Advertisement

Die US-amerikanische Politische Theorie zwischen nationaler Selbstverständigung und konzeptioneller Globalisierung

  • Hans-Jörg SigwartEmail author
Living reference work entry

Latest version View entry history

Part of the Springer Reference Sozialwissenschaften book series (SRS)

Zusammenfassung

Der Beitrag gibt einen Überblick über wichtige Strömungen und Themen in der politischen Theorie der USA und skizziert ihre Stellung in der US-amerikanischen Politikwissenschaft und Gesellschaft. Die politische Theorie ist eng mit dem demokratischen Selbstverständnis der USA verbunden. Zugleich bewegt sie sich in einem internationalen Kommunikations- und Wirkungshorizont. Thematisch stehen die Begründung und die kritische Reflexion einer demokratischen Idee des politischen Liberalismus im Zentrum der US-amerikanischen politischen Theorie. Zu den wichtigsten Entwicklungstendenzen der aktuellen Debatte gehören theoretische Auseinandersetzungen mit den zentralen Herausforderungen der US-amerikanischen Demokratie und entsprechende Krisendiagnosen einerseits und Versuche einer Globalisierung der politisch-theoretischen Perspektive andererseits.

Schlüsselwörter

Politische Theorie Liberalismus Demokratie Populismus Trumpismus 

Literatur

  1. Archibugi, Daniele, und David Held. 2011. Cosmopolitan democracy: Paths and agents. Ethics and International Affairs 25(4): 433–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barber, Benjamin. 1984. Strong democracy. Participatory politics for a new age. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  3. Beitz, Charles. 1979. Political theory and international relations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Benhabib, Seyla. 2009. Claiming rights across borders: International human rights and democratic sovereignty. American Political Science Review 103(4): 691–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Birnbaum, Norman. 2018. Trump is here to stay. The Political Quarterly 89(4): 695–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brettschneider, Corey. 2010. A transformative theory of religious freedom: Promoting the reasons for rights. Political Theory 38(2): 187–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown, Wendy. 2015. Undoing the demos. Neoliberalism’s stealth revolution. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Caney, Simon. 2002. Cosmopolitanism and the law of peoples. The Journal of Political Philosophy 16(3): 245–271.Google Scholar
  9. Chatterjee, Deen K., Hrsg. 2011. Encyclopedia of global justice, Bd. 2. New York: Springer Science.Google Scholar
  10. Cline, Erin M. 2013. Confucius, rawls, and the sense of justice. New York: Fordham University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Cohen, Joshua. 2002. Procedure and substance in deliberative democracy. In Philosophy and democracy, Hrsg. Thomas Christiano, 17–37. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Cohen, Joshua, und Charles Sabel. 2009. Extram Republicam Nulla Justitia? Philosophy and Public Affairs 34(2): 147–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Connolly, William. 2008. Capitalism and Christianity, American style. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Conolly, William E. 2017. Aspirational fascism. The struggle for multifaceted democracy under trumpism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  15. Cooper, Barry. 2005. New political religions or an analysis of modern terrorism. Columbia: University of Missouri Press.Google Scholar
  16. Corley, Pamela, Robert Howard, und David Nixon. 2005. The supreme court and opinion content: The use of the federalist papers. Political Science Quarterly 58:329–340.Google Scholar
  17. Dagger, Richard. 2009. Individualism and the claims of community. In Contemporary debates in political philosophy, Hrsg. Thomas Christiano und John Christman, 303–321. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  18. Dallmayr, Fred. 2004. Beyond monologue: For a comparative political theory. Perspectives on Politics 2(2): 249–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dienstag, Joshua Foa. 2016. On political theory, the humanities, and the social sciences. Perspectives on Politics 14(4): 1083–1089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dryzek, John S. 2006. Revolutions without enemies: Key transformations in political science. American Political Science Review 100(4): 487–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dryzek, John S., Bonnie Honig, und Anne Phillips. 2009. Overview of political theory. In The oxford handbook of political science, Hrsg. John Goodin, 61–88. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. El Amine, Loubna. 2016. Beyond East and West: Reorienting political theory through the prism of modernity. Perspectives on Politics 14(1): 102–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fishkin, James S. 2009. When the people speak: Deliberative democracy and public consultation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Flyvbjerg, Bent, Todd Landman, und Sanford Schram, Hrsg. 2012. Real social science. Applied phronesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Fraser, Nancy. 2013. A triple movement? Parsing the politics of crisis after polanyi. New Left Review 81:119–132.Google Scholar
