« Searching | Main | Re-Watching The Empire Strikes Back »

December 15, 2015



A few quick things. Short on time rt now.

1) Been a long time since I read 'Spheres' and I don't have a copy accessible. But iirc W's use of "domination" in the opening is a little idiosyncratic in some respects (as you imply).

2) The phrase "complex equality" is something i remember from the bk. Basically another label for the argument that there's no one overarching principle of dist. justice that 'works'.

3) Not to sound obnoxious or didactic or pedantic or whatever, but 'civic republicanism' is not "a theory developed by" Q. Skinner; it's a tradition of pol. thought in which QS is v. interested. (cf also,e.g., Pocock, 'The Machiavellian Moment'). Don't know the Lovett bk or much about the hist. of the use of "domination". Except that the word, in some meaning (not nec. W's meaning), must go back a pretty long way, I wd think.

bianca steele


Thanks for the comment.

I don't have time to go back and check right now either, but it's possible I misremembered/conflated Pocock and Pettit, or I might be over-compressing something in other sources. I didn't mean "developed" to refer to any specific concept that would exclude what you say above.

The introduction to Lovett's book is available online (http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/politics/seminars/lovett_chap1.pdf) and, while he goes back before Walzer in discussing the concept of domination, he doesn't quote any use of the word earlier, and notes that dictionaries of social science from the time don't include it. He does note a couple of tangentially related books that use the term in slightly different meanings, and refers to the appendix. He has Pettit using the word a decade or two later.

Re. complex equality: Yes, it's not entirely clear what direction the argument will take from just the preface.


Thanks for the link to Lovett; I'll take a look.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad