations. With
an interdisciplinary approach, this chapter encapsulates perspectives from philosophy,
economics, sociology, and political science, offering a comprehensive analysis of the
complexities inherent in contemporary notions of equality.
As the discussions unfold, critical issues such as wealth disparity, social inclusion,
and the impact of technological innovations on labour markets take center stage. The
intersectionality of identities, recognition of diversity, and the role of institutions in
shaping equitable societies become focal points, urging participants to reflect on the Self-Instructional
challenges and possibilities for fostering a more just and inclusive world. Material 139

NOTES
8.1 OBJECTIVES

 Evaluate the central tenets of luck egalitarianism, emphasising the role of personal
responsibility and choice in the distribution of resources
 Examine the implications of prioritising equal distribution versus ensuring that
every individual achieves a basic threshold of well-being
 Understand the complexities involved in shaping equitable societies by drawing
on insights from multiple disciplines
 Analyse the intersection of identity and recognition within debates on equality,
acknowledging the diversity of individual experiences
8.2 LUCK EGALITARIANISM AND ITS CRITICISM
Egalitarianism is a contemporary theory of politics that considers equality as the

normative basis of public policy. Supporters of egalitarianism believe that equality or
parity is always justifiable. Only the inequality needs to be justified. Luck egalitarianism
is linked to egalitarian principles of distributive justice. Of the many forms of
egalitarianism, the most popular is the idea of luck egalitarianism. The term ‘luck
egalitarianism’was coined by its influential critic Elizabeth Anderson. Luck egalitarianism
has become the most widely discussed theory after the Rawlsian theory of distributive
justice. Anderson has placed Dworkin, Arneson, Cohen, Roemer, Rokovsky, and
Thomas Nagel in the category of luck egalitarians. Luck egalitarianism aims to address
inequalities arising from factors outside the individual’s control such as natural talent,
luck, circumstances of birth. In this theory, it is suggested that in order to protect the
rights of individuals it is worth addressing the inequalities caused by factors outside
their control such as luck, natural talent and providing them support or compensation.
Dworkin, the leading thinker of luck egalitarianism, marked the beginning of a
political philosophy movement in his seminal article “What is Equality?” which is known
Self-Instructional as luck egalitarianism. Each person is responsible for how he uses his fair share.
140 Material

According to this view, justice protects the right to the pursuit of happiness but cannot NOTES
protect the right to any level of fulfillment in that pursuit. Dworkin argues in his article
that luck or chance (some libertarians believe that all aspects of luck, including natural
ability should be irrelevant to distributive justice), is such a situation which is called
luck egalitarianism. Luck egalitarianism explains two types of inequalities:
1. Choice luck – These are the inequalities that result from voluntary choices or
actions. The individual himself is responsible for these inequalities.
2. Brute luck – These are inequalities that occur due to reasons beyond a person’s
control such as heredity, natural talent. Luck egalitarians believe that it is the
duty of society to try to eliminate these inequalities.
The basic idea of luck egalitarianism is that ‘inequalities involved in the benefits
received by people are acceptable’ if they result from choices that people have made
of their own free will, but inequalities that arise from unchosen characteristics of people’s
circumstances are unjust. These unchosen circumstances include both social factors
and natural causes. Many theorists have given many radical solutions to achieve liberal
equality, some of which have been discussed below.
1. Shareholder Society- This idea has been presented by Ackerman. He offers
everyone a share of $80,000 with 2 percent property tax after their high
schooling and people can use this money as per their wish. People can use this
share to get further education or training, buy a house, start a business, etc. i.e.
on anything of their choice. This fits comfortably in Dworkin’s theory.
2. Basic Income – Philip Von Parys has advocated giving all individuals $50,000
as a guaranteed basic income. This income should be given to every person –
whether he is unemployed or employed. Many liberal egalitarians object to this
kind of unconditional basic income. Their argument is that this could lead to
taxing those who work hard to provide financial assistance to lazy citizens.
3. Compensatory Education – Roemer advocated programs to provide
compensatory education to children from poor families and communities. Roemer
argues that if we want to make the opportunities equal in real terms, we need to
invest in compensatory education for disadvantaged children.
4. Egalitarian Planner- To implement Dworkin’s theory, Roemer has given another
suggestion which is called Egalitarian Planner. We have no way of determining Self-Instructional
Material 141

NOTES the extent to which a person’s disadvantage is due to his or her own choices.
Roemer argues that we can try to neutralise the effects of certain circumstances
at the social level. Society will decide on factors that everyone will agree are
related to the circumstances rather than the choices made. (Kymlicka: 2010:68)
Elizabeth Anderson in her article “What is the Point of Equality?” argues against
the general ideal of egalitarian justice. Anderson states that luck egalitarianism considers
the distribution of goods and resources morally important in itself, but concern for
social justice must be based on human relationships. Anderson argues that luck
egalitarians wrongly focus on the distribution of privately owned goods among
individuals. Anderson says that equality matters in certain human relationships. Anderson
further states that luck egalitarianism bases the claims of citizens on one another on the
fact that some people are inferior or unequal to others in the value of their lives, talents,
and personal qualities. Here the focus shifts from people making bad choices to people
with ‘bad luck’. The reason advocated by the luck egalitarianism to provide
compensation to handicaps, untalented, is to compensate them for their inequalities as
compared to others, which render them worthy of pity. Anderson believes that
‘kindness’ is inconsistent with the dignity of others.
Anderson further argues that luck egalitarianism prevents some citizens from
enjoying the social conditions of freedom on this false basis. Here, Anderson is
concerned with the victims of bad choice luck, specifically, those who have been
badly affected by choice luck. She explains it through an example. Suppose the person
acts negligently, such as by rash driving and without insurance of his vehicle, which
could result in serious injury. Luck egalitarianism attributes such outcomes to non-
compensable alternative luck.
Anderson further criticises luck egalitarians, saying that it is offensive on the part
of the state to judge people on how responsible they are for their irrational choices,
and by doing so they are also violating individual’s privacy. Luck egalitarianism makes
derogatory and intrusive judgments about people’s abilities. Anderson argues that
liberal egalitarianism’s insistence on distinguishing voluntary inequality from involuntary
inequality promotes pity for the unequal towards the ‘deserving poor’ and paternalistic
oppression towards the undeserving poor. The philosophical argument related to liberal-
egalitarianism may be worth advocating, but the politics underlying it are not worth
Self-Instructional
advocating.
142 Material

NOTES
Check Your Progress
1. Who coined the term 'luck egalitarianism'?
2. How does Dworkin distinguish between choice luck and cruel luck in luck
egalitarianism?
3. What does Elizabeth Anderson criticise about luck egalitarianism?
8.3 EQUALITY OR SUFFICIENCY?
Equality is a moral concept that we need. At the same time, it is also a reality that
equality cannot be established completely in every field. Many times inequality has to
be adopted to better establish equality. This situation arises because equality is also
measured from the point of view of justice. The implication is that justice also requires
equality. There is no opposition between them and both complement each other.
Therefore, from the point of view of justice, some inequalities also seem to be right,
but how much inequality is justified, is a new question that leads to a new discussion.
This is also called non-egalitarian priority. In this view, priorityism or abundance are
seen standing in front of equality. This controversy begins with the belief that equality
weakens justice; justice is complete without equality. For non-egalitarians, the key
issue is how to improve the conditions of those living at the lowest levels in society.
This idea is influenced by human qualities. This does not emphasise how vast the gap
is there between those standing at the highest level and those lying at the lowest level.
Their ultimate objective is how to bring those at the lowest level to sufficiency. Then it
would not matter how much difference is there between the rich and the poor. According
to Frankfurt, ‘if everyone has enough money, then it should not make any moral
difference how much inequality is there in the distribution of resources.’ (Frankfurt:
1997:21) On the other hand, Parfit emphasises on priority theory. According to this
theory, it is necessary to help the weakest section of the society. It should not matter
how much we are able to help them and to what extent their lives are getting better as
compared to others.
Self-Instructional
Material 143

NOTES In his seminal work “Equality as a Moral Ideal”, Frankfurt argues that we live in
a society that is full of vast inequalities in respect of wealth, status, and power. Egalitarian
political philosophers believe that ‘this inequality is morally unjust’. Frankfurt says that
equality has no value in itself and that if we care about those who are worst off, we
should focus on ensuring that the many people have enough resources to meet their
needs. The idea that inequality between people is unjust is common in both
contemporary political philosophy and popular culture. Thinkers like Dworkin, Cohen,
and Anderson argue that one of the main problems of our society include some form of
inequality, whether it is equality of resources, of welfare or of status. Many popular
movements also target socio-economic inequality and argue that one percent of the
world’s population has a disproportionate amount of resources. If we want to make
the world more just, there is a need to engage in broader redistribution of wealth and
income. According to Frankfurt, equality has no intrinsic value. He argues that instead
of focusing on whether people have the same amount of resources as others, we
should focus on whether people have enough resources. According to Frankfurt, it is
more important to ensure adequacy rather than equality. There is a difference between
a prioritarianism and an egalitarianism, but both are also very close to each other. If
one goes on the path of prioritisation then it is possible to establish equality in the
society because his entire focus is on improving the betterment of the weaker section.
But when the amount of resources is limited, it becomes necessary to think how these
resources should be distributed. It is also important that every human being should get
equal opportunity so that he can make his life better and happier.
Politics of egalitarianism has an important contribution to make in the present
times. One contribution of this is that this idea has led to a strong advocacy of the
welfare state. New concerns have emerged in normative political theory. The debate
related to ‘similarity of what?’ has been replaced by ‘equality between whom’.
Egalitarianism has now also begun to discuss inequalities among the groups. This idea
is now becoming stronger that all human beings are entitled to uniformity of equal
treatment and if democracy is to be strengthened, it becomes extremely necessary to
establish an ideal like equality.
Check Your Progress

4. What is the central concern for non-egalitarians in addressing societal issues?
Self-Instructional
5. What is the focus of the priority theory?
144 Material

NOTES
8.4 SUMMARY
In this chapter, you have learnt about luck egalitarianism, a prominent form of
contemporary egalitarianism, which addresses inequalities resulting from factors beyond
individual control. Advocates like Dworkin and Anderson categorise thinkers such as
Arneson, Cohen, and Roemer as luck egalitarians. Dworkin distinguishes between
choice luck and cruel luck, emphasising the need to address inequalities caused by
unchosen circumstances.
The debate on equality involves a tension between egalitarianism and non-
egalitarian priority. While some argue that justice requires addressing inequalities, others
prioritise improving conditions for the weakest in society, with adequacy being more
crucial than absolute equality. Frankfurt contends that equality has no intrinsic value;
the focus should be on ensuring adequacy. Both priorityists and egalitarians aim to
better the lives of the weakest, but the distribution of limited resources becomes crucial.
8.5 KEY WORDS
 Luck Egalitarianism: It refers to a form of egalitarianism addressing inequalities

arising from factors beyond individual control, such as luck, natural talent, and
circumstances of birth.
 Choice Luck: It refers to inequalities resulting from voluntary choices or actions
for which the individual is responsible.
 Brute Luck: It refers to inequalities occurring due to reasons beyond a person’s
control, like heredity or natural talent.
 Compensatory Education: It refers to Roemer’s advocacy for programs
providing compensatory education to disadvantaged children to equalise
opportunities.
 Egalitarian Planner: It refers to Roemer’s suggestion to neutralise effects of
certain circumstances at the social level, addressing the challenges of determining
individual responsibility. Self-Instructional
Material 145

NOTES  Priority Theory: It refers to the theory that prioritises helping the weakest
section of society, regardless of the magnitude of improvement compared to
others.
 Welfare State: It refers to a state that actively engages in promoting the well-
being of its citizens through social and economic policies.

QUESTIONS
1. The term ‘luck egalitarianism’ was coined by its influential critic Elizabeth
Anderson.
2. Dworkin states that choice luck involves inequalities from voluntary choices,
while cruel luck pertains to inequalities due to unchosen circumstances beyond
an individual’s control.
3. Anderson argues that luck egalitarians wrongly focus on the distribution of
privately owned goods among individuals. Anderson says that equality matters
in certain human relationships.
4. For non-egalitarians, the key issue is how to improve the conditions of those
living at the lowest levels in society.
5. According to this theory, it is necessary to help the weakest section of the
society. It should not matter how much we are able to help them and to what
extent their lives are getting better as compared to others.

EXERCISES
1. Mention the key principles of luck egalitarianism.

2. Briefly explain Philip Von Parys’s advocacy for basic income and the criticism it
Self-Instructional faces from liberal egalitarians.
146 Material

3. Briefly explain the tension between egalitarianism and non-egalitarian priority in NOTES
the context of justice and equality.
4. How has the debate shifted from ‘similarity of what?’ to ‘equality between
whom’ in contemporary political theory?
5. Discuss the various proposals aligned with luck egalitarianism.
6. Examine the strengths and weaknesses of luck egalitarianism in addressing social
inequalities.
7. Evaluate the arguments for and against non-egalitarian priority, considering its
focus on improving conditions for the weakest section.
8. Elucidate the implications of prioritisation and how it can potentially lead to
societal equality.
Dworkin, Ronald. 2000. Sovereign Virtue: The Idea and Practice of Equality.
United States: Harvard University Press.
Anderson, Elizabeth. 1999. What is the Point of Equality? Chicago: University Of
Chicago Press.
Frankfurt, Harry. 2012. Equality as a Moral Ideal. New Delhi: Cambridge University
Press.
Rawls, John. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Sen, Amartya. 1992. Inequality Reexamined. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kymlicka, Will. 2010. Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction. Delhi:
Pearson.
Bhargava, Rajiv and Acharya Ashok. 2011. Political Theory: An Introduction. Delhi:
Pearson.
Self-Instructional
Material 147

UNIT V: DEBATES ON JUSTICE
CHAPTER 9 DEBATES ON JUSTICE-I
CHAPTER 10 DEBATES ON JUSTICE-II

Debates on Justice-I
CHAPTER 9 NOTES
DEBATES ON JUSTICE-I
Mohammad Saalim Farooq Bhat
Research Scholar, Dept. of Political Science, DU
Structure
9.0 Introduction
9.1 Objectives
9.2 Justice: An Introduction
9.3 Debating Justice: Consequentialist vs Deontological (Utilitarianism and Rawls)
9.4 Rawls’ Conception of “Justice as Fairness”
9.5 Summary
9.6 Key Words
9.0 INTRODUCTION
Consequentialists and deontologists approach justice, particularly as framed by the concept

of justice as fairness, from different perspectives. Consequentialists focus on the outcomes
of actions, asserting that the moral rightness or wrongness of an action is determined by
its overall consequences. In the context of justice as fairness, consequentialists may
evaluate societal arrangements based on the aggregate well-being or utility they produce.
Deontologists, on the other hand, emphasise the inherent nature of actions and adhere to
principles or rules that dictate whether an action is morally permissible, regardless of its
consequences. Regarding justice as fairness, deontologists, like Immanuel Kant, might
emphasise the importance of respecting individual rights and adhering to universal principles
of justice, irrespective of the overall societal outcome.
While both consequentialists and deontologists can engage with the concept of
justice as fairness, their fundamental philosophical differences lead them to evaluate Self-Instructional
Material 151

NOTES and prioritise moral considerations in distinct ways. Consequentialists lean toward
optimising overall societal welfare, while deontologists prioritise adherence to principles
and rights, even if the outcomes differ. This chapter will discuss the opinions of
consequentialists and deontological on justice, along with the concept of justice as
fairness.
9.1 OBJECTIVES

