Diane Labrosse’s Post

Jean-Jacques Rousseau,  1712 – 1778 CE, was a philosopher of the 18th century who mostly lived and was active in France. His political philosophy influenced western Europe, including aspects of the French Revolution and the development of modern political thought. Rousseau’s Discourse on Inequality and The Social Contract are cornerstones in contemporary political thought. The Social Contract outlines what ought to be in place for a legitimate and publicly supported political order. It is possibly the most influential work of political philosophy in the West. The treatise begins with the often heard opening lines, “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains. Those who think themselves the masters of others are indeed greater slaves than they.” Rousseau followed the work of Hobbes and claimed that the state of nature was a human existence that was without law or morality, which humans needed to leave behind in order to truly thrive and survive. As society developed, the human race was required to have institutions of law in order to protect themselves and to ensure that all people in a society or community kept their word to one another. According to Rousseau, by joining together through the concept of a social contract and giving up some of their inborn freedoms, individual people could both protect themselves and remain basically free to live as they chose. This is because obeying the general will of the people through the laws that are agreed upon by the community guarantees all individuals both physical safety and protection from tyranny because they are, as a whole, the authors of those accepted laws.  “No-one will dispute that the General Will is in each individual a pure act of the understanding, which reasons while the passions are silent on what a man may demand of his neighbour and on what his neighbour has a right to demand of him. ”Jean-Jacques Rousseau' Rousseau has suffered as much as any one from critics without a sense of history. He has been cried up and cried down by democrats and oppressors with an equal lack of understanding and imagination. His name, a hundred and fifty years after the publication of the Social Contract, is still a controversial watchword and a party cry. He is accepted as one of the greatest writers France has produced; but even now men are inclined, as political bias prompts them, to accept or reject his political doctrines as a whole, without sifting them or attempting to understand and discriminate. He is still revered or hated as the author who, above all others, inspired the French Revolution. When he remarks that “the facts,” the actual history of political societies, “do not concern him,” he is not contemptuous of facts; he is merely asserting the sure principle that a fact can in no case give rise to a right. His desire is to establish society on a basis of pure right, so as at once to disprove his attack on society generally and to reinforce his criticism of existing societies.

In this video lecture and interview, Nelson Maldonado-Torres notes, "If we are not talking about abolition and reparations, then we are not really talking about decolonization." Hear and read more about why the humanities as we know them should be abolished and why we need decolonial love now. https://lnkd.in/ehbVsz6k

This is a great article in the Conversation. It refers to a pioneering work in Australia that directly addresses universities and their role in supporting colonisation and white supremacy- It addresses specifically the role of the University of Melbourne. Importantly, it argues #truthtelling and #reconciliation have their limits and we may need to be prepared to move on from them. Particularly to Indigenous #resurgence, focusing on Indigenous strengths, continuities and values. Our #decolonising work can benefit from thinking about this. #Regeneration advocates should also engage.

