Political Theory Workshop

The OSU Political Theory Workshop is a forum for theorists from Ohio State and other universities to present and to discuss their research in progress. We meet four or five times per semester, usually at 3.30pm on Mondays.

The Political Theory Workshop is pluralist in its approach and interdisciplinary in its orientation. We are open to a wide range of contributions, including historical, analytic, interpretive, and critical theory, as well as theoretically engaged empirical research. We welcome interested faculty and graduate students from all fields and all departments.

All meetings take place in the Spencer room (Derby 2130), unless otherwise noted. Papers are available electronically one week ahead of each meeting.

The OSU Political Theory Workshop is pleased to present our first meeting of the spring semester:

"PDF icon Ourselves in Time: Intergenerational Humility, Deliberation and Democarcy"
Michael MacKenzie (Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of Pittsburgh)
Time: Friday, January 27th, noon to 1:30pm
Location: Derby Hall 2130 (Spencer Room)
Discussant: Dave Whitsett (Political Science, OSU)

Abstract: Modern societies tend to elevate the needs of the present over those of the future, but the opposite problem — elevating the future over the present — is equally undesirable from the perspective of intergenerational justice. In this paper, I argue that the concept and practice of humility can help us balance these two opposing concerns of intergenerational justice. Humility can help encourage individuals (and generations) to keep their own sense of importance in time in perspective. I also argue that humility may be either encouraged or discouraged by our political philosophies and our institutional practices. In an effective deliberative environment, for example, political actors may be forced to more accurately assess their own abilities and limitations, and they may be encouraged to reassess the relative importance of their personal concerns in response to the concerns of others. These can be humbling experiences, but this way of thinking (encouraged by deliberation) is precisely what is required if we are to more effectively balance the legitimate concerns of the present with those of the future.

Questions? Please contact PTW co-coordinators Inés Valdez [valdez.39@osu.edu] and Benjamin McKean [mckean.41@osu.edu]


Spring 2017

Towards an Ecological Critique of the Political”  
Reed Kurtz (Political Science, OSU)
Time: Monday, February 20th, 2pm
Discussant: Corey Katz (Center for Ethics & Human Values, OSU)

Abstract: In this paper I argue for a Marxist ecological perspective on the politics of climate change. I begin by framing the ongoing debate regarding the nature or role of ‘the political’ in ongoing social scientific and theoretical debates on climate politics. Drawing upon Bertell Ollman’s distinction between “moderate” and “radical” theories in political science, I reconstruct the “politicization debate” in climate politics to demonstrate how both sides are derived from not only different conceptions of the “problem” of climate change, but distinct conceptions regarding the nature of “politics” itself. Against the dualistic opposition between moderate “consensus-building” approaches on the one hand, and agonistic “radical” perspectives on the other, I draw upon Marxist ecology and Gramscian political theory to argue for the necessity of understanding current meta-debates over climate politics as just one front in the broader struggle for climate justice and hegemony over the “metabolic relation” between humans and the rest of nature. Whereas moderates are unable to adequately grasp the systemic nature of the ecological and political crisis of climate change, the radicals have thus far also been unable to specify the political and ecological specificity of the climate crisis as derived from the social and ecological contradictions of capitalism. Only a Marxist perspective which can simultaneously grasp the ecological character of the capitalist mode of production and its political forms via hegemony and the integral state (system) offers a coherent account that can both specify the nature of the crisis, and the necessary political means of (potentially) resolving it. I conclude by arguing on behalf of a Marxist perspective for an adequately ecological perspective onto political theory and theories of the political, including the politics of climate justice.

Manuscript Workshop: "Disposed to Justice" by Benjamin McKean (Political Science, OSU) †
Time: Monday, March 6th
Discussants: Joshua Cohen (Distinguished Senior Fellow, UC Berkeley), Sharon Krause (Professor and Chair of Political Science, Brown), and Stephen K. White (James Hart Professor of Politics, University of Virginia)

Sovereignty, Legitimate Authority, and White Domination: South Carolina and the Confederate Battle Flag” ‡
Heather Pool (Political Science, Denison University)
Time: Monday, April 24, 2pm