 Describe the concept of justice
 Discuss the opinions of consequentialists and deontological on justice
 Analyse justice as fairness
9.2 JUSTICE: AN INTRODUCTION
The concept of justice plays a central role not only in ethics but also in legal and
political philosophy. We use the notion of justice to assess individual actions, laws, and
public policies, believing that if any of these are unjust, we have strong reasons to
reject them, perhaps even decisive ones. In classical thought, justice was regarded as
one of the four cardinal virtues, sometimes even considered the most important among
them. In modern times, John Rawls famously described it as the “first virtue of social
institutions” (Rawls, 1971), emphasising its fundamental significance. While we may
debate whether justice primarily belongs to the realm of law or individuals and other
institutions, it is more insightful to recognise that over time, justice has deeply permeated
each of these domains. To understand this broad concept better, we should identify
common elements that emerge whenever justice is invoked while also recognising the
different expressions it takes in various practical contexts. The term “justice” has been
used in a manner that sometimes it makes it almost indistinguishable from general
“rightness” or moral correctness. For instance, Aristotle made a distinction between
Self-Instructional “universal” justice, which aligned with “virtue as a whole”, and “particular” justice,
152 Material

which had a narrower scope. The broader understanding of justice might have been NOTES
more apparent in classical Greek compared to modern English. However, Aristotle
also pointed out that when justice was equated with “complete virtue”, it always involved
a relationship with another person. In other words, if justice is to be synonymous with
morality in its entirety, it must pertain to “what we owe to each other”. (Scanlon,
1998).
According to Kant, justice is a virtue that involves showing respect for others’
freedom, autonomy, and dignity by refraining from interfering with their voluntary actions,
as long as those actions do not violate the rights of others. On the other hand, Mill
defined justice as a collective term for the most important social utilities that promote
and safeguard human liberty. Rawls, in his analysis, viewed justice as the establishment
of maximum equal liberty concerning fundamental rights and duties for all members of
society. Socio-economic inequalities, according to Rawls, require moral justification
in terms of equal opportunity and beneficial outcomes for everyone. Post-Rawlsian
philosophers have developed alternative conceptions of justice. Throughout the history
of Western philosophy, justice has been considered the most fundamental virtue for
organising interpersonal relationships and establishing a stable political society. As
these theories have evolved and influenced one another, a growing understanding of
justice has emerged, centered on the idea of respecting individuals as free and rational
beings. While there may be disagreements about the nature, basis, and legitimate
application of justice, this notion of respecting individuals as autonomous agents lies at
its core.
9.3 DEBATING JUSTICE: CONSEQUENTIALIST VS

DEONTOLOGICAL (UTILITARIANISM AND
RAWLS)
The revival of normative political philosophy is widely acknowledged to have originated

with the publication of John Rawls’s seminal work, “A Theory of Justice”, in 1971.
Given its dominant presence in contemporary debates, it serves as a natural starting
point for examining current theories of justice. However, this does not imply universal
acceptance of Rawls’s theory, rather, other perspectives often emerge as responses to Self-Instructional
Material 153

NOTES it. Consequently, comprehending alternative views necessitates an understanding of

their relationship to Rawls’s ideas. Furthermore, grasping Rawls’s theory requires
familiarity with the theory he was reacting to—utilitarianism. Rawls perceives
utilitarianism as an underlying and implicit backdrop in our society against which other
theories must establish and justify their claims. Utilitarianism, in its basic form, posits
that the morally correct action or policy is the one that maximises happiness for the
members of society. Although it is sometimes presented as a comprehensive moral
theory, the focus here is on utilitarianism as a political morality. According to this
perspective, utilitarian principles apply to what Rawls refers to as “the basic structure”
of society, rather than governing the personal conduct of individuals. Utilitarianism
possesses two appealing features as a theory of political morality. Firstly, its objective
does not rely on the existence of God, souls, or any other uncertain metaphysical
concepts. Instead, it seeks to promote something universally valued in our lives:
happiness, welfare, or well-being. Utilitarians advocate for the impartial pursuit of
human welfare for everyone in society. Regardless of our beliefs about God, souls, or
free will, we all experience happiness and suffering, and we can all improve or worsen
our circumstances. Happiness is inherently valuable to us, irrespective of how secular
we may be. Another appealing aspect of utilitarianism is its “consequentialism”, which
is closely related to the theory. Consequentialism requires that anyone who condemns
something as morally wrong must demonstrate how someone’s life is negatively affected.
Similarly, it considers something morally good only if it improves someone’s life. Unlike
many other moral theories that rely on fixed rules to follow regardless of outcomes,
utilitarianism is not just a list of do’s and don’ts. Instead, it provides a test to ensure
that these rules serve a practical purpose. Consequentialism is also attractive because
it aligns with our intuitions about the distinction between morality and other aspects of
life. It offers a straightforward approach to resolving moral questions, focusing on
measuring changes in human welfare rather than relying on spiritual leaders or obscure
traditions. Historically, utilitarianism has been seen as a progressive concept for these
reasons. The two main attractions of utilitarianism, therefore, are that it accords with
our intuition that human well-being is significant and that moral rules should be assessed
based on their impact on human welfare. If we accept these points, utilitarianism naturally
follows– if human welfare is the central concern of morality, then the morally best
action would be the one that maximises human welfare, giving equal consideration to
Self-Instructional
154 Material

each person’s well-being. Those who advocate for utilitarianism firmly believe that any NOTES
theory contradicting these two intuitions must be flawed.
Three influential figures who significantly contributed to the formulation of
utilitarianism were Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832), John Stuart Mill (1806–1873),
and Henry Sidgwick (1838–1900). These thinkers developed a utilitarian conception
of justice as part of their broader moral theories. Bentham, in particular, rejected
traditional notions of justice, viewing them as deceptive constructs. He argued that
some people create a fictitious entity called “justice” to oppose the principles of
benevolence. However, Bentham asserted that true justice, in its meaningful sense, is
merely an imaginary character fabricated for convenience. Its principles align with
utility, and it is applied to specific cases based on the dictates of usefulness (Bentham,
1965).
Utilitarianism, as a theory of justice, posits that all human actions, including
those of a state, are considered virtuous, moral, and just if they contribute to the
overall happiness of society. Therefore, actions are evaluated based on their
consequences. Actions that lead to a higher general happiness are deemed just, while
those that diminish overall happiness are considered unjust. Utilitarianism links justice
to the concept of utility or happiness. According to this view, the sole purpose of state
legislation should be to promote the general happiness of the people. Utilitarianism is a
consequentialist theory because it focuses solely on the outcomes or ends of actions,
not on the means used to achieve them. The moral value of an action is determined by
the result it produces. If the end of a morally good and just action contributes to
general happiness, the means employed to attain that end becomes less relevant. On
the other hand, actions that have a negative impact on the collective happiness of
society are deemed unjust, regardless of the virtuous and noble intentions behind them.
In essence, utilitarianism emphasises the importance of considering the overall
consequences of actions when determining their moral worth and justness.
While Kant, on the other hand, embraced the central idea of the Enlightenment
that all humans have equal worth and should be treated as ends in themselves, he
strongly rejected the utilitarian perspective on justice advocated by Hume and Bentham.
Kant disagreed with the notion that promoting human happiness could serve as a solid
foundation for determining what is just. According to the Kantian view, the concept of
“right” takes precedence over the concept of “good” in ethical and moral considerations. Self-Instructional
Material 155

NOTES Kant argued that the basis of morality and justice should be freedom, not happiness.
This conception gives precedence to means over the consequences of the political
action; a notion for which the ethical philosophy of deontology is known. There are
numerous examples where the promotion of happiness can lead to moral outrage and
be considered inherently wrong. Developing from Kant, Rawls emphasised that it
might be advantageous but not just to have some people suffer losses to benefit others.
He argued that justice does not condone sacrificing the freedom of some for the greater
good shared by others. As a result, in contemporary times, most proponents of
distributive justice advocate for greater equality based on moral grounds rather than
utilitarian principles. They prioritise the idea of fairness and ethical considerations,
emphasising that justice should not be solely determined by the pursuit of overall
happiness (Askhari & Mirakhor, 2019).
Rawls acknowledged that utilitarianism has been a dominant theory in modern
moral philosophy (Rawls, 1971, pp. 426–459). He critiqued utilitarianism, arguing
that its principle of liberty does not allow for redistributions that could increase overall
happiness. He asserted, “there is no reason in principle why the greater gain of some
should not compensate for the lesser losses of others, or more importantly, why the
violation of liberty of a few might not be made right by the greater good shared by the
many” (Rawls, 1971, p. 26). Rawls also highlighted that utilitarianism neglects the
importance of individuals in seeking general happiness, stating that “utilitarianism does
not take seriously the distinction between persons” and emphasised that “the rights
secured by justice are not subject to political bargaining or to calculus of social interests”
(Rawls, 1971, p. 27-28). Additionally, he criticised utilitarianism for treating individuals
merely as means to an end, rather than as ends in themselves.
Rawls’s intellectual development reveals a transformation from an earlier
utilitarian standpoint to a contractarian view, which he articulates in his book “A Theory
of Justice”, where he juxtaposes his theory against utilitarianism. He goes beyond
conventional moral considerations, dissociating justice from mere morality, and critiques
the utilitarian concepts of justice. In his own theory of justice, Rawls shifts the focus
towards examining the institutional structure of a “well-ordered society”. He defines a
well-ordered society as one in which all individuals are presumed to act justly and fulfil
their responsibilities in upholding just institutions (Rawls, 1971, p. 8). According to
Rawls, the core subject of justice is not limited to individual actions but rather centers
Self-Instructional
156 Material

on analysing the way major social institutions distribute fundamental rights and duties NOTES
and determine how the benefits of social cooperation are allocated (Rawls, 1971, p.
7). By delving into the foundational principles and mechanisms that govern these social
institutions, Rawls aims to construct a comprehensive and fair framework for societal
justice. In doing so, he distances his theory from the conventional utilitarian approach
and emphasises the importance of just institutions in fostering a harmonious and equitable
society. Rawls endeavoured to create a theory of justice that could stand as an alternative
to utilitarianism. He believed that utilitarianism had significant shortcomings because it
placed individual rights beneath the pursuit of overall happiness and treated individuals
merely as tools to achieve that end. In contrast, Rawls sought to develop a more
comprehensive and balanced approach to justice that prioritised individual rights and
dignity while still promoting the well-being of society as a whole.
Check Your Progress

1. Why do we use the notion of justice?
2. How does Kant define justice?
3. Why did Rawls believe that utilitarianism had significant shortcomings?
9.4 RAWLS’ CONCEPTION OF “JUSTICE AS

FAIRNESS”
Rawls’s theory of justice, known as “justice as fairness”, is designed for a liberal

society and offers a framework for the legitimate exercise of political power. However,
legitimacy alone is the minimum standard of moral acceptability, as a political order
can be considered legitimate without being entirely just. Justice, on the other hand,
establishes the highest standard—the arrangement of social institutions that is morally
superior. In developing justice as fairness, Rawls centers it around the notions that
citizens should be free and equal, and that society should be fair. He aims to reconcile
the tensions between the ideas of freedom and equality, which have been brought to
the forefront by both the socialist critique of liberal democracy and the conservative
critique of the modern welfare state. In essence, justice as fairness seeks to address
Self-Instructional
Material 157

NOTES and resolve these important philosophical concerns within the context of a liberal society.
To understand his idea better, let’s divide it into the following five sub headings:
a) The Basic Structure of Society
Justice as fairness, as proposed by Rawls, aims to outline a just arrangement for major
political and social institutions in a liberal society. These institutions include the
government, legal system, economy, family structure, and more, collectively known as
the society’s basic structure. The basic structure plays a vital role in distributing the
main benefits and burdens of social life, such as determining who gets social recognition,
basic rights, job opportunities, and how income and wealth are distributed.
The form of a society’s basic structure has profound effects on the lives of its
citizens. It not only influences their life prospects but also shapes their goals, attitudes,
relationships, and characters on a deeper level. Because these institutions have such
far-reaching influence, they require justification. However, as most people cannot
realistically leave their society, consent cannot be the sole basis for justification.
Additionally, since the rules of the basic structure are enforced through coercion and
penalties, the demand for justifying the imposition of particular rules becomes even
more pressing.
In explaining justice as fairness, Rawls assumes that the liberal society in question
embraces reasonable pluralism, where diverse beliefs coexist, and that there are sufficient
resources to meet everyone’s basic needs. He simplifies the scenario by assuming a
self-sufficient and closed society, where individuals are born into it and leave only
upon death. Moreover, Rawls mainly focuses on ideal theory, exploring the best possible
conditions for a just society, while putting aside considerations of non-ideal situations,
such as those related to criminal justice. The ultimate goal of justice as fairness is to
establish a fair and equitable society that takes into account the significant impact of its
basic structure on the lives of its citizens.
b) Two Background Ideas behind Rawls’ Conception Justice as Fairness
Rawls’s principles of justice as fairness revolve around the core liberal ideas that
social cooperation should be fair to all citizens, considering them as free and equal
individuals. Rawls combines a negative and a positive thesis to articulate his distinctive
Self-Instructional
158 Material

interpretation of these concepts. The negative thesis begins by acknowledging that NOTES
citizens do not deserve the circumstances they are born into, such as being born into a
wealthy or poor family, possessing certain natural talents, or being part of a specific
gender or racial group. These aspects of a person are morally arbitrary, and therefore,
citizens should not receive more benefits solely based on them. For instance, being
born wealthy, white, or male should not entitle a person to preferential treatment by
social institutions.
However, this negative thesis does not provide a specific distribution of social
goods. Instead, it lays the foundation by emphasising that morally arbitrary factors
should not determine how benefits are allocated. Rawls’s positive distributive thesis is
based on equality-based reciprocity. It suggests that all social goods should be distributed
equally, unless an unequal distribution benefits everyone involved. The guiding principle
is that since citizens are fundamentally equal, justice should start with the presumption
of equal division of cooperatively-produced goods. Any inequalities that arise must be
advantageous to all citizens, especially benefiting those who are least advantaged. This
approach sets equality as the starting point, and any deviations from it must lead to
improvements for everyone, with a special focus on helping the most disadvantaged
individuals. The strong emphasis on equality and reciprocal advantage distinguishes
Rawls’s theory of justice.
c) The Two Principles of Justice as Fairness
Justice as fairness is based on two essential principles that aim to create a just and
equitable society:
 First Principle: Every individual possesses an equal and absolute entitlement
to a comprehensive set of basic liberties, which should apply universally to all
citizens.
 Second Principle: Social and economic inequalities should meet the following
two conditions:
i) They should be linked to positions and opportunities that are accessible to
all under a fair system of equal opportunity.
ii) They should primarily benefit the least advantaged members of society,
ensuring their improvement (referred to as the difference principle).
Self-Instructional
Material 159

NOTES The first principle focuses on ensuring that all citizens enjoy the same fundamental
rights and freedoms, such as freedom of speech, voting rights, and equal treatment
under the law. It emphasises the equal distribution of these rights to every individual.
Rawls’s first principle holds particular importance because it prioritises basic rights
and liberties over other societal interests. This means that these fundamental liberties
cannot be sacrificed or compromised for the sake of other social benefits. Even if
certain policies promise economic gains, they should not infringe upon equal liberties.
The first principle also highlights the importance of the fair value of political liberties.
This entails not only providing formal access to political rights but also ensuring
substantive equality, where individuals with similar abilities have equal opportunities to
participate in political affairs, irrespective of their socio-economic status.
The second principle of justice as fairness comprises two components. The first
part, fair equality of opportunity, calls for equal access to educational and economic
opportunities for individuals with similar talents and motivations, regardless of their
social background. This principle ensures that one’s social origin does not create unequal
barriers to education or meaningful work. The second part of the second principle,
known as the difference principle, allows for social and economic inequalities, but
only if they benefit everyone, particularly the most disadvantaged members of society.
The idea is that these inequalities should lead to an improvement in the situation of the
least privileged individuals. Justice as fairness encompasses principles that safeguard
equal basic liberties and promote social and economic arrangements that benefit the
least advantaged members of society. These principles provide a framework for creating
a just and fair society that upholds the dignity and rights of all its citizens. The difference
principle is based on the idea that the distribution of natural talents and assets is not
deserved. It asserts that a person does not inherently deserve a larger share of society’s
resources simply because they were fortunate enough to be born with certain skills or
abilities that are currently in demand. However, this does not imply that everyone must
receive equal shares. The fact that citizens possess different talents and capabilities
can be harnessed to benefit everyone. In a society guided by the difference principle,
citizens view the distribution of natural endowments as a collective resource that can
contribute to the welfare of all. Those who are more gifted are encouraged to use their
talents to improve their own well-being, as long as their progress also enhances the
welfare of those less privileged. The difference principle embodies a positive vision of
Self-Instructional social cohesion. In such a society, citizens are assured that the economy operates for
160 Material

the benefit of all, and that those with greater natural potential are not becoming wealthier NOTES
at the expense of the less fortunate. This positive ideal contrasts with Nozick’s vision
of libertarian freedom, which prioritises individual liberty over egalitarian concerns, as
well as meritocratic notions of economic justice prevalent in many democratic societies.
d) Rawls’ Conception of Citizens
Rawls bases his justification for the two principles of justice on the conceptions of
citizens and society, which he constructs through the argument from the original position.
According to Rawls, citizens are considered free because they see themselves as
entitled to make claims on social institutions independently. They possess public identities
that are not tied to any particular comprehensive doctrine, allowing for religious or
ideological changes without compromising political rights and liberties. Additionally,
citizens have the capacity to plan their lives responsibly, considering the opportunities
and resources available to them. Rawls emphasises that citizens’ equality stems from
their ability to participate in social cooperation over a complete life, regardless of
variations in skills and talents above the line required for cooperation.
Rationality and reasonableness are also essential attributes of Rawlsian citizens.
Reasonable citizens are willing to abide by fair terms of cooperation even when it may
not directly serve their interests, as long as others do the same. On the other hand,
rational citizens can pursue and modify their own understanding of what is valuable in
life, known as the conception of the good. To develop and exercise these moral powers,
citizens require primary goods. Rawls derives the concept of primary goods from the
citizen’s status as free, equal, reasonable, and rational. Primary goods include basic
rights and liberties, freedom of movement, the ability to choose from various
occupations, the powers of positions of responsibility, income, wealth, and the social
recognition that fosters self-respect and confidence. In the realm of justice as fairness,
evaluating how well citizens are doing relies on equalities and inequalities of primary
goods, which hold the greatest political significance. These goods address citizens’
fundamental interests and contribute to their pursuit of a meaningful and fulfilling life.
e) Rawlsian Conception of Society
Rawls’s concept of society revolves around fairness, where social institutions are
designed to treat all members of society fairly, regardless of their race, gender, religion, Self-Instructional
Material 161

