IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/pophec/v13y2014i3p215-236.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The grammar of political obligation

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas Fossen

Abstract

This essay presents a new way of conceptualizing the problem of political obligation. On the traditional ‘normativist’ framing of the issue, the primary task for theory is to secure the content and justification of political obligations, providing practically applicable moral knowledge. This paper develops an alternative, ‘pragmatist’ framing of the issue, by rehabilitating a frequently misunderstood essay by Hanna Pitkin and by recasting her argument in terms of the ‘pragmatic turn’ in recent philosophy, as articulated by Robert Brandom. From this perspective, the content and justification of political obligations cannot be determined in a way that is in principle separable from their application. This casts ‘political obligation’ not as a problem to be philosophically resolved, but as a political predicament that calls for a kind of practical engagement. The merit of this perspective is to draw our attention toward the conditions under which the problem appears as a lived predicament.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas Fossen, 2014. "The grammar of political obligation," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 13(3), pages 215-236, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:pophec:v:13:y:2014:i:3:p:215-236
    DOI: 10.1177/1470594X13496072
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1470594X13496072
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1470594X13496072?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rutger Claassen, 2011. "Making Capability Lists: Philosophy versus Democracy," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 59(3), pages 491-508, October.
    2. Richard Vernon, 2007. "Obligation by Association? A Reply to John Horton," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 55, pages 865-879, December.
    3. Richard Vernon, 2007. "Obligation by Association? A Reply to John Horton," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 55(4), pages 865-879, December.
    4. Pitkin, Hanna, 1965. "Obligation and Consent—I," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 59(4), pages 990-999, December.
    5. John Horton, 2007. "Defending Associative Political Obligations: A Response to Richard Vernon," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 55(4), pages 880-884, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. John Horton, 2007. "Defending Associative Political Obligations: A Response to Richard Vernon," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 55(4), pages 880-884, December.
    2. Alice Baderin, 2016. "Political theory and public opinion," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 15(3), pages 209-233, August.
    3. Deneulin, Séverine & Zampini-Davies, Augusto, 2017. "Engaging development and religion: Methodological groundings," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 110-121.
    4. Philip Kinghorn & Joanna Coast, 2018. "Assessing the capability to experience a 'good death': A qualitative study to directly elicit expert views on a new supportive care measure grounded in Sen's capability approach," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-14, February.
    5. Pelenc, Jérôme & Ballet, Jérôme, 2015. "Strong sustainability, critical natural capital and the capability approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 36-44.
    6. Lasse Nielsen, 2018. "Playing for social equality," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 17(4), pages 427-446, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:pophec:v:13:y:2014:i:3:p:215-236. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.