Abstract: On June 17, 2015, one young white man’s murderous rampage at Charleston’s Mother Emanuel AME Church led to the deaths of nine black parishioners, including a current member of the South Carolina State Senate. On July 10, 2015, after flying on State House grounds since 1962, the Confederate Battle Flag was finally removed from a sovereign setting – unfurled and flying on capitol grounds – and sent to a more appropriate historical setting – the Confederate Relic Room and Memorial Museum. The question I seek to answer here is why South Carolina, after 53 years of flying the Confederate flag on its capitol grounds, decide to remove the flag? I argue that to make sense of these events, it is helpful to consider concepts of sovereignty via Hobbes, Schmitt, and Edkins, as well as the idea of legitimate authority laid out by Weber; I also suggest, quite tentatively, that conceptually separating sovereignty and white dominance may be impossible. I begin with an overview of the events of June and July 2015, then discuss sovereignty and legitimate authority. I then provide a brief history of the Confederate Battle Flag generally, as well as a more focused review of its history in South Carolina. I conclude by offering a series of ways we might read the decision of South Carolina to remove the flag from the grounds of the State House, and considering how these events may have contributed to the election of the current president.

Manuscript Workshop: "Kant, Du Bois, and Cosmopolitanism in a New Color" by Inés Valdez (Political Science, OSU)
Time: Friday, May 26th
Discussants: Lawrie Balfour (University of Virginia), Juliet Hooker (University of Texas at Austin), and Adom Getachew (University of Chicago)

Autumn 2016

Thursday and Friday, September 22nd-23rd
Fall COMPAS Conference
"When Do Inequalities Matter?"
Location: Thompson Library, 11th Floor
Monday, September 26, 2pm †
Political Theory Workshop: "Actually Existing Liberalism" 
Andrew Sabl (Visiting Professor of Ethics, Politics, and Economics, Yale University)
Location: Derby Hall 2130 (Spencer Room)
Monday, October 10, 11:30 am
Political Theory Workshop: "The Paris Climate Decision: A Major Step in Protecting Human Rights"
Corey Katz (Sustainability Ethics Post-Doctoral Researcher, OSU) 
Location: Derby Hall 2174 (Reading Room)
Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, October 20th to 22nd
14th Annual Meeting of the Association for Political Theory
Location: Ohio Union
Monday, October 24th*
"Political Theory and the Election: Populism, Rhetoric, and Resentment"
A panel discussion featuring Elizabeth Markovits (Associate Professor of Politics, Mount Holyoke); Inés Valdez (Political Science, OSU); and Benjamin McKean (Political Science, OSU) moderated by Eric MacGilvray (Associate Professor of Political Science, OSU)
† Co-sponsored by the Humanities Institute
*Co-sponsored by the Department of Comparative Studies and the Democracy Studies Program

Past Workshops: 

Spring 2016

Monday, January 25th, 2pm
“Rousseau's Mistake: The Myth of Direct Democracy”
Hélène Landemore (Political Science, Yale University)
Discussant: Avery White (Political Science, OSU)
Location: Derby 2130 (Spencer Room)

Monday, February 1st, noon †
"Blood Oil: Tyranny, Resources, and the Rules That Run the World"
Leif Wenar (Chair of Philosophy & Law, King’s College London)
Location: Mershon Center for International Security Studies
Video of Leif Wenar's talk is available at go.osu.edu/wenarl  

Friday, February 12th, 3:30pm
"The Democratic Ethics of Communicating Climate Change: Insights from Aristotle" ‡
Melissa Lane (Class of 1943 Professor of Politics, Princeton University)
Location: Derby 2130 (Spencer Room)

Monday, March 7th, noon#
"Repairing the Carceral Polity"
Lawrie Balfour (Politics, University of Virginia)
Location: Derby 2130 (Spencer Room)

Monday, April 11th, 2pm
"Rethinking Safe Spaces: Mill's 'Frightful Brutality of the Poorest Class' and the Shaming of the Domestic Abusers"
Bogdan Popa (Politics, Oberlin College)
Discussant: Piers Turner (Philosophy, OSU)
Location: Derby 2130 (Spencer Room)
Monday, April 18th, noon †*
"The Politics of Yoga: The Neoliberal Yogi and the Question of Yogic 'Authenticity'."
Farah Godrej (Political Science, UC Riverside)
Discussant: Ted Sammons (Comparative Studies, OSU)
Location: Mershon Center for International Security Studies
† Part of the Migration and Global Justice Workshop Series, sponsored by the Mershon Center of International Security Studies
‡ Co-sponsored by the Center for Ethics and Human Values COMPAS Program
# Co-sponsored by the Office of Diversity and Inclusion, the Criminal Justice Research Center, and the Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race & Ethnicity
* Co-sponsored by the Asian American Studies program