NOTES social background, natural abilities, or personal beliefs about the good life. Moreover,
Rawls emphasises the importance of publicity in relation to fairness. In a well-ordered
society, all citizens willingly accept the principles of justice, and they are aware that
their fellow citizens do the same. Additionally, they recognise that the basic structure of
society is just. The full philosophical justifications for these principles are accessible
and acceptable to all reasonable citizens. The notion of publicity highlights that the
principles governing the basic structure, which will be enforced coercively on free
citizens, should be open to public scrutiny. These principles must not be overly obscure
or serve as veils for underlying power dynamics.
f) The Concept of Original Position
Rawls’s notions regarding citizens and society may appear abstract and seemingly
unimportant to some. Nevertheless, the original position serves a vital role in transitioning
from these abstract concepts to concrete principles of social justice. It achieves this
transformation by reframing the question “What are fair terms of social cooperation
for free and equal citizens?” into “What terms of cooperation would free and equal
citizens agree to under fair conditions?” This strategic approach situates Rawls’s theory
of justice as fairness firmly within the social contract tradition established by philosophers
like Locke, Rousseau, and Kant, as it seeks to attain consensus among citizens.
The original position is a thought experiment, an imaginative scenario in which
each real citizen has a representative. These representatives collaboratively arrive at
principles of justice that should govern the political institutions for the actual citizens.
Opting for this thought experiment over the unfeasible real-life situation of having all
citizens directly negotiate the principles is a sensible choice since the latter would be
influenced by irrelevant factors such as power dynamics and threats. Within the original
position, the representatives solely contemplate what would be fair for free and equal
citizens, aligning themselves with the principles of freedom, equality, and fairness. The
veil of ignorance plays a crucial role in this scenario, effectively concealing specific
attributes of the citizens they represent, such as race, class, and gender. This ensures
that no party advocates for principles that unjustly favour any particular group.
Behind the veil of ignorance, the representatives possess only general knowledge
about citizens, their interests in primary goods, and the scarcity of resources. This
Self-Instructional
162 Material

equalises their positions and results in a just and rational agreement. Moreover, the NOTES
design of the original position includes other elements reflecting Rawls’s
conceptualisations of citizens and society, notably emphasising the importance of publicity
in a well-ordered society where principles are openly endorsed. Additionally, specific
assumptions render the hypothetical agreement decisive, such as the absence of envy
or risk-seeking motivations among the representatives. Once the veil of ignorance is
eventually lifted, and the representatives discover the true identities of the citizens they
represent, there are no opportunities for renegotiating the principles governing the
fundamental structure of society.
Check Your Progress

4. What does Rawls’s theory of justice offer?
5. What was the ultimate goal of justice as fairness?
6. Name the two essential attributes of Rawlsian citizens.
9.5 SUMMARY
In this chapter, you have learnt the concept of justice and opinions of consequentialists
and deontological on it, along with the concept of justice as fairness. The concept of
justice plays a central role not only in ethics but also in legal and political philosophy. In
modern times, John Rawls famously described it as the “first virtue of social institutions”
(Rawls, 1971), emphasising its fundamental significance. While we may debate whether
justice primarily belongs to the realm of law or individuals and other institutions, it is
more insightful to recognise that over time, justice has deeply permeated each of these
domains. According to Kant, justice is a virtue that involves showing respect for others’
freedom, autonomy, and dignity by refraining from interfering with their voluntary actions,
as long as those actions do not violate the rights of others. On the other hand, Mill
defined justice as a collective term for the most important social utilities that promote
and safeguard human liberty. Rawls, in his analysis, viewed justice as the establishment
of maximum equal liberty concerning fundamental rights and duties for all members of
society.
Self-Instructional
Material 163

NOTES The revival of normative political philosophy is widely acknowledged to have

originated with the publication of John Rawls’s seminal work, “A Theory of Justice”, in
1971. Given its dominant presence in contemporary debates, it serves as a natural
starting point for examining current theories of justice. Three influential figures who
significantly contributed to the formulation of utilitarianism were Jeremy Bentham (1748–
1832), John Stuart Mill (1806–1873), and Henry Sidgwick (1838–1900). These
thinkers developed a utilitarian conception of justice as part of their broader moral
theories.
Rawls’s theory of justice, known as “justice as fairness”, is designed for a liberal
society and offers a framework for the legitimate exercise of political power. In
developing justice as fairness, Rawls centers it around the notions that citizens should
be free and equal, and that society should be fair. He aims to reconcile the tensions
between the ideas of freedom and equality, which have been brought to the forefront
by both the socialist critique of liberal democracy and the conservative critique of the
modern welfare state.
9.6 KEY WORDS
 Justice: It is the fair and impartial treatment of individuals based on the principles
of equity and ethical standards.
 Consequentialism: It is the ethical theory that the morality of an action is
determined by its overall outcome or consequences.
 Liberty: It is the state of being free from oppressive restrictions imposed by
authority or control.
 Difference Principle: It asserts that social and economic inequalities are
justified only to the extent that they benefit the least advantaged members of
society.
Self-Instructional
164 Material

NOTES
QUESTIONS
1. We use the notion of justice to assess individual actions, laws, and public policies,
believing that if any of these are unjust, we have strong reasons to reject them,
perhaps even decisive ones.
2. According to Kant, justice is a virtue that involves showing respect for others’
freedom, autonomy, and dignity by refraining from interfering with their voluntary
actions, as long as those actions do not violate the rights of others.
3. Rawls believed that utilitarianism had significant shortcomings because it placed
individual rights beneath the pursuit of overall happiness and treated individuals
merely as tools to achieve that end.
4. Rawls’s theory of justice, known as “justice as fairness,” is designed for a
liberal society and offers a framework for the legitimate exercise of political
power.
5. The ultimate goal of justice as fairness is to establish a fair and equitable society
that takes into account the significant impact of its basic structure on the lives of
its citizens.
6. Rationality and reasonableness are two essential attributes of Rawlsian citizens.

EXERCISES
1. What do you understand by the term, justice?

2. State the appealing features of utilitarianism.
3. How does utilitarianism link justice?
4. Explain the influential figures who significantly contributed to the formulation of
utilitarianism.
5. Analyse the views of Rawls on justice. Self-Instructional
Material 165

NOTES
Askari, H., and A. Mirakhor. 2019. The Utilitarian Conception of Justice and Its
Critics (Bentham to Hayek). In Conceptions of Justice from Islam to the Present
(pp. 131–153).
Bentham, J. 1965. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. New
York: Hafner.
Brock, G., and N. Hassoun. 2023. Global Justice. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman
(Eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2023 Edition).
Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2023/entries/justice-
global/
Miller, D. 2023. Justice. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2023 Edition). Retrieved from https://
plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2023/entries/justice/
Okin, S. M. 1989. Justice, Gender, and the Family. New York: Basic Books.
Pogge, T. 2008. World Poverty and Human Rights. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Rawls, J. 1999. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
(Original work published 1971).
Rawls, J. 1999. The Law of Peoples. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wenar, L. 2021. John Rawls. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopaedia of
Philosophy (Summer 2021 Edition). Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/
archives/sum2021/entries/rawls/
Farrelly, C. (Ed.). 2004. Contemporary political theory: A reader. SAGE
Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446215272
Kymlicka, W. 2002. Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction. Oxford;
New York: Oxford University Press.
Pogge, T. 2007. John Rawls: His Life and Theory of Justice. (M. Kosch, Trans.).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tan, K.-C. 2021. What is this thing called Global Justice? (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Self-Instructional https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367821531.
166 Material

Debates on Justice-II
CHAPTER 10 NOTES
DEBATES ON JUSTICE-II
Mohammad Saalim Farooq Bhat
Research Scholar, Dept. of Political Science, DU
Structure
10.0 Introduction
10.1 Objectives
10.2 Communitarian Conception of Justice: Walzer and Sandel
10.3 Feminist Conception of Justice: Contributions of Susan Moller Okin
10.4 Global Justice: Ideas of Thomas Pogge
10.5 Summary
10.6 Key Words
10.0 INTRODUCTION
Communitarian and feminist conceptions of global justice offer unique perspectives

that challenge traditional approaches to understanding and addressing global inequalities.
Communitarianism emphasises the importance of community values, shared identity,
and cultural context in shaping principles of justice on a global scale. In contrast,
feminism focuses on gender dynamics, power structures, and the intersections of identity
that contribute to systemic injustices worldwide. Both frameworks argue for a more
nuanced and inclusive understanding of justice that considers the diverse needs and
experiences of individuals within various communities. In exploring communitarian and
feminist perspectives on global justice, one delves into the complexities of human
relationships, cultural diversity, and the interplay between local and global forces,
ultimately seeking a more equitable and just world order. This chapter will discuss the
communitarian and feminist conceptions, along with the concept of global justice. Self-Instructional
Material 167

NOTES
10.1 OBJECTIVES

 Discuss communitarian and feminist conceptions
 Explain the concept of global justice
10.2 COMMUNITARIAN CONCEPTION OF JUSTICE:

WALZER AND SANDEL
Drawing on the ideas of Aristotle and Hegel, political thinkers like Alasdair MacIntyre,
Michael Sandel, Charles Taylor, and Michael Walzer have challenged Rawls’s
assumption that the primary role of government is to ensure and justly distribute
individual liberties and economic resources required for pursuing freely chosen lives.
These philosophers, often labelled as communitarians by others (although they didn’t
specifically identify themselves as such), criticised liberal theory and its tendency to
undervalue the importance of community. It’s essential to note that these critics didn’t
propose an all-encompassing communitarian theory as a direct replacement for
liberalism. Instead, they put forth core arguments that aimed to contrast with liberal
perspectives and emphasise the significance of communal bonds and shared values. In
essence, these political philosophers questioned the exclusive focus of liberal thought
on individual rights and personal autonomy, arguing that genuine freedom and well-
being are deeply connected to the health and strength of communities. They highlighted
the importance of belonging to a community, participating in shared practices, and
preserving cultural traditions that contribute to individual flourishing and a sense of
belonging. For them, a just and flourishing society isn’t solely about securing individual
liberties and distributing resources but it also requires a strong sense of community,
shared ethical values, and recognition of the interdependence among members. They
sought to challenge the idea that personal freedom can be fully achieved without
considering the broader context of the communities to which individuals belong. These
political thinkers, though not explicitly forming a unified communitarian movement,
Self-Instructional
168 Material

presented critiques of liberalism by emphasising the significance of community and NOTES

shared values for genuine freedom and a just society. Their ideas sparked important
discussions about the balance between individual rights and communal responsibilities
in political philosophy.
a) Contributions of Michael Sandel: Justice, Community and the Theory

of Unencumbered Self
The original position seeks to accomplish what Kant’s transcendental argument cannot,
i.e. establishing a foundation for the right that is independent of personal interests and
goals but still applicable to the real world. To put it simply, it prompts us to envision the
principles that would govern our society if we were to decide them beforehand, without
knowing our individual circumstances—whether we are rich or poor, strong or weak,
fortunate or unfortunate. These principles, determined in this hypothetical situation,
become the principles of justice. Importantly, they are not contingent on any specific
personal aims or outcomes. The original position assumes a particular view of human
beings as unencumbered selves, existing independently of any specific purposes or
goals, and for whom justice takes precedence as the primary virtue. The unencumbered
self pertains to our stance towards our possessions, desires, and ambitions, establishing
a clear division between our held values and our individual identity. This separation
safeguards the self from the impact of its experiences, ensuring a stable and definitive
sense of self, where no pursuit is significant enough to challenge or alter our true
identity. Above all, the unencumbered self prioritises our capacity to make choices
rather than the specific ends we choose, as this is what defines our core identity.
Thinking of myself as a free and independent agent and someone who is capable of
choice becomes possible only when my identity remains detached from the aims and
interests I may have at any given moment. This notion of independence has implications
for the type of community we can form. As unencumbered selves, we can participate
in voluntary associations and engage in cooperative communities. However, we are
unable to be part of communities that are bound by moral ties that exist before making
choices; we cannot belong to communities where our very identity is at stake. Such
communities, which go beyond mere cooperation and are constitutive of the participants’
identity and interests, would involve a deeper level of citizenship that the unencumbered
self cannot experience.
Self-Instructional
Material 169

NOTES Rawls’s difference principle initially aligns with the idea of unencumbered self,
that my possessions are merely incidental. However, it then assumes that these
possessions are now shared assets, and society has the primary entitlement to the
fruits of their utilisation. This assumption lacks justification. The fact that I, as an individual,
lack a privileged claim to the assets here doesn’t imply that everyone worldwide
collectively possesses such a claim. From a moral perspective, their location within
society’s or humankind’s domain is equally arbitrary. In other words, similar to
utilitarianism, the difference principle operates as a principle of distribution. However,
for it to function effectively there must be a pre-existing moral connection among those
involved, whose assets it aims to distribute and whose contributions it seeks for a
collective endeavour. Without this underlying moral tie, it would amount to using some
individuals as tools for others’ purposes, a concept that liberalism firmly opposes. The
difference principle, thus, relies on a sense of common identity and shared moral
obligations among individuals, but this notion contradicts the concept of the liberal
unencumbered self – a self that is independent and free from any specific moral ties or
encumbrances. The liberal self prioritises individual rights and autonomy over collective
responsibilities. Consequently, the moral burdens and prior commitments required for
the difference principle to work effectively are not compatible with the kind of liberal
individualism Rawls constructs. Up until now, the main argument has been that we
cannot simultaneously be individuals who prioritise justice as the most important principle
and individuals who consider the difference principle as a justifiable principle of justice.
Loyalties and convictions have moral significance because they are inseparable from
understanding ourselves as unique individuals, shaped by our family, community, nation,
and history. These allegiances are not mere distant values or voluntary obligations to
humanity, but rather enduring attachments and commitments that define who we are,
leading us to owe more than what justice alone demands. Without the broad self-
understandings that could foster a shared existence, the liberal self finds itself oscillating
between disconnection and involvement. This is the destiny of the unencumbered self
and its promise of freedom.
b) Contributions of Michael Walzer: Complex Equality
Michel Walzer’s concept of “complex equality” is a significant contribution to the

discourse on social justice and distributive fairness. In his influential work “Spheres of
Self-Instructional Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality”, Walzer offers a nuanced perspective on
170 Material

the idea of equality that challenges traditional notions of absolute and uniform distribution. NOTES
Complex equality proposes that various goods and resources should be distributed
differently based on the unique social domains in which they are embedded. At the
heart of Walzer’s complex equality is the recognition that different social spheres, such
as the economy, education, politics, and culture, have distinct principles of distribution
that should govern their allocation. Rather than striving for a single, overarching principle
of justice to be applied universally, Walzer contends that each sphere should be governed
by its own distributive principles, reflecting the specific values and purposes inherent
to that domain. For instance, in the economic sphere, wealth and material resources
might be distributed based on principles of productivity and merit, as this encourages
individuals to work hard and contribute to the economy. In contrast, in the educational
sphere, opportunities and resources could be allocated based on principles of equal
access and need, to ensure that everyone has an equal chance to develop their abilities
and potential. Each sphere operates with its own logic, tailored to its specific function
and goals.
Complex equality is grounded in the belief that social goods are not
interchangeable across different spheres. For example, the value of economic success
does not translate directly into educational advantages or political influence. Emphasising
this distinctiveness, Walzer argues that the complexity of social life requires diverse
criteria for the allocation of goods and resources. One of the central challenges of
complex equality is balancing the autonomy and integrity of different social spheres
while still addressing potential conflicts and inequalities that may arise. Walzer
acknowledges that complex equality requires ongoing negotiation and dialogue among
various stakeholders to ensure a just distribution of resources in each sphere. Moreover,
Walzer highlights the importance of preventing one sphere from dominating others. If,
for instance, economic power excessively influences political decision-making or
educational access, it could undermine the principles of justice within these spheres.
Thus, maintaining a sense of balance and preventing encroachments between different
spheres is crucial to upholding complex equality.
Michel Walzer’s concept of complex equality challenges traditional views of
uniform distributive justice. By recognising the diversity and autonomy of various social
spheres, complex equality offers a more flexible and contextually sensitive approach
to justice. While it presents challenges in terms of practical implementation and potential
Self-Instructional
conflicts, complex equality provides a thought-provoking perspective on how justice Material 171