LIBERALISM: A Short History - PDF: https://lnkd.in/ggtmpvqg Liberalism is a term much misunderstood. Political philosophers and political parties have played fast and loose with the concept. Does liberalism refer to the political thought of John Locke, Herbert Spencer, and Friedrich Hayek, who believed individual liberty was the ultimate political ideal? Or does it refer to the ‘modern liberalism’ of Franklin D. Roosevelt, who built up the American welfare state? The word liberalism has not been as confused in Australia as it has been in the United States. But even here it is used ambiguously. The usual distinction made by Australia commentators—that between ‘big-L’ Liberalism (referring to the beliefs of the Liberal Party of Australia) and ‘small-l’ liberalism—does little to clarify the issues at stake. Does small-l liberalism mean free market economics paired with social liberalism? The economist (and now Labor member for the federal seat of Fraser) Andrew Leigh has in recent years argued that the Labor Party, rather than the Liberal Party are the heirs of Alfred Deakin. Labor is therefore the true ‘liberal’ party. Yet Alfred Deakin oversaw the White Australia policy and the victory of protectionism against free trade. If that is liberalism, Labor is welcome to it. Richard Allsop’s Liberalism: A Short History is a spirited survey of the rise, fall, and revival of the liberal idea. Beginning in earnest with the battles for toleration in the sixteenth century, liberalism was the most revolutionary philosophy for three centuries, as the world’s greatest thinkers built a doctrine underpinning individual rights, private property, and representative government. That intellectual dominance fell away in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century as Marxism—and its gradualist cousin, progressivism— seduced the intellectual classes. In a masterpiece of public relations, the more hesitant varieties of progressive thought cast themselves as ‘liberals’—claiming they were extending, rather than opposing, the classical liberalism of Adam Smith, the American Revolution and the Dutch Republic. Richard tells this story with rare clarity. One of the important contributions this book makes is its extension of the traditional story of liberalism outside the confines of the English-speaking world. Richard reminds us that liberalism was not developed solely in the British Isles but in China, Germany, the Netherlands, France, and Spain. The contest between ‘real’ and ‘new’ liberalism was fought in Australia as much as it was around the world. One of Australia’s great contributions to liberal thought focused on this question. Richard draws our attention to the great tradition of free trade in Australia. #democracy #liberalism #government #polticaltheory #DemocraticErosion #backsliding #repubicanism #socialhierarchy #SupremeCourt #neoliberalism #virtue #wealth

ty JOSÉ MEDINA, https://lnkd.in/ga9P42vs .... Resistant imaginations, particularly when they are structural features of an epistemic system, encourage beneficial epistemic friction. "In my pluralistic and relational view, what is to be avoided is letting one particular imaginative horizon or frame rule the day and become hegemonic, without any other way of imagining offering resistance, and making the subjects who grow under their influence become insensitive to the blind spots of the frame" (257). // Resistant imaginations ensure that a dominant narrative cannot go unchallenged. Medina notes that this is a good reason to have and encourage pluralistic communities where many views are put into conversation with one another. He also notes that this pluralism need not entail a fractured, warring community. Rather, there should be solidarity in difference and disagreement. "Acknowledgment, rather than agreement or disagreement, is the crucial normative relation that brings people together through a radically pluralistic sensibility" (280).

Headline:"Echoes of History: Philosophical Insights on Leadership and the Dangers of Autocracy in Modern Politics In the annals of history, philosophers have long grappled with the question of what makes a ruler fit to lead. Their explorations shed light on contemporary figures and the troubling tendencies that emerge in the political arena today. The behavior of certain leaders, marked by threats against minorities, autocratic ambitions, vengefulness, narcissism, and a disregard for the rule of law, prompts us to revisit these philosophical insights to understand the implications for our society. Plato warned us about leaders who, like the mutinous crew overthrowing the skilled navigator, gain power through manipulation and charisma rather than wisdom and virtue. His allegory in "The Republic" serves as a caution against the rise of demagogues who, driven by personal ambition, risk steering the state towards tyranny. Aristotle, in his "Politics," distinguished between the government's true forms, aimed at the common good, and perverted forms, where rulers serve their own interests. He underscored the importance of a political system that balances the good of the community with the prevention of power concentrated in the hands of the unfit. John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" emphasizes the essential nature of protecting individual freedoms and minority rights against the tyranny of the majority and the ruler. Mill's advocacy for a societal structure that safeguards against the erosion of liberties remains a powerful reminder of the need for eternal vigilance. Hannah Arendt dissected the mechanisms of totalitarianism in "The Origins of Totalitarianism," highlighting how demagogues exploit societal divisions and employ propaganda to ascend to power. Her work is a stark warning about the fragility of democracy in the face of charismatic leaders who promise simple solutions to complex problems. Karl Popper argued in "The Open Society and Its Enemies" against the dangers of totalitarian ideologies, advocating for an open society that fosters dialogue, respects individual rights, and remains wary of those who claim to have absolute answers. These philosophical perspectives offer a lens through which to view the behavior of leaders like Donald Trump, whose tenure and rhetoric have sparked widespread debate about the state of democracy and governance in the modern age. They remind us of the importance of vigilance, the protection of minority rights, and the maintenance of a political system that resists the allure of autocratic rule. In reflecting on these insights, we are called to ensure that history's lessons guide us toward a more just and equitable society.