Autumn 2015

Thursday, September 10th, 12pm † *
“Racial Equality”
Charles W. Mills (Philosophy, Northwestern University)
Location: Mershon Center for International Security Studies (Please register for the event at http://go.osu.edu/millsc)

Abstract: Racial equality has been a moral and political demand from people of color for hundreds of years. But discussions within philosophy of this concept, and what it would take to realize it as an ideal, are still comparatively rare. I will argue that racial equality as a concept and an ideal is indeed worthy of philosophical exploration. Moreover, given (what I will claim is) the centrality of race and racial inequality to modernity, racial equality as an achieved reality would have far-reaching implications that would dramatically reshape the world. For people of color, racial equality as a theme and an aspiration is not at all yawn-inducing liberal boilerplate, for the non-achievement of this goal despite liberalism’s promise is the central problem that has constrained their lives for hundreds of years. In this paper I will look at some of the different dimensions of racial in/equality, the theoretical problems it poses for Rawlsian justice theory, and offer some suggestions as to how I think these challenges might be addressed.

Bio: Charles W. Mills is John Evans Professor of Moral and Intellectual Philosophy. He works in the general area of social and political philosophy, particularly in oppositional political theory as centered on class, gender, and race. He did his Ph.D. at the University of Toronto, and is the author of numerous articles and book chapters, and five books. His first book, The Racial Contract (Cornell University, 1997), won a Myers Outstanding Book Award for the study of bigotry and human rights in North America. His second book, Blackness Visible: Essays on Philosophy and Race (Cornell University, 1998), was a finalist for the award for the most important North American work in social philosophy of that year. His fourth book, Contract and Domination (Polity Press, 2007), is co-authored with Carole Pateman, who wrote The Sexual Contract (Stanford University Press, 1988), and it seeks to bring the two “contracts” together. His most recent book is a collection of his Caribbean essays, Radical Theory, Caribbean Reality: Race, Class and Social Domination (University of the West Indies Press, 2010). Before joining Northwestern, Charles Mills taught at the University of Oklahoma and the University of Illinois at Chicago, where he was a UIC Distinguished Professor.
Monday, October 19th, 2pm ‡
"Democratic Justice and Environmental Policy"
Elisabeth Ellis (Political Science, University of Otago)
Discussant: Loren Goldman (Political Science, Ohio University)
Location: Thompson Library, Room 165 

Abstract: The failure of our present institutions to manage the environment is widely acknowledged: biodiversity loss, deforestation, ocean acidification, rising sea levels, higher energy and more unpredictable storms, increased droughts, desertification, air and water pollution, food insecurity and other environmental problems are already making our lives worse and will increasingly damage human prospects in the future. The structure of our political systems predictably generates failure to achieve environmental collective action, and in particular it fails to constrain elite free riding. Restructuring political institutions to reflect the real nature of environmental conflict will mean establishing systems that are more than superficially democratic. The past twenty years of democratic theory and practice have moved us in the wrong direction: away from majoritarianism and toward de facto minority rule. Minority interests in business as usual have nearly always prevailed, while most people continue to have interests instead in things like clean air, fresh water, and secure food. If any structuring principle for collective action can vindicate the interests of nearly everyone over those of the few, democracy can.

Bio: Elisabeth Ellis is a political theorist who teaches ethics, environmental philosophy, and philosophy, politics, and economics at the University of Otago. She is the author of Kant’s Politics: Provisional Theory for an Uncertain World (2005) and Provisional Politics: Kantian Arguments in Policy Context (2008); she has also edited a volume of essays, Kant’s Political Theory: Interpretations and Applications (2012). Ellis’s current book project, Extinction and Democracy, asks how democratic practices interact with species conservation policies. Other recent projects include a defense of majoritarianism in environmental politics, a reception history of Hobbes’s political thought, and helping edit the Encyclopedia of Political Thought (2015). Her work has been supported by the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, the Institute for Advanced Study, the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the Deutscher Akademischer Austausch Dienst, and the Ray A. Rothrock '77 Fellowship. She is currently serving as co-president of the Association for Political Theory and as political theory field editor for the Journal of Politics.