NOTES might be achieved in a complex and pluralistic society. By appreciating the unique
features of each social sphere, complex equality seeks to create a more inclusive and
just society. It encourages us to recognise that different spheres have their own distinctive
rules of distribution, and each deserves consideration in its own right. Embracing the
complexity of social life, complex equality opens up new avenues for a more nuanced
understanding of justice and fairness in diverse and multifaceted communities.
10.3 FEMINIST CONCEPTION OF JUSTICE:

CONTRIBUTIONS OF SUSAN MOLLER OKIN
Feminism, as a political theory, encompasses diverse issues and concerns, with some
feminists aligning themselves with liberalism while others view liberalism as a
fundamentally patriarchal ideology. In response to perceived deficiencies in liberalism,
feminists construct their normative theories. Depending on the chosen version of
feminism, it may or may not be compatible with liberalism or other normative theories
like communitarianism, republicanism, or multiculturalism. The defining characteristic
of a political theory being ‘feminist’ lies in its emphasis on eradicating the oppression of
women. Consequently, liberal feminists hold the belief that a properly conceived liberal
framework of rights could eliminate the subordination of women, while socialist feminists
assert that gender exploitation is interconnected with class exploitation, necessitating
the simultaneous elimination of both. Susan Okin presents a critique of liberalism’s
fundamental reliance on the public/private dichotomy. This dichotomy posits a division
between the ‘public’ realm of political life and the ‘private’ domain of family and personal
relations. According to liberals, the focus should primarily, if not exclusively, be on the
public sphere, implying that matters of justice only apply to areas like the constitution
or the market, while excluding the family from such considerations. Liberal proponents
defend the public/private distinction, often employing it to oppose authoritarian state
control. They argue that the government should refrain from interfering in matters like
marriage, child-rearing, and religious practices, as such interventions infringe upon the
private realm, which liberals deem vital to safeguard individual autonomy.
Self-Instructional
172 Material

Feminism challenges the public/private dichotomy by advocating that “the NOTES

personal is political,” as argued by feminists like Okin, who assert that this dichotomy
conceals gender inequalities. Okin emphasises the importance of a truly humanist concept
of justice that questions the fairness of gender. According to her, gender represents
“the deeply entrenched institutionalisation of sexual difference,” and it is a social construct
rather than solely a biological distinction (Okin, 1989: 6). While it is biologically true
that only women can give birth, this fact does not justify the other socially imposed
differences between men and women, such as women having to sacrifice their careers
to be parents and being burdened with most unpaid domestic labour at home. Okin’s
call for a humanist theory of justice to inquire about the fairness of gender means
examining these socially imposed vulnerabilities. Neglecting to address the oppression
of women by categorising the family as part of the ‘private’ realm beyond the concerns
of justice would be problematic according to Okin’s perspective.
Okin posits that the personal is political in several ways; firstly, power, a defining
aspect of the political realm, can also manifest within the family structure. Secondly,
she argues that the domestic sphere itself is shaped by political decisions, indicating
the entanglement of personal and political dimensions. Additionally, domestic life serves
as a significant setting for our early socialisation, influencing our understanding of societal
norms and roles. Lastly, the division of labour within most families creates psychological
and practical obstacles for women, affecting their participation in various other spheres
beyond the household. Okin contends that in a just society, one’s sex should hold no
more significance than the colour of one’s eyes in shaping social structures and practices.
Current gender disparities largely arise from the unjust nature of the family institution,
burdening women and leaving them vulnerable. Feminists use the slogan “the personal
is political” to urge for a public philosophy that pays greater attention to addressing
gender inequalities. Their aim is to inspire a societal approach that recognises and
tackles the existing disparities between men and women.
Check Your Progress

1. What was the primary role of government according to Rawls?
2. Why are loyalties and convictions morally significant?
3. What does feminism encompass?
Self-Instructional
Material 173

NOTES
10.4 GLOBAL JUSTICE: IDEAS OF THOMAS POGGE
Justice is often defined as ensuring that each person receives their fair share. The study
of justice has traditionally centered on exploring our responsibilities to treat each other
equitably in various areas, such as the distribution of resources and recognition of
individual rights. Initially, contemporary political philosophers focused primarily on
justice within the confines of the state. However, in the last few decades, there has
been a notable expansion of this focus to encompass global issues. This expansion has
led to an extensive exploration of diverse topics, including matters of just conduct in
war, which has long been a subject of concern, as well as more recent issues arising
from modern phenomena like increased globalisation, economic integration, and the
potential consequences of pandemics and human-induced climate change. The
publication of John Rawls’s influential work, “The Law of Peoples”, sparked extensive
discussions on the topic of global justice (Rawls, 1999). These discussions brought
forth several prominent questions, such as determining the principles that should govern
international actions, understanding our obligations towards the global poor, and
grappling with the moral implications of global inequality. Additionally, scholars explored
strategies for effectively transitioning towards a more just world.
Broadly speaking, the issue of global justice revolves around determining the
appropriate conduct of individuals and states towards others on the international stage,
as well as contemplating the potential restructuring of international institutions to achieve
greater justice in the world. Global justice directs our attention to specific global
challenges and potential injustices. These unique issues serve as critical benchmarks
for assessing and potentially revising our moral and philosophical theories. It is essential
to recognise that the moral and political dynamics on the global stage differ significantly
from those within domestic states. The presence of independent sovereign states as
institutional actors at the international level introduces complexities not found within
domestic settings. Conversely, the absence of a centralised global political authority
with coercive powers further distinguishes the moral landscape of global interactions
from that of domestic affairs. Therefore, understanding and addressing global justice
requires acknowledging these distinct contexts and the implications they have for
individual interactions and relations in the international arena.
Self-Instructional
174 Material

Rawls posits that as long as all nations have institutions that facilitate decent NOTES
living for their citizens, any remaining global inequality should not be considered morally
troubling. Critics, however, draw attention to how these global inequalities, whether in
terms of power or affluence, can lead to deprivation and disadvantage for certain
individuals and groups. The question of the nature and origins of prosperity also sparks
debates between Rawls and his critics. Rawls argues that a nation’s wealth is rooted in
its domestic political culture, the qualities of its leaders, and the effectiveness of its
domestic institutions. However, critics, such as Thomas Pogge, contend that prosperity
is influenced not only by local factors but also by international practices. Pogge sheds
light on the impact of international borrowing and resource privileges. The international
borrowing privilege allows governments to borrow money on behalf of their country,
incurring debt obligations. The international resource privilege grants governments the
freedom to control and sell resources at their discretion. Pogge raises concerns about
the undesirable incentives created by these privileges, attracting power-seeking
individuals to pursue office for personal gain and empowering oppressive governments
to maintain control.
Furthermore, Pogge emphasises that the globally advantaged significantly benefit
from these privileges, leading to a lack of motivation for reform. Nevertheless, he
argues that reforms are imperative, as these privileges impede the progress of developing
countries. Restricting these privileges to sufficiently legitimate governments could remove
a crucial obstacle currently hindering the development of these nations (Pogge, 2008).
Check Your Progress

4. How do you define justice?
5. Why did communitarians emphasise the significance of communal obligations
and social bonds?
10.5 SUMMARY
In this chapter, you have learnt communitarian and feminist conceptions, along with the
concept of global justice. John Rawls’s theory of justice, as presented in his seminal
Self-Instructional
Material 175

NOTES work “A Theory of Justice”, seeks to establish principles that govern a just society.
Rawls argues that justice is achieved when there is fairness and equality among
individuals, particularly in the distribution of social and economic resources. His main
idea is the concept of the original position, an imaginary situation where individuals
choose principles of justice without knowing their own social positions. This veil of
ignorance ensures unbiased decision-making, and the principles that emerge from this
hypothetical scenario form the basis of justice in a society.
Following the publication of Rawls’s theory, various debates arose, notably
from communitarians, feminists like Susan Moller Okin, and advocates of global justice.
Communitarians criticised Rawls for prioritising individual rights over communal values
and traditions. They argued that Rawls’s theory neglects the importance of shared
culture and community in shaping people’s identities and moral principles.
Communitarians emphasise the significance of communal obligations and social bonds
to promote a just society.
Feminist scholars, including Susan Moller Okin, took issue with Rawls’s focus
on the public/private dichotomy, which they argued perpetuates gender inequalities.
They maintained that the personal experiences of women, particularly within the family,
are crucial to understanding and addressing gender-based injustices. Okin called for a
more inclusive approach that considers the impacts of gender norms on women’s lives
and advocates for greater gender equality in all spheres of society.
Another debate centered on global justice, which involves questions about the
responsibilities of states and individuals in addressing global inequalities and injustices.
Critics argued that Rawls’s theory, primarily designed for domestic societies, fails to
address the urgent challenges arising in a globalised world. Scholars like Thomas
Pogge highlighted the impact of international practices on the well-being of developing
countries, especially in terms of resource allocation and debt burdens. Advocates of
global justice emphasised the need for a more cosmopolitan perspective that considers
the responsibilities of affluent nations in addressing global poverty and inequality.
In conclusion, John Rawls’s theory of justice has been foundational in the study
of political philosophy. While it offers a comprehensive framework for justice within
domestic societies, it has also sparked significant debates and critiques from various
perspectives. Communitarians, feminists like Susan Moller Okin, and advocates of
Self-Instructional global justice have raised important questions about the limitations and applicability of
176 Material

Rawls’s theory in addressing broader societal issues. Their contributions have enriched NOTES
the discussion on justice, prompting scholars to continue exploring and refining theories
to create a more inclusive and equitable world.
10.6 KEY WORDS
 Communitarianism: It is a political and social philosophy that emphasizes the

importance of community values, shared responsibilities, and a sense of belonging
in shaping societal structures and individual identity.
 Liberalism: It is a political and social philosophy that advocates for individual
rights, democratic governance, and free-market economics to foster personal
freedom and equality.

QUESTIONS
1. Rawls’s assumption that the primary role of government is to ensure and justly
distribute individual liberties and economic resources required for pursuing freely
chosen lives.
2. Loyalties and convictions have moral significance because they are inseparable
from understanding ourselves as unique individuals, shaped by our family,
community, nation, and history.
3. Feminism, as a political theory, encompasses diverse issues and concerns, with
some feminists aligning themselves with liberalism while others view liberalism
as a fundamentally patriarchal ideology.
4. Justice is often defined as ensuring that each person receives their fair share.
5. Communitarians emphasise the significance of communal obligations and social
bonds to promote a just society.
Self-Instructional
Material 177

NOTES
EXERCISES
1. What is the contribution of Michael Sandel to the concept of justice?

2. What do you understand by complex equality?
3. Analyse the contributions of Michael Sandel to the concept of justice
4. Discuss the feminist conception of justice by Okin.
5. Explain the ideas of Thomas Pogge on global justice.
Askari, H., & Mirakhor, A. 2019. The Utilitarian Conception of Justice and Its Critics
(Bentham to Hayek). In Conceptions of Justice from Islam to the Present (pp.
131–153).
Bentham, J. 1965. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. New
York: Hafner.
Brock, G., & Hassoun, N. 2023. Global Justice. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman
(Eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2023 Edition).
Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2023/entries/justice-
global/
Miller, D. 2023. Justice. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2023 Edition). Retrieved from https://
plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2023/entries/justice/
Okin, S. M. 1989. Justice, Gender, and the Family. New York: Basic Books.
Pogge, T. 2008. World Poverty and Human Rights. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Rawls, J. 1999. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
(Original work published 1971).
Self-Instructional
178 Material

Rawls, J. 1999. The Law of Peoples. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. NOTES
Wenar, L. 2021. John Rawls. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopaedia of
Philosophy (Summer 2021 Edition). Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/
archives/sum2021/entries/rawls/
Farrelly, C. (Ed.). 2004. Contemporary political theory: A reader. SAGE
Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446215272
Kymlicka, W. 2002. Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction. Oxford;
New York: Oxford University Press.
Pogge, T. 2007. John Rawls: His Life and Theory of Justice. (M. Kosch, Trans.).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tan, K.-C. 2021. What is this thing called Global Justice? (2nd ed.). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367821531.
Self-Instructional
Material 179

UNIT VI: DEBATES ON RIGHTS
CHAPTER 11 DEBATES ON RIGHTS-I
CHAPTER 12 DEBATES ON RIGHTS-II

Debates on Rights-I
CHAPTER 11 NOTES
DEBATES ON RIGHTS-I
Rupal
Structure
11.0 Introduction
11.1 Objectives
11.2 Principles of Rights
11.2.2 Legal and Moral Rights
11.3 Principle of Choice and Principle of Interest
11.4 Summary
11.5 Key Words
11.0 INTRODUCTION
The relationship between individuals and the state has been an important issue in political
theory. This is an issue that has caused controversy among political philosophers for
ages. The concept of rights is complex because rights are variable. The concept of
rights is the driving force of political life in any society. Rights are the legitimate claims
of individuals, which help them achieve their best overall development. Rights are the
gift of the modern era in human society and there has been a long struggle for the
attainment of rights in human history. The Declaration of Rights became widely accepted
as a result of the French and American Revolutions. Individuals are believed to be
equal and independent by birth. Rights are accepted by society or the state. Authority Self-Instructional
Material 183

NOTES is not absolute. Restrictions can be imposed on the exercise of rights for the larger
interest of society. Rights are given to all members of the society. Rights are important
in the sense that they try to find out what contributes to the development of a person’s
personality and happiness. This is necessary for both the individual and the society.
When we consider the mutual relationship between the individual and the state, two
things come to the fore – first, what should the individual receive from the state; second,
what a person should do for the state – these are his duties. Rights are such favourable
conditions and opportunities available to the individual under the state which help the
individual in his self-development. According to Laski, “Rights are those conditions of
human life without which a person cannot make his all-round development. The
relationship between the individual and the state is determined by rights only. While the
state, on the one hand, wants to establish its own power, the civil state, on the other
hand, citizens want to ensure their independence against the totalitarianism of the state.
In such a scenario, a situation may arise where the state lies at one end and the individual
at the other. The validity of a person’s rights is verified by him being a member of
society. This fairness can continue only when a person gives as much recognition and
acceptance to the rights of others as he wants for his own. Apart from this, rights and
duties complement each other. We get any right only when other citizens perform their
duties in letter and spirit. Rights and duties should be performed simultaneously. Rights
alone will give rise to anarchy and become baseless. The activities of a person in the
state on which there is no restriction from the state are kept in the category of negative
rights. Positive rights means what arrangements will be made by the state to help the
individual in self-development. This chapter will discuss various theories of rights.
Apart from this, it will explain many viewpoints related to rights and an analytical
review of the rights to develop a comprehensive understanding of the subject of rights.
11.1 OBJECTIVES

 Understand the concept of rights
 Discuss the natural, legal and moral principles of rights
Self-Instructional
184 Material

Debates on Rights-I
NOTES
11.2 PRINCIPLES OF RIGHTS
There are many principles of rights which explain their nature, origin and meaning. The
concept of natural rights describes rights as natural. Ethical hypothesis emphasises
morality. The concept of legal rights recognises rights as legal. Apart from these, there
are other theories of rights such as historical theories which specify rights as the result
of traditions and customs. The social welfare theory of rights considers rights to be
society related, which work in the interest of both the individual and the society.
The principle of natural rights is the most prevalent and ancient. These principles were
popular in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Natural rights consider the rights
of the individual as a self-evident truth. These rights are not provided by the state and
come from the human nature. These rights do not depend on any institutional
arrangement. Their development takes place in the natural state. Locke, a supporter
of this theory, has said that “a person is born with certain innate rights”. These rights
are inherent in the individual. They do not depend on society or state. The source of
natural rights is considered to be the natural law. This theory was popularised by
compromise thinkers like Locke and Hobbes. However, different thinkers have different
opinions regarding natural rights. Where Hobbes considers only the right to life as a
natural right, Locke has placed the right to life, liberty and property in the category of
natural rights. Rousseau gave priority to the rights of freedom and equality. According
to them, natural rights are those for which a person is not dependent on the state, but
the state itself has been created to protect these rights. Supporters of this theory argue
that the state cannot take away these rights of the individual.
The theory of natural rights has also been criticised on many grounds. Bentham
has called natural rights ridiculous. If the rights of the individual are unlimited and
autocratic, we cannot solve the contradiction between the individual and society. Various
thinkers have said that the concept of natural rights has been vague in various ways.
There can be no rights without any law. Rights also expect certain duties.
Self-Instructional
Material 185