Anarchy vs. The State: Philosophical Perspectives on Law, Order, and the Use of Force The tension between anarchy and the state has long been a central theme in political philosophy. From the stark warnings of Thomas Hobbes to the revolutionary zeal of Mikhail Bakunin, thinkers have grappled with the role of authority, the legitimacy of force, and the ideal structure of society. 1. Thomas Hobbes: The Leviathan’s Iron Grip In his seminal work Leviathan, Hobbes paints a grim picture of anarchy—a “war of all against all” where life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” To avoid this chaos, Hobbes argues that individuals must submit to a powerful sovereign who uses force to maintain peace and order. For Hobbes, the state’s coercive power is not only necessary but the only alternative to a life of constant fear and violence. 2. John Locke: Limited Government and the Right to Rebel Locke offers a more optimistic view of human nature, suggesting that people can live according to natural law even without a state. However, he acknowledges that disputes will arise, necessitating an impartial authority to resolve them. Locke’s vision of the state is one of limited power, where force is justified only to protect life, liberty, and property. When the state oversteps its bounds, Locke famously argues, the people have the right to revolt. 3. Jean-Jacques Rousseau: Popular Sovereignty and the General Will Rousseau believed that while humans were noble in their natural state, the advent of private property introduced inequality and conflict. The state, he argues in The Social Contract, should be an expression of the “general will” of the people. Force, in Rousseau’s view, is legitimate only when it reflects the collective interests of the citizenry, not when it serves the narrow interests of the powerful. 4. Max Stirner: The Egoist’s Rejection of Collective Authority Max Stirner, an egoist anarchist, took a unique approach by rejecting both the state and societal norms. He argued that individuals should act solely based on their self-interest, unconstrained by laws or moral codes. For Stirner, force is a tool of personal empowerment, though he did not advocate for organized violence or collective revolution. The Role of Force in Maintaining Law and Order Philosophers offer differing perspectives on the legitimacy and necessity of force: • Hobbes: Force is essential to prevent anarchy and maintain order. • Locke: Force should be used sparingly, only to protect natural rights, with any abuse of power justifying rebellion. • Rousseau: Force is valid when it expresses the general will but illegitimate when used by a corrupt state. • Anarchists: Generally reject state force as inherently oppressive, with some advocating for its overthrow through revolutionary means.

🌟 Jean-Jacques Rousseau 🌟 As we navigate the complexities of modern politics and societal structures, it’s essential to revisit the philosophical foundations that shaped our understanding of democracy, liberty, and equality. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the Swiss Enlightenment philosopher, left an indelible mark on intellectual history, inspiring both admiration and controversy. 🔍 Exploring Rousseau’s Key Ideas: State of Nature and Human Nature: Rousseau challenged prevailing views by suggesting that humans in a state of nature were self-sufficient, peaceful, and free. Unlike Hobbes, who saw the state of nature as brutal and short-lived, Rousseau believed in the innate goodness of humanity. The Social Contract: Rousseau’s influential work, “The Social Contract,” proposed that individuals willingly surrender some freedoms to form a collective body (the state). The “general will” emerged as a central concept—a collective expression of what benefits the community as a whole. Democracy and Equality: Rousseau advocated for direct democracy, where citizens actively participate in decision-making. He believed that small states were better suited for democracy, emphasizing equality and the common good. Challenges and Legacy: Rousseau’s ideas influenced the French Revolution and subsequent political thought. His controversial legacy includes both utopian and dystopian elements, sparking ongoing debates about the balance between individual rights and collective well-being. 🤔 Reflections for Today: How can Rousseau’s concepts inform our discussions on democracy, liberty, and social justice? What trade-offs exist between individual freedoms and the greater good? Let’s engage in thoughtful discourse, drawing inspiration from Rousseau’s radical vision. 📜🌿 #Philosophy #Enlightenment #Democracy #Equality #SocialContract #ModernThoughts