Monday, November 2nd, 2pm 
"Overconsumption as an Adaptive Preference" 
Avery White (Political Science, OSU)
Discussant: Brian McLean (Philosophy, OSU)
Location: Derby 47

"Overconsumption as an adaptive preference" [pdf]

Abstract: An adaptive preference exists when individuals expressed preferences do not rationally reflect their “real” preferences, but only what they think is feasible – for instance, a woman who has been raised to think that being beaten is simply an inherent aspect of marriage might not express a preference to be in a non-abusive relationship. Adaptive preferences are often associated with developing countries because such countries, by definition, are making options feasible that used to be impossible. Oftentimes, these new opportunities are not integrated into individuals’ decision-making in a rational way, which is why philosophers like Sen and Nussbaum have worked hard to investigate how to neutralize adaptive preferences in developing economies. But what if adaptive preferences were not confined to developing countries, or even to developing sub-populations within developing countries? The argument of this paper is that overconsumption in developed countries, specifically the United States of America, can also be viewed through the lens of adaptive preferences. Not all overconsumption is necessarily an adaptive preference, but insofar as some overconsumption is, several opportunities are opened. First, as Sen and Nussbaum have pointed out, neutralizing adaptive preferences is often relatively simple and effective, at least compared with trying to fix more deeply seated issues of false consciousness – an adaptive preference only exists as long as an individual thinks they cant get what they really want. If this object of true desire is made available, and the individual is made aware of this availability, then the problem more or less solves itself. There is no “deprogramming” or persuasion involved. Adaptive preferences are, so to speak, low hanging fruit when it comes to ameliorating irrational behavior and improving human happiness. Second, insofar as adaptive preferences are a problem in both “developed” and “developing” countries, we have a new way to create a sort of international solidarity. Although not at the level of true “class consciousness” in a Marxist sense, the recognition of a mutual problem cause by certain social and economic structures might assist in the general project of cosmopolitanism and the amelioration of problems like poverty and disease. Thus, although the direct targets of this paper are citizens of wealthy states, even thinkers like Peter Singer who are concerned primarily with the global poor should find some utility from this approach.
Monday, November 16th, 2pm † #

"Regimenting Migrants: Post-colonial Nationalism and the South Asian Diaspora"
Ishan Ashutosh (Geography, Indiana University)
Discussant: Martin Joseph Ponce (English, OSU)
Location: Derby 2130 (Spencer Room)

† Part of the Migration and Global Justice Workshop Series, sponsored by the Mershon Center of International Security Studies
* Co-sponsored by the departments of African American and African Studies, Comparative Studies, and Philosophy
‡ Co-sponsored by the Center for Ethics and Human Values COMPAS Program
# Co-sponsored by the Geography Department

Spring 2015

Monday, January 26, 3:30pm †
"The Right to Exclude Immigrants and its Limits"
David Watkins (University of Dayton Political Science)
Discussant: Theresa Delgadillo (OSU Comparative Studies)
Location: Mershon Center for International Security Studies
Monday, March 9, 3:30pm
Thrasymachus's Blush: Emotion, Deliberation, and the Politics of Motivated Reasoning
Michael Neblo (Associate Professor of Political Science, OSU)
Discussant: Heather Pool (Denison University Political Science)
Location: Derby 2130 (Spencer Room)
Monday, March 30, 3:30pm- CANCELLED, will be rescheduled for Fall 2016
New Book Workshop: Burdens of Political Responsibility: Narrative and The Cultivation of Responsiveness by Jade Schiff (Politics, Oberlin)
Note: Copies of Prof. Schiff's book will be made available in advance of the workshop to registered participants.
Location: Derby 2130 (Spencer Room)

Monday, April 6, 3:30pm
"Totality and Empirical Social Psychology: A Critique of Research into Democratic Legitimation."
Kailash Srinivasan (OSU Political Science)
Disscusant: Nicholas Kiersey (Ohio University Political Science)
Location: Derby 2130 (Spencer Room)
Monday, April 20, 3:30pm †
Paper Title "" The Legitimacy of Border Coercion: Freedom of Association, Territorial Dominion, and Self-Defense"
Arash Abizadeh (McGill University Political Science)
Abstract:  According to the democratic borders thesis, a state’s regime of border control is democratically legitimate only if the laws governing it result from political processes in which both citizens and foreigners can participate. This is because, to be democratically legitimate, the (coercive) exercise of political power must be democratically justified to all subject to it; and both citizens and foreigners are subject to a polity’s regime of border control. I defend this thesis against three objections. First, it might be argued that legitimate states have the right to close their borders thanks to a collective right of freedom of association, grounded in self- determination. I argue that such an argument, while grounding a negative claim-right against coercively imposed association, fails to establish a liberty-right to coerce others to prevent unwelcome association. Moreover, it misconstrues the proper collective subject of a right of self- determination: not only the persons whom state agents recognize as members, but all persons subject to the coercive exercise of political power. Second, one might object that citizens enjoy rights of dominion over the territory of their state, and may thus unilaterally refuse entry to foreigners. I respond that just as property laws, to be democratically legitimate, require democratic justification to those subject to them, so too must democratically legitimate border laws. Finally, one may object that the coercive exercise of political power may sometimes be legitimate even if not democratically legitimate. I concede this, but argue that the lack of democratic legitimacy imposes dynamic duties to enable democratic legitimization in the future.
Discussant: Amna Akar (OSU Law School)
Location: Mershon Center for International Security Studies
† Part of the Migration and Global Justice Workshop Series, sponsored by the Mershon Center of International Security Studies

