Maurizio Passerin d'Entreves

In this paper, the author contends that Leader's attempt to ground the value of toleration on a common understanding of democracy faces a number of fundamental obstacles. Such obstacles could only be overcome if both liberals and their opponents were to reach an agreement on the value of democracy and thereby converge in their support of toleration. The author shows that far from providing a common ground that liberals and their opponents can share, the so‐called “shareable understanding” of democracy appeals primarily to liberals. The author also argues that Garzón Valdés's thesis that democracy is the system best suited to the flourishing of toleration faces the same kind of difficulty, namely, that not every group in a liberal constitutional regime can be convinced of the priority of democratic principles over their other fundamental value‐commitments.

This collection provides a fresh and wide-ranging assessment on the changing nature of the public-private debate. For the first time, eight essays by scholars provide insight into this issue from a number of disciplinary perspectives. The focus of recent debates on this topic has been the delineation of acceptable boundaries between the public and the private in the economic, social and cultural spheres of modern societies. Tough questions are raised pertaining to the nature and scope of citizenship, privacy rights, the implications of new reproductive technologies, and the fate of state sovereignty in the context of a globalized world economy. All of these issues discussed in this book bring serious concerns about the distinction between public and private to light.

Hannah Arendt is recognized as one of the most creative and original thinkers of the twentieth century. This study provides an original reconstruction of Arendt's political philosophy, and is the first to systematically evaluate the four major concepts underlying her work--modernity, action, judgment, and citizenship. Taking each concept in turn, The Political Philosophy of Hannah Arendt examines the integrity of Arendt's argument, providing a philosophical account of her theory of participatory democracy based on freedom, plurality, and solidarity. Beginning from the interpretation of these concepts in her work, d'Entreves assesses Arendt's importance to contemporary debates on the nature and scope of democratic citizenship, and explores the conditions necessary for an active and democratic political culture to flourish. D'Entreves draws out the tensions and ambiguities in Ardendt's work, arguing that Arendt's conception of active citizenship and communication provides the best starting point for the exercise of political agency.

This collection of ten essays offers the first systematic assessment of Jü rgen Habermas's "Philosophical Discourse of Modernity," a book that defended the rational potential of the modern age against the depiction of modernity as a spent epoch. The essays (of which four are newly commissioned, five were published in the journal "Praxis International," and one -- by Habermas -- first appeared in translation in "New Critique" ) are divided into two sections: "Critical Rejoinders" and "Thematic Reformulations." An opening essay by d'Entrè ves sets out the main issues and orients the debate between Habermas and the postmodernists by identifying two different senses of responsibility: a responsibility to act versus a responsibility to otherness (an openness to difference, dissonance, and ambiguity). These are linked with two alternative understandings of the primary function of language: action-orienting versus world-disclosing. This is a fruitful way of looking at the issues that Habermas has raised in his attempt to resurrect and complete the project of Enlightenment. Habermas's essay discusses the main themes of his book in the context of a critical engagement with neoconservative cultural and political trends. The main body of essays offer an interesting collection of points of view, for and against Habermas's position by philosophers, social scientists, intellectual historians, and literary critics. SECTIONS &; CONTRIBUTORS: "Introduction," Maurizio Passerin d'Entrè ves. "Modernity versus Postmodernity," Jü rgen Habermas. Critical Rejoinders: Fred Dallmayr. Christopher Norris. David C. Hoy. James Schmidt. Joel Whitebook. ThematicReformulations: James Bohman. Diana Coole. Jay M. Bernstein. David Ingram.

In this paper, the author contends that Leader's attempt to ground the value of toleration on a common understanding of democracy faces a number of fundamental obstacles. Such obstacles could only be overcome if both liberals and their opponents were to reach an agreement on the value of democracy and thereby converge in their support of toleration. The author shows that far from providing a common ground that liberals and their opponents can share, the so‐called “shareable understanding” of democracy appeals primarily to liberals. The author also argues that Garzón Valdés's thesis that democracy is the system best suited to the flourishing of toleration faces the same kind of difficulty, namely, that not every group in a liberal constitutional regime can be convinced of the priority of democratic principles over their other fundamental value‐commitments.