  26. Fraser, Nancy, und Axel Honneth. 2003. Redistribution or recognition? A political-philosophical exchange. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  27. Freeden, Michael, und Andrew Vincent, Hrsg. 2013. Introduction: The study of comparative political thought. In Comparative political thought. Theorizing practices 1–23. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Fung, Archon. 2007. Democratic theory and political science: A pragmatic method of constructive engagement. American Political Science Review 101(3): 443–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gaus, Gerald. 2012. The order of public reason. A theory of freedom and morality in a diverse and bounded world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Gebhardt, Jürgen. 1993. Americanism. revolutionary order and societal self-interpretation in the American republic. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Gebhardt, Jürgen. 2008. Political thought in an intercivilizational perspective: A critical reflection. The Review of Politics 70(1): 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gibbons, Michael T. 2006. Hermeneutics, political inquiry, and practical reason: An evolving challenge to political science. American Political Science Review 100(4): 563–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gillespie, Michael. 2008. The theological origins of modernity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Godrej, Farah. 2009. Towards a cosmopolitan political thought: The hermeneutics of interpreting the other. Politiy 41(2): 135–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Goldhammer, Arthur. 2016. What would Alexis de Tocqueville have made of the 2016 US presidential election? Feverish thoughts from a moment of ‚extreme peril‘. The Nation, 28. September 2016. https://www.thenation.com/article/what-would-have-alexis-de-tocqueville-have-made-of-the-2016-us-presidential-election/. Zugegriffen am 10.07.2019.
  36. Goodin, Robert E., und James S. Fishkin, Hrsg. 2016. Political theory without borders. Malden: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
  37. Green, Jeffrey E. 2013. Rawls and the forgotten figure of the most advantaged: In defense of reasonable envy toward the superrich. American Political Science Review 107(1): 123–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gunnell, John G. 1988. American political science, liberalism, and the invention of political theory. American Political Science Review 82(1): 71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Gunnell, John G. 2010. Professing political theory. Political Science Quarterly 63(3): 674–679.Google Scholar
  40. Gunnell, John G. 2015. Pluralism and the fate of perestroika: A historical reflection. Perspectives on Politics 13(2): 408–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Habermas, Jürgen, Hrsg. 1996. Drei normative Modelle der Demokratie. In Die Einbeziehung des Anderen, 277–292. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  42. Habermas, Jürgen. 2006. The devided West. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  43. Hamilton, Alexander, James Madison, und John Jay. 2007. Die Federalist Papers, Hrsg. und übersetzt von Barbara Zehnpfennig. München: C.H. Beck.Google Scholar
  44. Hartz, Louis. 1951. The liberal tradition in America. An interpretation of American political thought since the revolution. New York: Hartcourt, Brace & World.Google Scholar
  45. Hassanzadeh, Navid. 2015. The canon and comparative political thought. Journal of International Political Theory 11(2): 184–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Held, David. 1995. Democracy and the global order: From the modern state to cosmopolitan governance. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  47. Held, Virginia. 2008. How terrorism is wrong: Morality and political violence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Hemmer, Nicole. 2016. Messengers of the right. Conservative media and the transformation of American politics. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Idris, Murad. 2016. Political theory and the politics of comparison. Political Theory. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0090591716659812. Zugegriffen am 11.07.2019.
  50. Kaufman-Osborn, Timothy V. 2010. Political theory as profession and as subfield? Political Research Quarterly 63(3): 655–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kazin, Michael. 1995. The populist persuasion: An American history. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  52. Klosko, George. 2017. The transformation of American liberalism. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kymlicka, Will. 1995. Multicultural citizenship: A liberal theory of minority rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Laitin, David D. 2003. The perestroikan challenge to social science. Politics & Society 31(1): 163–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lebow, David. 2019. Trumpism and the dialectic of neoliberal reason. Perspectives on Politics 17(2): 380–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Levitsky, Steven, und Daniel Ziblatt. 2018. How democracies die. New York: Crown.Google Scholar
  57. March, Andrew F. 2009a. Islam and liberal citizenship: The search for an overlapping consensus. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. March, Andrew F. 2009b. What is comparative political theory? The Review of Politics 71(3): 531–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Meckled-Garcia, Saladin. 2008. On the very idea of cosmopolitan justice: Constructivism and international agency. The Journal of Political Philosophy 16(3): 245–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Meckstroth, Christopher. 2012. Socratic method and political science. American Political Science Review 106(3): 644–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Miller, David. 2007. National responsibility and global justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Monroe, Kristen Renwick, Hrsg. 2005. Perestroika! The raucous rebellion in political science. New Haven: Vail-Ballou Press.Google Scholar
