My book The Republican Dilemma: Promoting Freedom in a Modern Society was published by Oxford University Press in May 2024. You can order the book and read its first few pages here.
The book focuses on an important debate in contemporary political philosophy. Neo-republicans argue their conception of freedom as non-domination is an important ideal for a modern, pluralistic society that cannot be found in mainstream liberalism. Liberals are said to usually promote freedom as non-interference, and they therefore fail to appreciate the importance of institutions that protect citizens against institutions – that is, institutions that ensure, or constitute, citizens’ freedom from domination.
This book shows how this republican challenge to liberalism is untenable. While republicans can maintain that freedom as non-domination is an attractive ideal for a modern society, they then cannot claim that it provides insight not found in liberalism. On the other hand, republicans can conceptualise freedom so as to actually challenge liberalism, but their core value then becomes unsuitable as an ideal for a modern society. This is the republican dilemma. The book shows how republicans can make a distinct contribution to political philosophy by taking the second horn, but their conception of freedom should then be viewed as one value to be traded off against other values rather than an ultimate ideal.
The book’s key features:
- The book offers a comprehensive analysis of the concepts of republican freedom as the absence of domination and pure negative conception of liberal freedom as the absence of interference.
- It develops a two-dimensional framework for assessing and comparing different conceptions of freedom.
- It clarifies the debate between proponents of republican freedom and liberal freedom.
- It challenges the common view that republican freedom succeeds, while liberal freedom fails, to provide a basis for institutions designed to protect individuals from subjection to others’ arbitrary will.
- It contributes to an ongoing methodological debate by defending a plurality of fact-insensitive ideals in political philosophy.