Thame C PDF

Love, Ethics, and Emancipation
The Implications of Conceptions of Human Being and Freedom

in Heidegger and Hegel
for Critical International Theory
By
Charlie Thame
A thesis presented to
The Department of International Politics,
Aberystwyth University
In partial fulfilment of requirements

for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
in
International
Relations
Aberystwyth, Wales, United Kingdom,

© Charlie Thame 2012

SUMMARY
Charlie Thame
Aberystwyth University, 2012
This thesis is an original contribution to critical international relations

theory. Responding to Hartmut Behr's call for the development of more
universalistic trajectories of ontological inquiry for contemporary (global) politics
and ethics, our original contribution is to establish a 'critical' approach to
international theory on a more universalistic meta-theoretical foundation.
Proceeding from a philosophical analysis of 'ontological' foundations in influential
normative, meta-theoretical, and critical approaches to international theory, we
argue for a shift from international theory’s reliance on a shallow ontology of
'things that exist' to a fuller ontology of being, and of human being in particular.
After identifying with the left-Hegelian tradition of thought, and establishing that
the most compelling and promising advocate of a 'critical' approach to international
theory, that of Andrew Linklater, rests on a limited conception of human existence
and a thin understanding of human freedom, we explore the implications of
conceptions of human being and freedom in the work of Martin Heidegger and
Georg W. F. Hegel for critical international theory. Offering an epistemological
defence of our universalism through Hegel's phenomenological constructivist
approach to knowledge, then demonstrating how this allows us to transcend the
schism between foundationalist and anti-foundationalist approaches to normative
theory, we premise our own emancipatory cosmopolitanism on a commitment to
the human being conceived as 'singularity' rather than subject. Proceeding from a
discussion of 'what it means to be' a free human being according to Heidegger and
Hegel, we then foreground two aspects of human freedom that have hitherto been
obscured in critical international theory and develop a praxeological emancipatory
cosmopolitanism on this basis. Rather than rejecting Linklater's emancipatory
cosmopolitanism, we call for its 'overcoming,' and demonstrate ways that our
meta-theoretical argument can effect international practice by offering 'love' as a
guide for ethical and emancipatory praxis and an evaluative tool for critical social
theory.
Key Words
Critical International Relations Theory, Critical Theory, Andrew Linklater,

Heidegger, Hegel, Meta-theory, International Relations, Political Theory,
Ontology, Epistemology, Freedom, Emancipation, Ethics, Subjectivity,
Singularity, Phenomenology, Love.
ii
Acknowledgements
I have incurred many debts writing this thesis. Although I cannot

acknowledge them all, none is greater than that to my parents. I am immensely
grateful for their unconditional love and support, and the very many sacrifices both
have made for me; without which I would not have had the privilege of continuing
my studies beyond secondary school, let alone been lucky enough to pursue
postgraduate study. While my early studies were part funded by them, four years of
this research were funded by an Economic and Social Research Council 1+3
scholarship.
Whilst at Cardiff as an undergraduate I was fortunate enough to be taught by

Peter Sutch and Peri Roberts, whose infectious enthusiasm for political theory
played no small part in sparking my intellectual curiosity, which led me into
postgraduate study. I then found fertile ground in the Department of International
Politics, Aberystwyth, where interactions with my colleagues and cohort were
formative in the development of this argument. Although many contributed in
incremental but not insignificant ways, I’d like to give special mention to a few
individuals.
In their respective roles as the convenors of my masters’ courses in

International Relations and in Security Studies, Will Bain and Michael C. Williams
were excellent guides to novel literatures, as was Nick Vaughan-Williams in his
dual role as convenor to my normative theory module and my Masters dissertation
advisor. Peers including (but not limited to) Michael Keary and Sarah Jenkins
(who both kindly submitted the thesis for me, in absentia), Andreja Zevnik, Luis
Guilherme Pedro, Matt Fluck, Damien Van Puyvelde, Nadja de Oliveira, Andy
Hom, Halle O'Neal, Charlotte Heath-Kelly, Jen Bagelman, Tomos Dafydd Davies,
Anja Gebel, Hannah Hughes, Aideen Woods, Erzsebet Strausz, Amy Pearce, Clare
Paine, Gillian McFadyen, Sonja Kittelsen, Robert Kammel, Katharina Höne, Laura
Lima, Ross Bellaby, Iain Wilson, Orla Ní Cheallacháin, Cameron Roberts, Thomas
Robb, Milla Vaha, Owain Williams, Adam Blackburn, and the Ship and Castle, all
contributed in various ways by making my experiences of living and working in
Aber interesting, fun, and productive.
I was fortunate enough to spend seven months on an exchange at the

