Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Simon, G
Languages: English
Types: Doctoral thesis
Hobbes argues that liberal orders protect individual freedom and enable subjects to live \ud in different ways, but he is clear that only certain differences are tolerable: those who \ud challenge the legitimacy and solidity of the order are not just different but radically \ud different, they must be classed as 'enemies' and treated violently. Since Hobbes, \ud however, liberal thinkers have emphasised diversity, not violence. Whilst they rarely \ud advocate a fully inclusive order in which even liberalism's enemies can live freely, they \ud do claim that liberalism enables differences to flourish. This thesis aims to demonstrate \ud the illusory nature of this claim. It shows that post-Hobbesian thinkers offering liberal \ud visions of flourishing diversity conceal the number of subjects who will be classed as \ud radically different and are likely to experience exclusion, assimilation and normalisation \ud as a consequence.\ud It explains first that Locke, Mill and Rawls privilege rational, deliberative individuals in \ud their ideals but ignore the subtle violence experienced by those who diverge from this \ud model of subjectivity. However, the thesis focuses on three more radical theorists: \ud William Connolly, Bonnie Honig and Chantal Mouffe. They admit that liberalism \ud cannot escape radical difference and violence, but they attempt to limit this violence by \ud theorising a liberal order invigorated by institutions for 'agonistic contest,' into which \ud those who differ can channel their resistance and through which they can create spaces \ud for difference. However, it is shown that, despite their aims, these theorists, in different \ud ways, also conceal the number of subjects who will be treated violently in their visions \ud because they diverge from liberal subjectivity. The thesis thus reveals that even radicalliberals claiming to acknowledge and confront liberalism's violence conceal the number \ud of subjects treated violently behind an illusion of difference. It concludes by exploring \ud the potentially devastating implications of this analysis for liberal political theory and \ud practice.
  • No references.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article