NOTES 11.2.2 Legal and Moral Rights
Like natural rights, the origin of moral rights and legal rights is discussed and
interpretations are made. In an equally civilised society, moral rights are given a higher
place than customs and laws because whenever any dispute arises regarding the
interpretation of customs or law, it is tested on the basis of moral beliefs. Even, customs
are adopted to fulfill any good purposes or auspicious purposes, whereas legal rights
are provided by the state and the right to interpret them rests with the government or
the state. Moral and legal rights can be understood in the various ways which are
discussed in further sections.
Legal Principle of Rights
The theory of legal rights believes that rights are the gift of the state. Unless the state
recognises a right, it cannot be considered a right in any sense. According to this
principle, no right is absolute, all rights are bound by the law of the land. The scope
and extent of legal rights are limited to that particular region or state. If a claim is not
protected by the state, it cannot be a right. Rights are defined and implemented by the
state itself. The theory of legal rights is contrary to the theory of natural rights. Bentham
is a major supporter of the theory of legal rights. According to Bentham, the basis of
rights is only law, which itself is based on the concept of utility. Bentham has termed
natural rights “great stupidity resting on crutches”. Some features of the theory of legal
rights are discussed as follows:
1. The state defines rights and ensures them in the form of a recognition. Rights do
not come before the state but the state itself is the source of rights.
2. The state also provides the legal and institutional framework that ensures the
realisation of these rights. The state does not enforce these rights.
3. The state creates and implements rights, ultimately whenever there is a change,
there is a change in the rights also.
This theory is criticised on the basis that it only protects those rights whom the
state provides recognition or protection through its law. One drawback of this approach
is that if only the rights recognised by the state are considered supreme, there will be
no rights against the state. Due to this, the state can assume an autocratic form.
Self-Instructional
186 Material

Debates on Rights-I
Moral Theory of Rights NOTES
In the moral theory of rights, it is believed that with the help of his conscience and
intelligence, a person can differentiate between right and wrong, and good and bad.
These decisions depend on the moral standards of the community. They are based on
morality, justice and conscience. This is related to a person’s sense of trust. TH Green
also says that “the core of rights is in the understanding of right and wrong”. According
to Stark, moral rights originated before legal rights. The validity and existence of moral
rights are independent of the activities of any legislature or judiciary. The moral principle
of rights is the gift of human understanding. It depends on man’s ability to understand
right and wrong. However, different cultures may differ on the definition of right and
wrong. But when morality becomes the basis of rights, it is expected that all humans
will agree on moral ideals. In this context, it becomes necessary to mention Immanuel
Kant. He believed that reason leads a person to see himself and other people as an
end, not as a means, but due to the lack of reason in the natural state, it becomes
necessary to create a political society which works to lead a man towards logic and
ideals. Later on, this political society forms the basis of the moral principle of rights.
Similarly, TH Green has also supported moral rights, and he believes that rights originate
from the moral consciousness of human beings, only then they respect each other’s
rights. Morality gives rise to acceptance of each other among humans and because of
this acceptance, everyone recognises the rights of everyone, not because of fear or
force of the state. Moral rights are criticised on the basis that moral rights are not
based on the empirical method. These rights are based on the beliefs of the society.
Another charge against this theory is that moral rights are not as clear-cut as natural
rights. They are just expectations of people which are not appropriate to be called
rights. Some thinkers believe that law is autonomous and is not based only on morality
and that the moral standards of all societies are not the same. Hence, moral rights
cannot be granted universality.
Joseph Raz in his article “The Authority of Law” made the difference between
law and morality and argued that law is an autonomous authority and there is no need
to resort to morality for its recognition. Legal rights can be understood in this way that
the right to education of a person is a legal right obtained by him in his own country, it
is not a legal right for him in any other country.
Self-Instructional
Material 187

NOTES
11.3 PRINCIPLE OF CHOICE AND PRINCIPLE OF
INTEREST
Rights have two functional principles– the principle of selection principles and principle
of interest. As rights, each of them presents their own different understanding. Choice
theorists believe that rights holders, in a small way, are sovereign. According to these
thinkers, the function of rights is to give their holders control over the duties of others.
Interest theorists say that the function of rights is to further the owner’s authority, not
because owners have options, but because ownership makes the owners better off.
The contradiction between choice-based principles and interest-based principles has
persisted for hundreds of years. Prominent choice theorists include Kant, Hart, Kelsen,
Wellman and Steamer, while supporters of principle of interest are Baitham, Austin,
Lyons, Raz, etc.
Proponents of the principle of interest believe that this principle is a theory of rights
that promotes and protects human interests. Protecting essential interests of human is
the principal basis on which human rights can be morally justified. Thus the approach
of interests is primarily concerned with identifying the social and biological prerequisites
for humans to live a minimally good life. The universality of human rights is based on
some fundamental principles. Indispensable to human well-being, it is necessary to
share the qualities that we possess. For example, each of us has an interest in our
personal safety. This interest serves to justify our claim. Security may require the
derivation of other rights as necessary conditions, such as the satisfaction of basic
nutritional needs and the need to be free from arbitrary detention or arrest. A philosopher,
John Finnis provides a good representation of the approach of principle of interest.
Finnis (1980) argues that human rights are justified by virtue of their vital value in
securing the essential conditions of human well-being. He identifies seven fundamental
interests, which he considers to be “the core needs of human beings for their basic
well-being”.
Self-Instructional
188 Material

Debates on Rights-I
The principle of interest can be understood in such a way that suppose you NOTES
have a right to a thing, it implies that that particular thing is in your interest and it is the
duty of others to provide you that thing. If others do not perform their duty, which is in
your interest, then they violate your right to that thing. For example, children aged 6 to
14 years have the right to receive free and compulsory education and it is the duty of
others to provide them education to ensure compliance of their right. If they fail to do
so then they violate their right to education which is in their interest and if they fulfill that
interest, they can bring them to a better position.
Similarly, Bentham propounded the theory of interest while criticising natural
and moral rights in the form of utilitarianism. According to Bentham, the principles of
interest or rights can be fulfilled only in the legal system. According to him, a person
has the right to vote and it is the duty of the state to provide the person the right to
vote. Other philosophers who have defended human rights from an interest-based
perspective have placed greater emphasis on the question, how can an appeal to
interests provide justification for respect? And when necessary, it may even act positively
to promote the interests of others. There is a long range of such questions that extends
from Western moral and political philosophy at least as far back as the 17th century
philosopher, Thomas Hobbes. Generally, this approach attempts to provide what James
Nickell (1987:84) has called prudential reasons in support of human rights. Taking this
claim as a starting point, proponents of the view that all human beings have basic and
fundamental interests, argued that every person has a basic and general duty to respect
the rights of every other person. The basis of this duty is not mere charity or altruism,
but personal interest. As Nickell writes, a rational argument of fundamental interests
seeks to show that to accept and comply with human rights, would be appropriate in
circumstances where most other people have the possibility to do so, because these
norms are part of the best means of protecting one’s fundamental rights.
In contrast to the viewpoint of interests, principle of selection attempts to ground the

philosophical validity of human rights on human qualities such as the capacity for
freedom. Selection theorists argue that what is distinctive about human agency is the
capacity for freedom and that this should be the core of any form of rights. Ultimately,
Self-Instructional
Material 189

NOTES selection theories would view human rights as arising from, or reducible to, a single,
constitutional right, or alternatively, as a highly limited set of purported fundamental
characteristics. HLA Hart, for example, argues speculatively that all rights reduce to a
single, fundamental right. He refers to this as “the equal right of all human beings to be
free”. (1955: 77). Hart insists that rights to things like political participation or adequate
food, for example, are ultimately derivative of individuals’ equal rights to liberty. Henry
Shue (1996) builds on Hart’s conjectural argument and argues that individual liberty is
ultimately not sufficient to ground all the rights posited by Hart. Shu argues that many
of these rights are more than just personal freedom and include the material conditions
necessary for existence and protection from violence. Thus, he considers rights to be
based on liberty, security and subsistence. A moral philosopher, Alan Gewirth has
advanced such topics. Gewirth argues that the justification for our claims to basic
human rights is that rights are generally presented as distinctive features of the capacity
of human beings to be rationally purposive entities. Gewirth states that recognition of
the validity of human rights is a logical consequence of recognising oneself as a rationally
purposive agent because the claim of rights is a necessary means for rationally purposive
action. Gaviria based his argument on the claim that all human actions are rationally
purposive. Every human action is motivated by some reason or the other, whether it is
a good or bad reason. His argument is to support an end rationally. If one wishes to
write, say, a book, one must logically support the means to reach that goal, at least
keeping one’s literacy in mind. He then asks about the first necessary condition to
become a rationally purposive agent. He believes that freedom and well-being are
necessary conditions for a rationally purposeful action. Freedom and well-being are
necessary means to act rationally and purposefully.
Check Your Progress

1. Name any two compromise thinkers.
2. Who called natural rights ridiculous?
3. Why are moral rights given a higher place than customs and laws in an equally
civilised society?
Self-Instructional
190 Material

Debates on Rights-I
NOTES
11.4 SUMMARY
In this chapter, you have learnt the concept of natural, legal, and moral rights, along
with the principles of choice and interests. The concept of natural rights describes
rights as natural. Ethical hypothesis emphasises on morality. The concept of legal rights
recognises rights as legal. Apart from these, there are other theories of rights such as
historical theories which specify rights as the result of traditions and customs. The
principle of natural rights is the most prevalent and ancient. These principles were
popular in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Natural rights consider the rights
of the individual as a self-evident truth. These rights are not provided by the state and
come from the human nature.
Like natural rights, the origin of moral rights and legal rights is discussed and
interpretations are made. In an equally civilised society, moral rights are given a higher
place than customs and laws because whenever any dispute arises regarding the
interpretation of customs or law, it is tested on the basis of moral beliefs. The theory of
legal rights believes that rights are the gift of the state. Unless the state recognises a
right, it cannot be considered a right in any sense. In the moral theory of rights, it is
believed that with the help of his conscience and intelligence, a person can differentiate
between right and wrong, and good and bad. Rights have two functional principles –
principle of selection principles and principle of interest. As rights, each of them present
their own different understanding. Choice theorists believe that rights holders, in a
small way, are sovereign. Proponents of principle of interest believe that this principle
is a theory of rights that promotes and protects human interests. Protecting essential
interests of human is the principal basis on which human rights can be morally justified.
11.5 KEY WORDS
 Innate Rights: These are fundamental rights that are considered inherent to
individuals by virtue of their humanity, independent of societal or legal recognition.
Self-Instructional
Material 191

NOTES  Natural Law: It is a theory in ethics and philosophy that posits the existence of
a universal set of moral principles and rules inherent in nature or discoverable
through reason, forming the basis for just and ethical human conduct.
 Morality: It is a system of principles and values that govern individual or collective
conduct, distinguishing right from wrong and guiding ethical behaviour.
 Moral Rights: They refer to inherent entitlements or claims individuals have
based on ethical principles, encompassing aspects such as autonomy, dignity,
and fair treatment.

QUESTIONS
1. Locke and Hobbes are compromise thinkers.

2. Bentham has called natural rights ridiculous.
3. In an equally civilised society, moral rights are given a higher place than customs
and laws because whenever any dispute arises regarding the interpretation of
customs or law, it is tested on the basis of moral beliefs.

EXERCISES
1. What do you understand by legal and moral rights?

2. State the features of the theory of legal rights.
3. Discuss the principles of natural rights.
4. Analyse in detail the concept of moral theory of rights.
5. Explain the principle of right of interest.
6. Describe the principle of selection of rights.
Self-Instructional
192 Material

Debates on Rights-I
NOTES
Dworkin, Ronald. 1977. Taking Rights Seriously. London, Duckworth.

Kymlicka, Will. 1995. Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority
Rights. Clarendon Press.
Nozick, Robert. 1974. Anarchy, State and Utopia. New York: Basic Books.
Raz, Joseph. 1986. The Morality of Freedom. Oxford: Clarendon press.
Sandel, Michael. 1998. Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. Cambridge University
press.
Self-Instructional
Material 193

Debates on Rights-II
CHAPTER 12 NOTES
DEBATES ON RIGHTS-II
Rupal
Structure
12.0 Introduction
12.1 Objectives
12.2 Dispute among Rights
12.3 Rights as ‘Trumps’
12.4 Summary
12.5 Key Words
12.0 INTRODUCTION
Views on disputes among rights often revolve around the conceptual framework of
rights as “trumps”. In this context, the idea is that certain rights, due to their fundamental
nature or importance, can override or take precedence over other competing rights in
specific situations. This perspective acknowledges that rights can come into conflict,
posing a challenge in ethical and legal decision-making. For instance, the clash between
the right to free speech and the right to privacy in the age of digital communication is a
notable contemporary example. The concept of rights as trumps implies that, in certain
circumstances, one right may be considered more inviolable or crucial than another,
requiring careful consideration and thoughtful balancing to address conflicting claims.
Critics argue that this approach may risk undervaluing or neglecting certain rights,
emphasising the importance of a nuanced and context-specific analysis when navigating
disputes among rights. The evolving landscape of rights and their interplay continues to
be a dynamic area of ethical and legal discourse. This chapter will discuss various
Self-Instructional
views on disputes among rights and the concept of rights as Trumps. Material 195

NOTES
12.1 OBJECTIVES

 Discuss the various views on disputes among rights
 Explain the concept of rights as Trumps
12.2 DISPUTE AMONG RIGHTS
There is tension and conflict between different types of rights such as between moral
and legal rights, political-civil and socio-economic rights, individual and group rights,
and human and environmental rights. We will discuss some of the main concepts of
rights prevalent in political theory such as autocratic, communitarian and multiculturalist
approaches.
Libertarian View of Rights
Robert Nozick is mainly associated with the libertarian view of rights. He has argued
in his famous work “Anarchy, State and Utopia” that every person has some rights
which cannot be violated under any circumstances, and even if it occurs, it hinder the
public welfare. According to Nozick, the violation of individual rights for the sake of
public welfare cannot be justified in any way. While affirming rights, Nozick considers
the state equivalent to a private business institution. According to him, people mainly
avail the services of the state to protect their property because it proves to be more
efficient as compared to other commercial institutions. The state does not have the
right to redistribute the income or property of its citizens.
According to Nozick, freedom and rights subordinate all other issues. Nozick
propounds some principles in the context of justice and rights, which are as follows:
1. If a person acquires a thing in a just manner, then he gets the right to enjoy
that thing.
Self-Instructional
196 Material

2. If a person acquires anything by transfer from someone else and if the NOTES
transferor has acquired the thing in a just manner, then he will be entitled to
that thing.
3. Without fulfilling the first and second principles, no one could be entitled
to anything.
Although it is believed that Nozick’s concept of justice and rights actually
advocated laying the foundation for a free market and a capitalist economy, it also
seems right to say so because in this way, the protection of individual rights is strongly
ensured, but this fact is deliberately ignored as to what impact it will have on social
justice and public welfare. This gives strength to Nozick’s criticism that individual
rights cannot be given so much tyranny that public interests start being ignored. Even
on the grounds of morality, such a principle of rights appears to be so hollow that
everyone becomes engrossed in fulfilling their selfish interests. Where the rights of the
individual start getting more importance than that of the society and pushing the state
back is also not beyond the problem.
Communitarian View of Rights
The communitarian view of rights has been presented by Michael Sandel, Walzer and
McIntyre. Communitarians consider rights important for the progress and development
of an individual and society. However, they criticise the unhistorical and external criteria
that liberals apply to criticise the actual and everyday realities of society. For
communitarians, an individual is not an abstract category but is deeply embedded in
his/her social and cultural community. The liberal concept views individual well-being
and happiness as independent and autonomous from his or her community, while
communitarians argue that the individual understands and enjoys his or her well-being
and happiness in his or her community. According to them, the interest of an individual
can be meaningful only within the general interest of the community. A person separated
from the community has no special rights. The way a person pursues his/her interests
by surrendering himself/herself to the community is the basis of his/her rights.
Michael Sandel in his famous work “Liberalism and The Limits of Justice” has
refuted Rawls’s recognition of universal rights and according to him, the rights of an
individual are not imagined separately from the society. Therefore, he has called the
Self-Instructional
Material 197