FALL 2014

Monday, September 29 "Retrieving the Lost Worlds of the Past: The Case for an Ontological Turn"
Greg Anderson (OSU)
Discussant: Joel Wainwright (OSU)
Location: Derby 2130 (Spencer Room)
Friday, October 10: “Justice, Social and Political” @ 3:30 PM
Philip Pettit, (Princeton University)
(There will be no pre-circulated paper for this talk)
Abstract: The justice of a society has two dimensions, social and political. Social justice dictates how well members should compare with one another within the basic structure of the society. Political justice dictates how far they should share in controlling the shape of that basic structure. The two ideals may be in competition, however: the democratic society that answers to your ideal of political justice, for example, may not endorse your ideal of social justice. And so they raise an issue of priority. This paper offers three arguments for the priority of political justice, in particular for a certain version of democracy.
Location: Derby 2130 (Spencer Room)
Monday, October 27: " Aestheticizing Action: Latino Republicans and the Art of Diversity” @ 3:30 PM
Cristina Beltrán (New York University)†*
Abstract: Situated at the intersection of Latino politics and political theory, this talk will explore the paradoxical nature of Latino conservatism and right-wing Latinidad. Arguing that conservative thought within Latino communities is shaped not only by ideology but through a potent combination of emotion and expression, this talk shows how conservative Latino elites seek to engage Latino voters' aesthetic and affective sensibilities. Exploring how Latino political elites are currently articulating conservative theories of visibility, agency, and action, I argue that the Right's effort to aestheticize action highlights the importance of judgment when trying to understand the meaning of an enhanced Latino presence in the GOP.
Location: Mershon Center for International Security Studies
Thursday, November 6:  “DuBois’ Afro-Futurism and Vasconcelos’ Indología” @ 4.30pm
Juliet Hooker (University of Texas at Austin)*
Abstract: The ideas about race formulated by the Mexican philosopher José Vasconcelos [1882-1959] and the African American thinker W. E. B. DuBois [1868-1963] are often said to be exemplary of the distinct and opposed approaches to racial identity and racial mixing characteristic of U.S. African-American and Latin American and political thought. In this talk I focus on two rarely discussed texts by these thinkers: DuBois’ only novel, Dark Princess (1928), an interracial romance that imagines a political alliance of people of color worldwide, and Vasconcelos’ Indologia (1927), in which his arguments about Latin American identity (later synthesized in The Cosmic Race) were initially developed. I compare the anti-colonial impulses that animate both texts, and consider the insights gleaned by reading DuBois’ text through the lens of Afro-futurism, especially in relation to Latin American Indigenismo. 
Location: Multicultural Center (Ohio Union)
Monday, November 17
Vidar Thorsteinsson (OSU)
Abstract: From the early futures contracts of the Chicago wheat market, through the Roosevelt administration’s launching of the amortized mortgage plan, and finally to contemporary credit scoring, the paper explores the history of American financialization as a series of attempts to anticipate and ‘precommensurate’ the inherent riskiness of all capitalist exchange. The paper pays particular attention to how finance practices simultaneously overcome and augment risk, creating a dialectic which has driven the expansion of credit instruments and networks to ever broader segments of the population and to a greater investment in subjective life.
Discussant: Marcus Green (Otterbein University)
Location: Derby 2130 (Spencer Room)
† Part of the Workshop on Immigration and Global Justice, sponsored by the Mershon Center of International Security Studies.
* Co-sponsored by the Latino and Latin American Space for Enrichment and Research (LASER). 