My latest publication: Today, we hosted a book discussion for our new book, Resilience and the Wandering Subject, edited by Supriya Daniel and Anu Kuriakose, which was published in July 2024 by Vernon Press. “This multi-author book explores the concept of a wandering subject, especially in the context of resilience. The wandering subject can be understood as an ever-forming subject through different mobilities. This movement is not just the physical movement compelled by a certain agency but also the various mobilities of the selves of the subject, mobilities through spaces, the interconnections formed with other subjects, and the fluidity between the subject/object/spaces at most times compelled by the spirit of resilience.” My chapter "Construction of Maternal/Womb Space and Her-Story in Andrea Levy’s Small Island", focuses on the post war  II migration to England, which I argued should be read as colonization in reverse as it portrays the willful act by former members of the British colonies not only to take back what belongs to them but also to settle down in England and to have a prominent voice in the post-war British polity. As Levy explains, Britain benefited both economically and culturally from its long stay in the colonies. They not only took from the colonies their natural resources but also used same to develop their countries, leaving these colonies impoverished. Thus, just as many white Britons benefitted from the wealth garnered from these colonies without working for it, some of these immigrants were looking forward to enjoying the “abundant wealth” in England they believe they are entitled to. Thus, aware of their subjugation during the colonial era and their poor economic conditions, it is their intention not only to get a job and settle down in England but also to rewrite the history that portrays them as inferior beings, renders them invisible, and erases their subjectivity. Significant is the fact that black women are at the forefront of this colonization mission as they take up the responsibility of nurturing a new British multicultural society and fostering new social relations, as the character Hortense does in the novel.  Hortense not only becomes the voice that opens and ends this important narrative but also is the lone voice that speaks of the birth and nurturing of a new British multicultural society that Queenie biracial child symbolizes.  This book is available at 24% discount using coupon CFC160942B9A9 at https://lnkd.in/dpshKcaa or on Amazon: https://lnkd.in/dENKtzAH #newbook #postwarmigration#colonizationinreverse#resilience#wanderingsubject #wombspace#herstory#blackbritishwomen#

DOES LIBERALISM HAVE A FUTURE? - PDF: https://lnkd.in/gxtbtvbU The solution to the ills of liberalism is not post-liberalism or illiberalism. It is to recognize that some of the ways in which liberalism has evolved have made it decidedly less liberal. The progressive liberalism that Deneen identifies, or Owen’s “third-stage” liberalism, has made democratic societies less tolerant, less free, and less diverse. At their worst, these versions of liberalism seek to impose cultural and ideological uniformity in the name of progress, autonomy, inclusiveness, identity, justice, expression, or some other value. It amounts to restricting freedom in the name of one particular value that one sect or minority wants to make general. The problem isn’t the values in question, but the means used to propagate them: the “values’ champions” want to use the coercive instruments of the state to compel respect for their preferred values, which is what makes their ideology, by whatever name, deeply illiberal. As Owen claims, and Deneen wrongly denies, older versions of liberalism are still around and still viable. Indeed, in his 2012 First Things essay, “Unsustainable Liberalism,” Deneen himself writes approvingly about the collection of institutions that comprise liberal governance, which predate liberal ideology. This is akin to what Cambridge scholar Quentin Skinner describes in Liberty Before Liberalism, based on his inaugural lecture as Regius Professor of Modern History at Cambridge. John Locke and Thomas Jefferson, Skinner notes, did not invent the institutions of a free society; they explained them. The institutions came first; the philosophical justifications came later. The institutions are separable from eighteenth- and nineteenth-century European philosophy, and can survive whatever weaknesses and failures inhere in that philosophy. Deneen may be right about the philosophical weaknesses of liberal ideology, but he is probably wrong about the implications of that weakness for the survival of liberal societies. #democracy #liberalism #government #polticaltheory #DemocraticErosion #backsliding #repubicanism #socialhierarchy #SupremeCourt #neoliberalism #postliberalism #religion #illiberalism