NOTES concept of liberal rights abstract and unhistorical. Similarly, Walzer is of the opinion
that ‘universal recognition of rights is erroneous’. The concept of rights belongs only to
society and things do not have equal importance in every society.
Community identity should be kept in mind rather than individual identity. The
only way to identify the requirements of rights and justice is to look at how each
particular community understands the value of social goods. Liberal political rights
should be abandoned for ‘public interest politics’. While allocating rights to individuals,
we should also take into account their social and cultural backgrounds.
Multicultural View of Rights
The multicultural view of rights is presented by Will Kymlicka. Kymlicka, in her book
“Multicultural citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights”, analyses the issue of
citizenship and diversity and connects cultural rights with the idea of equality of
opportunity. For liberals, it is necessary to protect the civil and political rights of
individuals in order to accommodate cultural differences. Multiculturalists, while
supporting the rights of minorities, rejected the liberal idea of an autonomous and
independent individual because the individual is essentially a member of the culture
and a community. Culture has a clear impact on the laws made by the state. For
example, marriage, divorce and property laws are influenced by culture. Therefore,
when the state tries to achieve common interests, it is basically cultural relative and
sometimes there is a possibility of conflict with other cultures. Multiculturalists have
offered an alternative to liberal democracy. According to him, equality does not mean
equality of the minority community. Therefore, some special rights are needed to
preserve the culture of minorities.
Kymlicka claims that modern democracies are using more group specific methods
to accommodate cultural differences. Kymlicka has clarified the difference between
group-differentiated rights in three ways, which are as follows:
1. Right to Self-Governance
2. Poly ethnic Rights
3. Special Representation Rights
Self-Instructional
198 Material

Since the state reflects the culture of the majority community, minorities need NOTES
some special rights in public life. For example, Sikhs in Canada demanded exemption
from wearing helmets and the Canadian government accepted their demand, and women
of Asian origin in Canada were exempted from the prescribed dress of nurses.
Multiculturalists not only supported special rights in cultural form but also supported
providing financial and infrastructural assistance to these communities. Such changes
in the political system have been suggested so that these classes can become capable
of self-governance and the cultural rights of other groups in the society can be protected.
12.3 RIGHTS AS ‘TRUMPS’
Ronald Dworkin has analysed rights in his book “Taking Rights Seriously” and
developed the idea of rights in the form of ‘Trumps’. He suggests that the rights of an
individual should be given priority over the rights of a community or group. Rights are
Trumps, meaning they cannot be overridden by any common cause. The sole purpose
of the state is the maintenance of rights. According to Dworkin, all arguments against
curtailing rights are useless. Dworkin has presented his views apart from the utilitarian
thinkers. Dworkin’s account of rights is also better because it relates to important
values such as human dignity, freedom and equality. Dworkin’s central argument is that
individuals can have rights against the state. According to Ivorkin, rights are an end in
themselves. Dworkin considers authority, dignity and self-esteem to be interrelated.
Dworkin defends the liberal theory of law and says that individuals have fundamental
rights against the state. The right to freedom of expression in the strong sense is one
such right. This right is essential for the dignity of an individual. But the question arises
that how does Vorkin justify his argument that citizens have rights against their state or
government? Dworkin appeals to the concepts of human dignity and political equality.
Dworkin expresses rights as equality of respect and equality of concern and according
to him, equality never means equal treatment. If a state fails to fulfill these two rights, it
is natural to question the legitimacy of the state. Dworkin has given special emphasis
on rights and according to him, the right to freedom is not a general right but it is a
specific right, which includes the rights of expression, worship and movement. Dworkin
Self-Instructional
Material 199

NOTES also acknowledged that the right does not Trump everything. If the facilities of the
majority are violated to benefit one person then it cannot be accepted. The state can
curtail weaker rights while performing welfare functions but a right like liberty should
not be hampered. Dworkin presents Trump’s notion of rights. For example, the
government may claim (rightly or wrongly) that closing down a person’s newspaper
will improve the well-being of the community because, as they say, workers will find
less support for revolutionary ideas and hence will not go on strike as often, which will
benefit the economy and the state will be able to provide other fundamental amenities
to the citizens. But the right to freedom of speech will act as a Trump card over these
benefits for the good of the community so the person will be entitled to publish his/her
newspaper. Dworkin draws a conceptual distinction between constitutional and political
rights. Political rights are those moral rights that should be protected as legal
constitutional rights, whereas what Dworkin calls political rights are what most theorists
call constitutional rights. According to Dworkin, political rights are not the specific
rights of any particular constitution, but they are the rights which the constitution should
protect. Dworkin says that the most legitimate acts of any government involve the
interests of a community of different people. These actions benefit some people and
harm others in order to benefit the community as a whole. Dworkin also gives some
exceptions where the rights of the individual can be compromised. When the costs to
society of maintaining a right outweigh the benefits of maintaining a right, it would be
morally wrong to sacrifice those interests of the community that would secure the
overall benefit of the community. Political rights identify and protect these special and
vital interests and justify political action. Dworkin believes that the state should not
restrict the basic decision of whether or not to have an abortion, even though doing so
might lead to population growth and therefore there could be a significant increase in
the well-being of the community, in that sense, the right to abortion acts as a Trump.
But in the other categories, Ivorkin mentions that it is problematic to talk about rights
as giving priority to the welfare of the community.
Check Your Progress

1. Who has written the book “Anarchy, State and Utopia”?
2. Why do people mainly avail the services of the state to protect their property?
Self-Instructional
3. What is the only way to identify the requirements of rights and justice?
200 Material

NOTES
12.4 SUMMARY
In this chapter, you have learnt various prevalent concepts of rights and all the principles
have agreed on one thing that it is necessary to create the basis of rights to transform
the life of an individual into the life of a citizen. Rights secure the dignity, freedom and
welfare of an individual. Rights serve as the foundation of a just society. Ensuring that
every person is treated with fairness and respect, rights form the foundation of human
existence. They promote a framework where individuals can develop themselves,
develop their best personality and participate meaningfully in the community. The
indispensability of rights in providing the conditions for a decent life to man cannot be
denied.
12.5 KEY WORDS
 Conflict: It refers to a clash or disagreement between individuals or groups

with opposing interests, values, or goals.
 Autocratic: It refers to a form of government or leadership where one person
holds absolute and centralised power, often making decisions without input
from others.
 Capitalist Economy: It is characterised by private ownership of the means of
production, with market forces determining the allocation of resources and
production decisions.
 Communitarianism: It emphasises the importance of community values, social
cooperation, and shared responsibilities in shaping societal norms and
governance.
Self-Instructional
Material 201

NOTES
QUESTIONS
1. Robert Nozick has written the book “Anarchy, State and Utopia”.
2. According to Robert Nozick, people mainly avail the services of the state to
protect their property because it proves to be more efficient as compared to
other commercial institutions. The state does not have the right to redistribute
the income or property of its citizens.
3. The only way to identify the requirements of rights and justice is to look at how
each particular community understands the value of social goods.

EXERCISES
1. Mention the principles in the context of justice and rights propounded by Nozick.
2. What do you understand by the multicultural view of rights?
3. Analyse the communitarian view of rights.
4. Discuss in detail the concept of rights as ’Trumps’.
Self-Instructional
202 Material

Dworkin, Ronald. 1977. Taking Rights Seriously. London, Duckworth. NOTES

Kymlicka, Will. 1995. Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority
Rights. Clarendon Press.
Nozick, Robert. 1974. Anarchy, State and Utopia. New York: Basic Books.
Raz, Joseph. 1986. The Morality of Freedom. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Sandel, Michael. 1998. Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. Cambridge University
Press.
Self-Instructional
Material 203

UNIT VII: DEBATES ON DEMOCRATIC
POLITICAL COMMUNITY
CHAPTER 13 DEBATES ON DEMOCRATIC POLITICAL

COMMUNITY-I
CHAPTER 14 DEBATES ON DEMOCRATIC POLITICAL

COMMUNITY-II
Debates on Democratic Political Community-I
CHAPTER 13 NOTES
DEBATES ON DEMOCRATIC POLITICAL

COMMUNITY-I
Kaushik Kumar
Structure
13.0 Introduction
13.1 Objectives
13.2 Politics of Identity and Recognition
13.3 Challenges of Democracy and Pluralism
13.3.1 Pluralism
13.4 Summary
13.5 Key Words
13.0 INTRODUCTION
Navigating the intricate intersections of identity, politics, recognition, democracy, and

pluralism is essential to understand the complex dynamics that shape contemporary
societies. In the realm of identity politics and recognition, individuals and groups strive
for acknowledgment and validation of their unique attributes, experiences, and rights,
challenging established power structures. Simultaneously, the democratic framework
grapples with the challenges posed by pluralism, emphasising the need to accommodate
Self-Instructional
diverse perspectives within the political landscape. As these two realms converge, the Material 207

NOTES discourse surrounding identity and democracy becomes central to addressing the
problems and opportunities that arise when navigating the rich tapestry of cultural,
social, and political pluralism in our interconnected world. This chapter will discuss the
concept of politics of identity and recognition and different aspects of pluralism
13.1 OBJECTIVES

 Discuss the concept of politics of identity and recognition
 Explain the concept of pluralism
 Analyse the different aspects of pluralism
13.2 POLITICS OF IDENTITY AND RECOGNITION
Identity has become a widely used word these days, but it is not as simple as it sounds.
Many thinkers have contributed to political theory to define identity and deal with its
complexities. In recent decades, identity and the struggle for recognition of this identity
have increasingly come to dominate the political scenario. “Recognition theorists” like
Charles Taylor, and Axel Honneth have tried to explain it through their ideas. This
mainly emerges in the context of multiculturalism, events in the former Yugoslavia and
affirmative action. Charles Taylor examines the historically emerging need for recognition
in his essay “Politics of Recognition (1992)”. He argues that we see a wide range of
contemporary social struggles for identity, ranging primarily from feminism to formerly
colonised movements. He made several specific points about identity that demanded
recognition for political life. He says that our identity is formed, at least in part, by our
relationships with other people. As our identity is shaped by our feelings of self-worth,
self-respect and dignity, this is only possible when we are positively recognised for
who we are. Thus for many political theorists, recognition is an integral part of a
satisfactory modern theory of justice, as well as the means by which historical and
Self-Instructional contemporary political conflicts can be understood and justified.
208 Material

Identity and Recognition NOTES
There has always been a mutual struggle regarding identity and recognition in politics,
but some theorists, the main one being Charles Taylor, have taken the risk of resolving
this dispute and have tried to reach it to us in its correct form. Taylor said in “The
Politics of Recognition (1992)” that our identity is partly shaped by recognition or its
absence. Identity depends on how other people see you. Your relationship between
you and other people in society strengthens your identity. Identity is the result of social
interaction between you and others in society. Hegel’s influence lies behind this idea of
Taylor. According to Hegel, individuals are ultimately created subjectively. One’s
personal identity is neither something created at birth, nor something one chooses
during one’s life. Rather, it happens through interactions with others, especially some
important people, those who have an important role in our life, like family, friends,
teachers and colleagues through which a person creates his/her identity through
conversation. The meaning of this idea that who we are is determined through our
interactions with others.
According to Taylor, false identification of any party in the society can harm
you, or can take a form of oppression for you. For example, feminists have often
claimed that they have been consistently misrecognised in society, as weak, irrational,
over-emotional, and inferior to men. Thus, feminists argue that the way women have
been identified in society is completely wrong. Recognition is demanded to improve
this identity prevalent in the society and to give it a new shape. As simple as this
relationship of identity and recognition seems to us when we read and hear it, it is often
equally controversial at the social level. There has been a controversy regarding identity
and recognition in the society since the beginning. Recognition often means that
“recognition is not only an important means of giving importance or respect to another
person, but it also helps in understanding ourselves and is fundamental to creating our
identity. Brandom (2009) approaches this idea through authority, arguing that a genuine
instance of recognition requires that we authorise someone to provide recognition. As
a result, someone has the right to be recognised only as long as he/she is considered
authoritative. Thus, political theorists have always been trying to define it as “politics of
recognition” in political theory.
Self-Instructional
Material 209

NOTES Charles Taylor: Politics of Recognition
Taylor promoted the politics of recognition in his essay “Multiculturalism and the Politics
of Recognition (1992)”. This clear and concise essay by Taylor is often regarded as a
classic expression of the political theory of recognition. Taylor emphasises how important
recognition is. He refers to it as “a vital human need”. Highlighting the risk of
misrecognition, he says, “Misrecognition can be dangerous for a person, and it can
cause suffering or oppression of the person.” Recognition is very important, and only
positive identity of a person can help him to define himself properly in the society or to
know himself (Who am I?). Taylor argues that the decline of social hierarchies that
provided the basis for respect for some individuals (i.e. those higher up in the social
hierarchy) has given rise to the modern notion of dignity, which rests on universality
along the lines of the equal worth of all human beings. This notion of dignity lies at the
core of contemporary democratic ideals. Taylor defines it as “being true to yourself
and your particular way of being” and connects it to the ideal of authenticity. He says
that “being true to yourself” means being true to your originality.
The struggle for identity thus becomes a struggle to recognise what one really is.
However, Taylor is keen to emphasise that the pursuit of authenticity is not simply a
matter of introspection. Rather, it is through our interactions with others that we define
who we are. Furthermore, this communication has no end point; it continues throughout
our lives (until death) and does not depend on the physical presence of any specific
person to influence us. The importance of identity lies in the fact that how others see us
is a necessary condition for understanding who we are. I cannot talk about determining
who I am without reference to the ways in which others recognise me. Furthermore,
there will be times when other people will have a better understanding of me, and so
their recognition of who I am comes as a revelation. As a result, we cannot speak of
knowing ourselves fully before recognition because it is only through recognition that
we understand and value who we are.
To analyse the politics of recognition, Taylor identifies two different ways of
understanding identity and our relationships with others in which the idea of equal
recognition is understood:
 First: There is the politics of equal dignity or the politics of universality, the
aim of which is the equalisation of all rights. Under this, all persons will be
Self-Instructional
210 Material

considered universally equal through recognition of their common citizenship NOTES

or humanity.
 Second: There is politics of difference, in which the uniqueness of each
individual or group is recognised. Taylor says that this second political model
also has a universal basis.
Both views can be summarised as follows:
 Politics of equal dignity: This approach has been described as “difference-
blind”. This means that in a politics of equal dignity, differences between
individuals are not grounds for delegating certain rights or entitlements to
specific individuals or groups. Instead, this approach emphasises that all
individuals should be treated with equal respect regardless of their differences.
It rejects the idea of privileging or discriminating against people based on
their characteristics, such as race, gender or other personal characteristics.
It focuses on the universal principles of equal treatment and respect for all.
 Politics of difference: As the name suggests, this approach is “difference-
friendly”. In the politics of difference, recognition and appreciation of individual
and group differences are considered the central point. This approach accepts
and values diversity among individuals and groups. It talks about providing
certain rights or entitlements to specific individuals or groups based on their
specific characteristics or experiences. The politics of differences tries to
remove historical inequalities and injustice by taking these differences into
account while making political decisions.
However, it is worth noting that the politics of equal dignity does not necessarily
reject or ignore differences, but rather does not use them as the primary basis for
determining rights or entitlements. There may be elements of “interrelatedness” to the
differences in both approaches.
The politics of recognition is often seen in conjunction with the practical aspect of
society. Keeping this basis in mind, “politics of recognition” is defined. The ideas
propounded by Charles Taylor can be divided into the following characteristics:
Self-Instructional
Material 211

NOTES 1. Importance of recognition: Taylor argues that recognition is a fundamental

aspect of human identity. He suggests that individuals and groups seek validation
from others to confirm their self-worth and identity. Recognition is not just about
acceptance; it is also about being seen and valued for one’s uniqueness and
cultural or social identity.
2. Multiculturalism: Taylor’s essay is often linked to the debate surrounding
multiculturalism. He argues that in multicultural societies, it is important to
recognise and respect the diversity of cultural and social identities. Failure to do
so can lead to cultural marginalisation, and individuals from marginalised groups
may feel isolated or oppressed.
3. Identity and Self-Definition: According to Taylor “recognition of identity” by
others plays an important role in the formation of self-identity. He discusses the
idea that identity is not an inherent thing, but is created through interaction and
recognition with others.
4. Authenticity and Plurality: Taylor emphasises the importance of authenticity
in recognising one’s identity. He argues that individuals should be free to
authentically express their cultural, religious or social identities without feeling
pressure to conform to dominant norms. This authenticity allows for a multiplicity
of identities in a diverse society.
In short, Charles Taylor’s ideas on “politics of recognition” play an influential
role in advancing contemporary political theory primarily on identity, diversity, and
social justice. They emphasise the importance of recognising and respecting the different
identities that exist within a multicultural society and advocate individual and group
self-identification.
Check Your Progress