  63. Mudde, Cas, und Cristobal Rovira Kaltwasser. 2017. Populism. A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Müller, Jan-Werner. 2017. What is populism? London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  65. Nagel, Thomas. 2005. The problem of global justice. Philosophy and Public Affairs 33(2): 113–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Noris, Pippa, und Ronald Inglehart. 2019. Cultural backlash: Trump, brexit, and authoritarian populism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Nozick, Robert. 1974. Anarchy, state, and utopia. Oxford: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  68. Okin, Susan Moller. 2004. Gender, justice and gender: An unfinished debate. Fordham Law Review 72(5): 1537–1567.Google Scholar
  69. Pettit, Philip. 1997. Republicanism: A theory of freedom and government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Pettit, Philip. 2012. On the people’s terms: A republican theory and model of democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Pogge, Thomas. 1989. Realizing rawls. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Pogge, Thomas. 2002. World poverty and human rights. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  73. Rawls, John. 1971. A theory of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  74. Rawls, John. 1993. Political liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  75. Rawls, John. 1999. The law of peoples. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  76. Rehfeld, Andrew. 2010. Offensive political theory. Perspectives on Politics 8(2): 465–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Rorty, Richard. 1988. Solidarität oder Objektivität? Drei philosophische Essays. Stuttgart: Reclam.Google Scholar
  78. Rosen, Jeffrey. 2018. America is living james Madison’s nightmare. The Atlantic, Oktober 2018. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/10/james-madison-mob-rule/568351/. Zugegriffen am 10.07.2019.
  79. Sabia, Dan. 2010. Defending immanent critique. Political Theory 38(5): 684–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Sandel, Michael. 1982. Liberalism and the limits of justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  81. Sass, Jensen, und John S. Dryzek. 2014. Deliberative cultures. Political Theory 42(1): 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Shapiro, Ian. 2005. The flight from reality in the human sciences. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  83. Sigwart, Hans-Jörg. 2016. Political characterology: On the method of theorizing in Hannah Arendt’s origins of totalitarianism. American Political Science Review 110(2): 265–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Simon, Joshua. 2019. Institutions, ideologies, and comparative political theory. Perspectives on Politics. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/institutions-ideologies-and-comparative-political-theory/EC9531F72FE0BAF113C8C03E49A5CF06. Zugegriffen am 18.07.2019.
  85. Skocpol, Theda, und Vanessa Williamson. 2016. The tea party and the remaking of republican conservatism., 2. Aufl. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  86. Sleat, Matt, Hrsg. 2018. Introduction: Politics recovered – on the revival of realism in contemporary political theory. In Politics recovered. Realist thought in theory and practice, 1–25. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  87. Steinberger, Peter. 2015. Rationalism in politics. American Political Science Review 109(4): 750–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Taylor, Charles. 1985. Interpretation and the sciences of man. In Philosophy and the human sciences, Philosophical Papers 2, Hrsg. ders., 15–57. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  89. Taylor, Charles. 1992. Negative Freiheit? Zur Kritik des neuzeitlichen Individualismus. Frankfurt a. M: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  90. Taylor, Charles. 2007. A secular age. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  91. de Tocqueville, Alexis. 1984. In Über die Demokratie in Amerika. Vollständige Ausgabe, Hrsg. J. P. von Mayer, 2. Aufl. München: DTV.Google Scholar
  92. Urbinati, Nadia. 2015. The tyranny of the moderns. New Haven: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Valentini, Laua. 2011. Global justice and practice-dependence: Conventionalism, institutionalism, functionalism. The Journal of Political Philosophy 19(4): 399–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Villa, Dana. 2008. Tocqueville: Life and legacy. Political Theory 36(3): 466–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Walzer, Michael. 1983. Spheres of justice. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  96. Williams, Melissa S., und Mark E. Warren. 2014. A democratic case for comparative political theory. Political Theory 42(1): 26–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Winberg, Oscar. 2017. Insult politics: Donald Trump, right-wing populism, and incendiary language. European Journal of American Studies 12(2). https://journals.openedition.org/ejas/12132. Zugegriffen am 18.07.2019.
  98. Wolin, Sheldon S. 2001. Tocqueville between two worlds: The making of a political and theoretical life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für Politische WissenschaftRWTH Aachen UniversityAachenDeutschland

Personalised recommendations