Interested faculty and ABD graduate students from across and beyond the OSU community are invited to present in the workshop.

If you are interested in presenting work or serving as a discussant in the workshop next semester, please contact PTW co-coordinators Benjamin McKean and Inés Valdez. We are currently putting together the Fall 2014 schedule.


Daniel Skinner, Capital University
"Paradoxes of American Liberalism: Rethinking Medical Malpractice Reform and 'A Patients Bill of Rights'"
Friday April 27th, 10:30am-12:00pm in 2130 Derby Hall (The Spencer Room)


David McIvor, The Kettering Foundation / Duke University
"'A Splintering and Shattering Activity': Race, Reconciliation, and the Work of Mourning"
Friday May 6th, 1:30pm-3:00pm in 2174 Derby Hall (The Reading Room)

Piers Norris Turner, Department of Philosophy, The Ohio State University
"Authority, Progress, and the 'Assumption of Infallibility' in On Liberty"
Friday March 4th, 10:30am-12:00pm in 2130 Derby Hall (The Spencer Room)


Inés Valdez, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
"Beyond the Borders of the Public Sphere: Unearthing the Politics of Immigration
Friday, April 30, 1:30-3:00 in Derby 2130

Eric Grynaviski, The Ohio State University
"The Morality of the Bloodstained Spear: Declaring the Just War"
Friday February 5th, 1:00-2:30 in Derby 2130

Mark Warren, University of British Columbia
"Two Trust-Based Uses of Minipublics in Democratic Systems"
Friday, February 19th, 2:00-3:30 PM (Reception to follow)
Spencer Room (Derby 2130)

Alexander Wendt, The Ohio State University
"Preface to a Quantum Social Science"
Friday November 20th at noon in the Spencer Room (Derby 2130)

William Scheuerman, Indiana University
"What Cosmopolitans Can Learn From Classical Realists"
November 13th, 2009, Noon to 1:30PM, The Mershon Center for International Security Studies (1501 Neil Ave.)

Eric MacGilvray, The Ohio State University
"The Invention of Market Freedom"
November 6, 2009, Noon to 1:30 PM, Spencer Room (Derby 2130)


Joshua Cohen, Stanford University
"Philosophy, Social Science, Global Poverty"
5 May 2009, 3:30pm at Spencer Room (2130 Derby)

Archon Fung, Harvard University
“The Principle of Affected Interests and Inclusion in Democratic Governance”
6 February 2009, 12:00pm at Spencer Room (2130 Derby)


S. M. Amadae, OSU Political Science
“Wittgenstein on Counting in Political Economy”
23 May 2008, 2:00pm at Spencer Room

Rafi Youatt, OSU Political Science
"Rethinking Anthropocentric Politics"
9 May 2008, 12:00pm at Spencer Room

Eric MacGilvray, OSU Political Science
"The Rise and Fall of Republican Freedom"
25 April 2008, 12:00pm at Spencer Room

Simone Chambers, University of Toronto
"Rhetoric and the Public Sphere: Has deliberative democracy abandoned mass democracy?"

James Johnson, University of Rochester
"The Arithmetic of Compassion: Rethinking the Politics of Photography"

Dennis Thompson, Harvard University
"Who Should Govern?"

Highlights from recent years


Seyla Benhabib, Yale University, Political Science
"Twilight of Sovereignty or the Emergence of Cosmopolitan Norms: Rethinking Citizenship in Hard Times"

Mary Dietz, University of Minnesota, Political Science
"Between Polis and Empire: Aristotle's Politics"

Robert Gooding-Williams, University of Chicago, Political Science
"Between the Masses and the Folk: Du Bois as Political Philosopher"

Jeremy Waldron, New York University, Law
"Safety and Security"


Victoria Kahn, University of California, Berkelely, English and Comparative Literature
"Nationalism and Internationalism in Milton, Grotius, and Hobbes"

Bryan Garsten, Yale University, Political Science
"Saving Persuasion: A Defense of Rhetoric and Judgment"

David Luban, Georgetown University, Law and Philosophy
"The Commander-in-Chief Power and Civilian Control of the Military"

Mattias Iser, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität, Philosophy
"Paradoxes of (Un)just War Theory"


Iris Marion Young, University of Chicago, Political Science
"Responsibility and Global Labor Justice"

Donald Moon, Wesleyan University, Government
"Justice as Social Cooperation"

Jane Mansbridge, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government
"The Case for Less Accountability"