1. Name any two recognition theorists.
2. What do you understand by identity?
3. Which essay by Taylor is often regarded as a classic expression of the political
theory of recognition?
Self-Instructional
212 Material

NOTES
13.3 CHALLENGES OF DEMOCRACY AND
PLURALISM
A plural society means divided loyalties, different social spheres, interconnectedness

and moral codes subjecting us to competing values and commitments. We recognise
these elements as rival struggles of ideology, ethnicity, gender, religion and locality. We
have to deal with people and institutions whose viewpoints differ from ours. We can
understand it better by applying it in our own life. Are there similarities in our thoughts
and the thoughts of our friends, family members, colleagues, etc. in this regard? Perhaps,
there are some differences that give birth to pluralism. Modern states are becoming
increasingly heterogeneous as their citizens come to hold different and incompatible
identities, ideals and interests. How should all citizens be treated equally in modern
states? This question has been raised. To answer this question and to treat citizens
equally, ideologies like multiculturalism and pluralism were born in political philosophy,
which emphasised taking everyone together along the lines of diversity. Maintaining or
strengthening the foundations of democracy in the post-modern era requires addressing
pluralistic challenges. For a strong democracy, it is necessary that everyone in the
society should equally enjoy values like equality, freedom, rights and justice.
13.3.1 Pluralism
Pluralism is a fundamental concept in political theory that highlights the importance of

diverse and sometimes conflicting elements within a society, culture, or organised
system. It is particularly relevant in the context of society and politics, where it serves
as a guiding principle that acknowledges the existence of diverse groups, beliefs, values
and interests. Pluralism emphasises that these differences should not be seen as problems
to be eliminated but as integral components of a vibrant and democratic society rather
than seeking uniformity or conformity. Pluralism encourages the peaceful co-existence
of these diverse elements; it fosters an environment where open dialogue and mutual
respect prevail among people.
In other words, pluralism promotes the idea that a society rich in its diversity is
better equipped to address complex challenges and ensures fairness and representation
Self-Instructional
Material 213

NOTES for all its members. Pluralism is closely linked to the functioning of democratic societies
as it is seen as an essential cornerstone for maintaining social harmony and just
governance. Pluralism resonates across various aspects of human interaction, from
cultural diversity to political debates and philosophical viewpoints, making it the best
way to understand and manage differences in today’s complex world.
There is no definite source of pluralism; it appears before us in many forms. It

characterises the nature of values and relationships between them. The basic pluralistic
belief affirms that there are many moral and non-moral values, and in practice, they
may prove to be inherently or accidentally incompatible. Pluralists who believe in
strong pluralism say that these values are also incomparable. Thus conceived, pluralism
is not relativism. Different values are objects of knowledge for us. The multiplicity of
values provides many ways to live morally well. A good life attracts and commands a
variety of values but no individual or society can hope to encapsulate or harmonise
them all. Different social and cultural traditions use human values in different ways to
create a good life. Thus, relationships with particular persons and things collide and
divide both groups and individuals. Pluralism operates at many levels, between values,
between valued ways of life (which reflect their different valuations), and between
different moral claims and interpretive approaches. The problem arises when this
multiplicity leads to contrary actions, leading to conflict within and between individuals,
groups, societies and cultures. Thus a few questions arise, such as what are the values?
when and why do they conflict? and what is meant by incompatibility and inconsistency
and how does all this affect politics?
Under pluralism, values relate to interests, goals, objects, ideals, virtues, concepts of
goods, entire cultures, moral ideas and beliefs. Some of them refer to objective values,
while some refer to particular combinations and evaluations found in different forms of
life. They tell how pluralism works across basic goods, concepts of the good, cultures,
different types of moral claims, and different judgments and interpretations. Although
the number of common human goods and evils is limited, they do not determine the
Self-Instructional
214 Material possible forms of human flourishing. Some goods are primary, securing basic benefits

valued by most individuals and societies (ranging from adequate food supplies to NOTES
protection from certain types of physical or emotional harm such as torture and
exploitation). There are other secondary goods that are more socially and culturally
specific (they reflect our different roles in the home, workplace, and other public
settings).
Most societies need primary goods in some form or the other and prioritise
them as a pre-condition for obtaining secondary goods. Thus there is conflict between
them because the benefits and disadvantages associated with them are of diverse
types and are not always of compatible types. Pluralists believe that no concept is so
complete that the values present in it do not create any conflict. For example, liberals
face a conflict between their fundamental values of liberty and equality. Virtuous
characters cannot avoid difficult choices. All good qualities prove to be incompatible
with any person, society or work, that is, peace cannot be achieved by mixing it with
respect, justice with mercy, or love with friendship. These values are themselves
intrinsically complex. Thus, liberty can be divided into many freedoms which themselves
may conflict. Negative liberties often conflict with positive liberties, and even negative
liberties like privacy and free speech sometimes conflict. Conceptions of the good and
ways of living conflict with each other as well as internally. They often not only involve
different sets of goods and values but also value them for different reasons. They may
appeal to opposite virtues, views of human nature, moral ideals and basic interests,
and include different notions of what is considered good or bad. Isaiah Berlin famously
saw Machiavelli’s Christianity as mutually exclusive but ultimately in conflict with pagan
life.
Multiple conflicts are difficult in nature. Some conflicts reflect inherent incompatibilities
of a logical nature. Thus, active and contemplative lives are incompatible because they
invoke incompatible virtues. Logical and practical inconsistencies arise from moral
deficiencies, limited resources, and limited powers that characterise the human condition.
Most monists accept that inconsistencies will arise. But as long as the different
alternatives can be ordered using some common measure, principle, or common
procedure, such conflicts can be resolved in monistic terms. Pluralism denies this
possibility on the grounds that values are incommensurable. Self-Instructional
Material 215

NOTES Incompatibilism believes that values are neither better nor equal to any other.
The inconsistency suggests that there is no common currency like happiness in terms
of which all values can be expressed and weighed. It also implies that there is no single
greatest good toward which all humanitarian projects should contribute. Also, no other
mechanism exists, such as a “Lexical Priority Rule”, which could assign weights to
values. Not all goods or values are incommensurable, i.e. incommensurability only
becomes problematic when it is coupled with logical or practical incommensurability,
such that choosing some good or value partially or completely excludes others. Most
of the time, the dilemmas thus created are relatively trivial. Critical matters involve
values that are in some sense essential and final. Such values are essential, along with
primary goods, to some objectively valuable way of life.
Any complex society consists of diverse social roles, customs, spheres and ways of
life, along with their associated concepts of goodness, virtue and excellence. Therefore
special relationships and identities will increase among them and individuals will be
forced to fulfill the responsibilities and duties of being parents, colleagues, neighbors,
citizens, etc. In many ways, pluralism is both a product and a problem of liberalism.
The liberal commitment to freedom allows for the dissemination of particular interests
and a plurality of ideas and ways of life, while the belief in fundamental human equality
problematises pluralism by suggesting that we respect different values and allegiances.
Therefore, there are innumerable sources of pluralism in modern liberal societies. These
sources create conflicts between different groups, individuals, and social sectors. It is
a highly complex negotiation between those special relationships and various other
sources of conflict that explains the particular difficulties experienced by contemporary
politics. Any political issue is likely to involve a whole range of conflicting values,
conceptions of the good, judgments, etc. that are further strengthened by our divided
loyalties to family, party, church, and community.
There are four main responses that have attracted liberals in this regard. The
first response is that we treat different ideas and values as individual preferences.
We can then reach an agreement by trading the resources needed to satisfy them.
Values are, at best, personal opinions, and at worst, emotional statements designed to
Self-Instructional give false legitimacy to our excessive demands on others. Since politics cannot be
216 Material

freed from such distortions, it should be kept to a minimum by a strong structure. In NOTES
contrast, the market provides a pure medium for social exchange. It responds to a
multiplicity of consumer preferences and allows them to trade in a fair and free manner.
The second response looks for a politics of interests beyond ideology and
identity. Value differences allegedly make politics impossible. Therefore, we should
remove them while debating in public by limiting their expression to private occasions.
However, most interests lie in a complex network of goods and values. The politics of
interests cannot be separated from the multiplicity of values and their role within different
ideologies and identities. When people pursue their interests, they seek not only
resources but also rights and recognition.
The third response is alienation, which focuses on the ways in which particular
attachments and concepts of goodness can align themselves in systematic ways to
bind a group of people around a culture. Liberal nationalists adopt an approach to
sharing cultures between states or regionally separated areas. However, there are
many sources of pluralism, some of which operate within cultures. Cultures are unlikely
to be homogeneous units, with all their members sharing a coherent collective identity.
Any attempt to isolate a given line of pluralistic struggle does not make others less
important. At best, separation offers only a partial solution to pluralism, at worst, it
negates it and opens the door to oppression by the dominant elite.
The fourth response sees pluralism as making radical, existential choices
inevitable. Weber famously employed this Machiavellian approach to rethinking liberal
democracy as a way to rally the people and elect politicians with sufficient charisma to
elect them. He believed that pluralistic politics and classical models of liberal democracy
made rational deliberation over the common good impossible. However, competitive
party democracy has never come close to Weber’s heroic vision. Too often, it has
also shown little regard for the accumulation, trading, or intrinsic value of multiple
demands.
Check Your Progress

4. What do you understand by a plural society?
5. Define pluralism.
6. What does the basic pluralistic belief affirm?
Self-Instructional
7. What does incompatibilism believe? Material 217

NOTES
13.4 SUMMARY
In this chapter, you have learnt the concept of identity and the politics of recognition
and democracy and the challenges of pluralism. The concept of identity and the politics
of recognition revolves around the acknowledgment and validation of individuals’ distinct
attributes, experiences, and rights within a societal and political context. Identity,
encompassing factors such as culture, ethnicity, and personal beliefs, plays a pivotal
role in shaping one’s sense of self. In the political arena, the pursuit of recognition
involves marginalised groups seeking acknowledgment of their identities and the societal
challenges they face. The politics of recognition, then, becomes a crucial aspect of
navigating diverse societies, emphasising the importance of acknowledging and
respecting the multifaceted identities that contribute to the fabric of a democratic and
inclusive society.
A plural society means divided loyalties, different social spheres,
interconnectedness and moral codes subjecting us to competing values and
commitments. Pluralism is a fundamental concept in political theory that highlights the
importance of diverse and sometimes conflicting elements within a society, culture, or
organised system. It is particularly relevant in the context of society and politics, where
it serves as a guiding principle that acknowledges the existence of diverse groups,
beliefs, values and interests. There is no definite source of pluralism; it appears before
us in many forms. It characterises the nature of values and the relationships between
them. Pluralism operates at many levels, between values, between valued ways of life
(which reflect their different valuations), and between different moral claims and
interpretive approaches. Multiple conflicts are difficult in nature. Some conflicts reflect
inherent incompatibilities of a logical nature.
13.5 KEY WORDS
 Recognition: It refers to the acknowledgment and validation of the rights,

status, or identity of individuals or groups, often crucial for fostering inclusivity
Self-Instructional and addressing social inequalities.
218 Material

 Multiculturalism: It is a social and political philosophy that values and promotes NOTES
the coexistence of diverse cultural and ethnic groups within a unified society.
 Misrecognition: It refers to the failure to acknowledge or understand the identity,
experiences, or rights of individuals or groups, often resulting in social and political
disparities.
 Pluralism: It is the acceptance and coexistence of diverse opinions, beliefs, or
cultural elements within a society, promoting the idea that multiple perspectives
contribute to a richer and more dynamic social fabric.

QUESTIONS
1. The two recognition theorists are Charles Taylor, and Axel Honneth.
2. Identity is the result of social interaction between you and others in society.
3. The essay “Multiculturalism and the Politics of Recognition (1992)” is often
regarded as a classic expression of the political theory of recognition.
4. A plural society means divided loyalties, different social spheres,
interconnectedness and moral codes subjecting us to competing values and
commitments.
5. Pluralism is a fundamental concept in political theory that highlights the importance
of diverse and sometimes conflicting elements within a society, culture, or
organised system.
6. The basic pluralistic belief affirms that there are many moral and non-moral
values and in practice, they may prove to be inherently or accidentally
incompatible.
7. Incompatibilism believes that values are neither better nor equal to any other.
The inconsistency suggests that there is no common currency like happiness in
terms of which all values can be expressed and weighed.
Self-Instructional
Material 219

NOTES
EXERCISES
1. Why is recognition an integral part of a satisfactory modern theory of justice?

2. State the basic features of the politics of recognition.
3. What is the nature of pluralism?
4. What are the characteristics of pluralism conflict?
5. Discuss the concept of identity and recognition in politics.
6. Analyse the views of Charles Taylor regarding the politics of recognition.
7. Discuss the concept of pluralism and its sources.
8. Explain in detail the concept of pluralistic politics and the views of liberals.
Taylor, Charles. “The Politics of Recognition.” Multiculturalism, 1994, pp. 25–74,

https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt7snkj.6.
Nicholson, Linda. “Identity and the politics of Recognition.” Constellations, vol. 3, no.
1, 1996, pp. 1–16, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8675. 1996.tb00040.x.
Bellamy, Richard. Liberalism and Pluralism, 2002, https://doi.org/10.4324/
9780203007327.
Callan, Eamonn. “Citizenship and education.” Annual Review of Political Science, vol.
7, no.1, 2004, pp. 71–90, https://doi.org/10.114
Self-Instructional
220 Material

Debates on Democratic Political Community–II
CHAPTER 14 NOTES
DEBATES ON DEMOCRATIC POLITICAL

COMMUNITY–II
Kaushik Kumar
Structure
14.0 Introduction
14.1 Objectives
14.2 Citizenship, Virtues and Democratic Education
14.2.1 Citizenship
14.2.3 Patriotism and Universalism (Universal Brotherhood)
14.2.5 Civic Objectives of School Education
14.3 Summary
14.4 Key Words
14.0 INTRODUCTION
At its core, this chapter explains the fundamental principles and structures that underpin
democratic societies, exploring the nature of political association, citizenship, and
governance. As democracies evolve and face diverse challenges, scholars engage in
rigorous debates to comprehend and redefine the contours of a democratic political
community.
The exploration of democratic political community encompasses multifaceted
dimensions, including the principles of representation, citizen participation, and the Self-Instructional
delicate balance between individual liberties and collective decision-making. This Material 221

NOTES chapter deals with questions of justice, equality, and the role of institutions in shaping
inclusive and accountable governance. Furthermore, debates often extend beyond
national borders, addressing the challenges and possibilities presented by globalisation
and transnational political interactions.
Key themes within these debates include the problems between majority rule
and minority rights, the role of civic education in sustaining a vibrant democratic culture,
and the adaptability of democratic principles to diverse cultural contexts. As societies
grapple with issues such as populism, polarisation, and the impact of technology on
political framework, the debates on democratic political community gain increasing
significance.
14.1 OBJECTIVES

 Examine the rights, responsibilities, and privileges associated with citizenship
 Analyse the relationship between autonomy and the development of virtuous
citizens
 Evaluate the notions of patriotism and universalism in the context of democratic
values
 Discuss how a strong citizen society contributes to the overall well-being of a
democratic community
 Explore the objectives of school education in nurturing informed and responsible
citizens
 Assess the validity of various approaches to citizen education
14.2 CITIZENSHIP, VIRTUES AND DEMOCRATIC

EDUCATION
Self-Instructional The nature of citizenship and the provision of education suitable for its attainment have
222 Material
always been among the fundamental questions of political theory. Their expectation

was a result of the marginalisation of ethics and political philosophy in general in English- NOTES
speaking academia during the middle decades of the 20th century. At this time, liberals
brought issues such as citizenship, civil society, family, and education into the field of
debate (for example, Galston 1991, Macedo 1990, Okin 1980). Around the same
time, due to developments in democratic theory, it also tried to give a new importance
to citizenship and its educational pre-conditions. In the late 1980s, the “deliberative
turn” in democratic theory began to gain momentum, incorporating a view of citizen
participation as a specific moral engagement directed at the common good.
In the decade that followed, three important intellectual sources enriched and
complicated the discussion on citizenship and education. First, the relationship between
“social capital” and “the effectiveness of democratic institutions” was revived by Robert
Putnam in this regard through civic identity and the cultural infrastructure of democracies.
Second, identity politics, which has transformed the political landscape in many societies
since the 1960s (Kymlicka 1995, Parekh 2000, Young 1990). In many cases, citizenship
came to be understood as “multicultural,” or what Rawls called “an enduring fact of
pluralism.” Third, cultural and economic globalisation, its rapid pace, has been heralded
by many as new civic ideals. According to them, such ideals will act as a shield against
that hatred and violence which was created by ethnic and religious nationalism in some
of the most terrible events of the latter half of the twentieth century.
14.2.1 Citizenship
The normative concept of citizenship serves two complementary functions. First, it

specifies the rights which citizens rightfully have. Citizenship rights should include some
level of guaranteed educational provision because it is an important part of distributive
justice. The second function is to determine the ideals and virtues that citizens should
cultivate and the duties that they should discharge so as to ensure justice and stability
in the polity to which they belong. These ideals, virtues and duties comprise the proper
goals of civic education, and hence, different conceptions of citizenship offer different
measures with respect to those goals. On this basis, the role of the citizen is considered
important for the stability and justice of the society. Disagreement about the norms of
a stable just regime usually leads to disagreement about the actual responsibilities or
virtues of citizens. But, consensus about the former certainly does not guarantee
Self-Instructional
Material 223

NOTES consensus about the latter. In this context, justice and stability are properties of
institutions, while civic duties and virtues are the business of individual political agents.
Personal autonomy refers to the ability to make choices based on critical thinking
about what is right and wrong. The ideal of personal autonomy has been an integral
part of the liberal tradition since the Enlightenment. Sandel (1982) promoted individual
autonomy, in part, by offering a communitarian critique of liberalism and justice.
Additionally, the rise of identity politics and multiculturalism later challenged universalism.
Then why believe that autonomy is necessary for citizenship? How autonomy is linked
to the educational agenda of citizenship is answered by Guttman and Thompson (1996),
who argue that “in its civic education, deliberative democracy goes further than most
other forms of democracy. This will teach children not only to respect human dignity,
but also to appreciate the role it plays in maintaining political cooperation on terms
acceptable to morally motivated citizens.”
Guttman and Thompson’s (1996) argument is important in this regard because
it connects moral pluralism as a permanent fact of life in free societies with the need for
widely distributed individual autonomy that enables appreciable embrace of pluralism.
But not all standard theorists who have tried to formulate conceptions of citizenship
that accommodate pluralism have accepted this. Galston (1995) has condemned the
“valorisation of choice” in the autonomy-centered ideals of the liberal state. According
to Galston, the protection of diversity is the basis of a free society, and parents respect
is required for the educational choices of those who would reject an education for
their children that engenders autonomy.
Multiculturalists such as Parekh (2000) consider the liberal bias towards
autonomy an example of Western ethnocentrism. Morally ambitious ideals of citizenship
unite the projects of deliberative democracy and Rawlsian political liberalism, and
those ideals demand mutual understanding and autonomy from taxing citizens. To avoid
demands, we may abandon the ambitions that give rise to them.
Self-Instructional
224 Material

14.2.3 Patriotism and Universalism (Universal Brotherhood) NOTES
Since the inception of the nation-state, political education has been linked to the project
of nation-building, and a sense of patriotism has been widely held to be the primary
objective of mass school education. But the civic value of patriotism is vulnerable to
the objections of multiculturalists, who reject it as a means of assimilation. The
Cosmopolitan critique is most famously developed by Nussbaum (the moral premises
of Stoicism 1996), but the critique need not rest on such controversial grounds. Because
the boundaries between nation-states have never corresponded to the distinctions of
interdependence widely held to be the proper basis for relations of mutual civil liability.
Political boundaries have always had more to do with the brute facts about military
victory and defeat than anything else. Yet the rapid integration of the global economy
and the growth of international political and legal institutions create the illusion that
nationalism has some deep moral significance. Williams (2003) claims that the
interdependencies that give rise to civil responsibilities do so by creating “communities
of shared fate.” Membership there is determined not by national identity but by facts
about mutual need and vulnerability, regardless of our commonalities and rivalries.
According to Williams, while globalisation has accelerated the spread of ties of shared
destiny, nationalism breaks down boundaries between communities, creating new sites
for civic engagement that will increasingly shape the lives of our children. In other
words, the model of citizenship as a shared national identity has become “obsolete”
because patriotism can now take a variety of forms and serve many contradictory
purposes.
Nation-centered patriotism is an ideally important concept because it can be
exercised in morally praiseworthy or contemptible way. The association of a sense of
patriotism with the idea of a just democratic community is an important idea in Part III
of Rawls’s ‘A Theory of Justice’, even though the word patriotism is not found in the
text. Rawls envisions a process in which a sense of justice is created in children’s lives
through kinship of affection and loyalty that binds the individual across generations to
a political community that maintains just rule over time.
Self-Instructional
Material 225

NOTES
Check Your Progress
1. What characterises the “deliberative turn” in democratic theory?
2. Define personal autonomy.
3. State the importance of nation-centered patriotism.
Questions about the proper goals of civic education are useless without a credible
account of how to achieve them, or at least how to approximate them in the real
world. The central question in this regard is aptly posed by Macedo: “How do we
plan citizenship with civic capacity while respecting individual freedom?” The most
influential example reflects the concept of social capital, which is mainly presented by
Robert Putnam. According to Putnam, social capital refers to the relationships between
individuals. Social capital is a particular way in which (some) social networks are
formed and sustained by the exchange of mutual goodwill and trustful reliance on the
goodwill of others, which will develop a pattern of mutual benefit over time. Bridging
social capital brings together people who are similar to each other in important respects
(ethnicity, age, gender, social class, etc.), just as bridging social capital brings together
people who are opposite to each other.
“Generalised reciprocity” and the normative core of social capital are both core
civic virtues for thoughtful democrats and political liberals. Certainly, standard theorists
emphasise the intrinsic connection of reciprocity with justice and the legitimacy of
politics in public deliberation, while Putnam emphasises its importance as a widely
diffused social norm. Interpersonal goodwill can obviously flourish in many areas of
social and political cooperation without being established as a justifiable norm, as
Rawls or Guttman envisioned. The demand for reciprocity as an equitable norm is an
extension of generalised reciprocity, and the possibilities for its extension would be
negligible without civil society because of the widespread influence of generalised
reciprocity. Similarly, a primary function of civic education should be to promote the
normalisation of reciprocity across the boundaries of citizenship and social capital that
bridges the most worrisome social cleavages in society. It may be a particularly suitable
Self-Instructional
medium for the process called caste and class.
226 Material

14.2.5 Civic Objectives of School Education NOTES
The quality of state-sponsored school education is of vital personal importance to

parents and children. The ideology of American state-sponsored schooling remains
completely egalitarian. From the beginning, only “public” schools would be funded by
the state, and these would be “normal” schools in a certain sense. At least at the level
of democratic faith, this remains true today. The institution of the public school and the
ideal of the common school are usually conflated. But the difference between the two
is significant, three things make public schools public:
1. They are financed more or less entirely by the state;
2. They are open to all children living in the defined nearby area around the school;
and
3. They are created and operated through certain combination of state and local
political authority.
Public school is thus defined by who pays for it services, who has access to
those services, and who determines its content and distribution. In contrast, common
school is defined by who goes there and what they learn there. Let’s consider the
following excerpt from a decision of the Kansas Supreme Court:-
“The trend of the times has been going on for many years that all criteria based on
race, or colour should be abolished... and all persons should be made absolutely
equal before the law.... In the common school, where on the one hand both sex
(male and female) and children of all kinds meet together, we have a great world at
large; where they can learn all the stages of human nature, emotions, love and
hate, hopes and fears...... But on the other hand, isolated individuals may be
strangers even in their own country; and being a stranger will bring little benefit
neither to oneself nor to the society.
In fact, this Article came into being by a decision taken in 1881 against racial
segregation in Kansas schools, which was written by Judge Daniel Valentine. Although
Valentine expresses confidence in the drive of American history toward political equality
and harmony, he is mindful that the common school, as he portrays, is an object of
moral aspiration rather than present-day achievement. Valentine then writes against
federal efforts to overturn white supremacy in the South, saying that these facts lend
some poignancy to his appeal to “the trend of the times,” an appeal that is closer to his
own perspective than to any clear-cut empirical truth describes a lot about besieged Self-Instructional
Material 227

NOTES political trust. The ideal to which Valentine appeals, combines two ideas: first, the
typical school’s specific demographic profile and second, its specific curriculum. A
common school is a place where “children of all kinds” meet together, turning it into a
microcosm of the demographics of our diverse society. This “great world in miniature”
is also a place to fulfill some shared educational objectives: children learn to understand
each other across the cracks that divide them and thus they become citizen-friends
instead of strangers in their own country. In general, school education requires its
specific demographic profile to achieve its specific curricular objectives. Thus, public
schools are not necessarily bound by the ideal of general school education.
Reasonable limits on power hinder the State from pursuing the objectives of civic
education. The precise identification of those boundaries will vary between competing
normative conceptions of what constitutes a free society. Therefore any liberal
democratic theory must accept great limits to state power. Brighouse (1998) has argued
against any state action intended to promote civic virtue on the grounds that such
action would inevitably be directed at ensuring the survival of the state rather than its
legitimacy, thereby corrupting the processes of trust and the priority formation that
legitimise consent to political authority.
The optimal distribution of educational authority, whether democratic or liberal,
cannot be determined by priority because there is no a primary truth about the reliability
of institutional types. But there may be strong prima facie reasons in favour of sharing
authority among parents, the state, and perhaps the teaching profession in general, in
which the biases of one may balance the biases of the others. Even if some institution
or combination of institutions could be fully trusted to promote public virtue, liberal
toleration would still require tolerance for ways of life that go against such virtue.
Tolerance is an ideal that we properly apply in marking out the limits of basic liberties
that do not depend on whether their bearers are paragons of civic mentality or not.
This is not the place to rehearse all the moral reasons that shape the practice of tolerance.
But chief among them is our determination to minimise the suffering and humiliation
which we impose on people when we seriously disrupt a beloved way of life, even if it
falls far short of the high demands of public virtue. To impose those demands on the
Self-Instructional
228 Material

assumption that the triumph of public virtue will always justify the costs of coercion NOTES
would thus be to violate the tolerance rooted at the core of the liberal tradition and to
engage in self-defeating civic education.
Check Your Progress

4. Define social capital, as presented by Putnam.
5. What defines public schools?
6. Mention the two ideas that constructed Valentine’s appeals.
14.3 SUMMARY
In this chapter, you have learnt that the nexus of citizenship, virtues, and democratic
education is crucial in political theory. The “deliberative turn” in democratic theory
highlights citizen participation for the common good. Citizenship involves defining rights,
virtues, and duties. Civic education aims to instill these ideals, influenced by varying
conceptions of citizenship. Autonomy, central to liberal traditions, faces challenges
from multiculturalists. Also, Guttman and Thompson emphasise autonomy’s role in
navigating moral pluralism.
The civic objectives of education are explored through the lenses of social capital,
public vs. common schools, and the limits of state power in civic education. Robert
Putnam’s concept of social capital emphasises relationships, trust, and reciprocity as
core civic virtues. Public schools, funded by the state and open to all, differ from
common schools defined by inclusivity and shared learning.
14.4 KEY WORDS
 Deliberative Turn: It refers to a shift in democratic theory emphasising citizen

participation as a moral engagement for the common good.
Self-Instructional
Material 229

NOTES  Civic Education: It refers to educational efforts aiming to instill citizenship

ideals, virtues, and duties.
 Multiculturalism: It refers to recognition and appreciation of cultural diversity,
challenging Universalist ideals.
 Cosmopolitan Critique: It refers to criticism of patriotism, arguing for a
broader, cosmopolitan view of civic engagement.
 Social Capital: It refers to the cultural infrastructure fostering effective
democratic institutions.
 Generalised Reciprocity: It refers to mutual goodwill and trustful reliance
forming a normative core of social capital.
 Civic Virtue: It refers to ethical behaviour and qualities associated with good
citizenship and public life.
 Liberal Democratic Theory: It refers to political philosophy emphasising
individual freedoms, equality, and limits on state power.

QUESTIONS
1. In the late 1980s, the “deliberative turn” in democratic theory began to gain
momentum, incorporating a view of citizen participation as a specific moral
engagement directed at the common good.
2. Personal autonomy refers to the ability to make choices based on critical thinking
about what is right and good.
3. Nation-centered patriotism is an ideally important concept because it can be
exercised in morally praiseworthy or contemptible way.
4. The most influential example reflects the concept of social capital, which is
mainly presented by Robert Putnam. According to Putnam, social capital refers
to the relationships between individuals.
Self-Instructional
230 Material

5. Public school is thus defined by who pays for it services, who has access to NOTES
those services, and who determines its content and distribution.
6. The ideal to which Valentine appeals, combines two ideas: first, the typical
school’s specific demographic profile and second, its specific curriculum.

EXERCISES
1. How does multiculturalism challenge the liberal bias towards autonomy in

citizenship ideals?
2. Briefly explain the role of patriotism in mass school education and its vulnerability
to multicultural objections.
3. Differentiate between public and common schools.
4. Write a short note on the role of tolerance in the liberal tradition and its significance
in civic education.
5. Analyse the significance of social capital in civic education, considering its impact
on relationships, trust, and reciprocity.
6. Elaborate the role of tolerance in liberal democratic theory and its application to
civic education.
7. Examine the two complementary functions of the normative concept of
citizenship, focusing on the specification of rights and the cultivation of virtues.
8. Discuss the changing dynamics of patriotism in the context of globalisation,
analysing its traditional association with nation-building and multicultural
challenges.
Self-Instructional
Material 231

NOTES
Taylor, Charles. “The Politics of Recognition.” Multiculturalism, 1994, pp. 25–74,

https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt7snkj.6.
Nicholson, Linda. “Identity and the politics of Recognition.” Constellations, vol. 3, no.
1, 1996, pp. 1–16, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8675. 1996.tb00040.x.
Bellamy, Richard. Liberalism and Pluralism, 2002, https://doi.org/10.4324/
9780203007327.
Callan, Eamonn. “Citizenship and education.” Annual Review of Political Science, vol.
7, no.1, 2004, pp. 71–90, https://doi.org/10.114
Self-Instructional
232 Material

ISBN
DEPARTMENT OF DISTANCE AND CONTINUING EDUCATION

UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

Theory and Debate

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Theory and Debate

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DEBATES IN

DEPARTMENT OF DISTANCE AND CONTINUING EDUCATION

© Department of Distance and Continuing Education

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

Corrections/Modifications/Suggestions proposed by Statutory Body,

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

Unit I: Introduction Chapter 1: Political Theory: An

Unit II: Understanding Power Chapter 3: The Faces of Power:

Unit III: Debates on Freedom Chapter 5: Debates on Freedom-I

Unit IV: Debates on Equality Chapter 7: Debates on Equality-I

Unit V: Debates on Justice

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

Unit VI: Debates on Rights Chapter 11: Debates on Rights-I

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

CHAPTER 2 DISAGREEMENTS AND DEBATES IN POLITICAL THEORY:

UNIT II: UNDERSTANDING POWER

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

3.5 Key Words

UNIT III: DEBATES ON FREEDOM

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

CHAPTER 6 DEBATES ON FREEDOM-II 101-121

UNIT IV: DEBATES ON EQUALITY

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

7.8 Answers to Check Your Progress Questions

UNIT V: DEBATES ON JUSTICE

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

CHAPTER 10 DEBATES ON JUSTICE-II 167–179

UNIT VI: DEBATES ON RIGHTS

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

CHAPTER 12 DEBATES ON RIGHTS-II 195-203

UNIT VII: DEBATES ON DEMOCRATIC POLITICAL

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

CHAPTER 14 DEBATES ON DEMOCRATIC POLITICAL COMMUNITY–II 221-232

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

CHAPTER 1 POLITICAL THEORY: AN

CHAPTER 2 DISAGREEMENTS AND DEBATES IN

POLITICAL THEORY: AN INTRODUCTION

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

After going through this chapter, you will be able to:

1.2 WHAT IS A THEORY?

1.2.1 Functions of theories

The main functions of theories are discussed as follows:

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

1.3 POLITICAL THEORY

Catriona Mackinnon’s View on Political Theory

“Political theory encompasses the examination of how individuals ought to coexist

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

NOTES principles of justice, we encounter questions reminiscent of those pertaining to

Berlin’s View on Political Theory

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

only be pursued meaningfully in a pluralistic or potentially pluralistic society. In a society, NOTES

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

1.3.1 Decline of Political Theory

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

Check Your Progress

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

potential flaws, injustices, or contradictions within political systems and NOTES

1.4.1 Political Theory: Contents

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,