University of Queensland in Brisbane, which felt like a home away from home
(albeit with more sunshine and a major flood). For that I thank Shannon Brincat,
for encouraging me to do so, and to Martin Weber, for sponsoring my visit and
acting as my shadow supervisor. I am very grateful to both Martin, the School of
Political Science and International Studies, and Marianne Hanson for hosting me;
hospitality that was further extended by the whole School, but especially Seb
Kaempf, Harmonie Toros, Terry Slight, Will Skadden, Charlie Hunt, Sarah Teitt,
Jacob Kurtzer, Samid Suliman, Katie Linnane, Angela Setterlund, Caitlin Sparks,
Tim Aistrope, and Carly Stephan.
iii
Howard Williams played an important supervisory role in the first eighteen
months of the thesis, after which Simona Rentea came onboard as a secondary. Her
enthusiasm and belief in the project, along with her encouragement were
invaluable in helping to carry the project through a difficult stage, and her
feedback on my work has consistently been challenging and illuminating. Helpful
feedback on earlier instantiations of some of the arguments presented here has also
been gratefully received from Tim Aistrope, Martin Weber, Shannon Brincat, Luis
Guilherme Pedro, Andreja Zevnik, Mike Shapiro, Kimberley Hutchings, and
Andrew Linklater.
Above all though, I thank Hidemi Suganami for his patience, persistence, and
generosity; for his intellectual rigour, for seeing my argument and its failings far
better than I could, and for never letting me get away with an ill-considered
argument or an unclear sentence. If the presentation of what are sometimes
difficult and complex arguments are anything close to lucid, Hidemi bears a large
responsibility; the thesis would be much poorer were it not for his supervision. Of
course, all remaining failings are my own.
Lastly, though by no means least, I thank Sophia. Her ceaseless, untiring,

instinctual and compulsive display of mettā is nothing short of inspirational, and
her care, patience, and sacrifices, all made the challenging last few months of
writing not only bearable but enjoyable.
Mae Sot,
September 2012
iv
Declarations
DECLARATION
This work has not previously been accepted in substance for any degree and is
not being concurrently submitted in candidature for any degree.
Signed: Charlie Thame (candidate)

Date: 29th September 2012
STATEMENT 1
This thesis is the result of my own investigations, except where otherwise stated.
Where *correction services have been used, the extent and nature of the
correction is clearly marked in a footnote(s).
Other sources are acknowledged by footnotes giving explicit references.

A bibliography is appended.

[*this refers to the extent to which the text has been corrected by others]
STATEMENT 2
I hereby give consent for my thesis, if accepted, to be available for photocopying

and for inter-library loan, and for the title and summary to be made available to
outside organisations.

NB: Candidates on whose behalf a bar on access has been approved by the
University (see Note 9), should use the following version of Statement 2:
I hereby give consent for my thesis, if accepted, to be available for photocopying

and for inter-library loans after expiry of a bar on access approved by
Aberystwyth University.

v
Table of Contents
FRONT PAGE.......................................................................................................................I
SUMMARY.........................................................................................................................II
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.....................................................................................................III
DECLARATIONS.................................................................................................................V
TABLE OF CONTENTS.......................................................................................................VI
PREFACE ..........................................................................................................................IX

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................1
Political and Historical Contexts .................................................................................1

Our Problematic and Conceptual Remarks ..................................................................7
Love, Ethics, and Emancipation: An Overview of Our Argument ..............................12
Aim, Scope and Limitations ........................................................................................23
A Note on Methodology ..............................................................................................25

PART 1.
INTERNATIONAL THEORY ............................................................................ 25

CHAPTER 1.
'ONTOLOGICAL' FOUNDATIONS IN CONTEMPORARY
APPROACHES TO INTERNATIONAL THOUGHT .................................................................26
Introduction. ...............................................................................................................26
'Ontological' Foundations in Normative (International) Political Theory.................28
'Ontological' Foundations in International Theory ....................................................40
'Ontological' Foundations in Critical International Thought ....................................53
A Note on Epistemology ..............................................................................................61
Conclusions .................................................................................................................65

CHAPTER 2.
ETHICAL SUBJECTIVITY IN ANDREW LINKLATER'S
CRITICAL INTERNATIONAL THEORY ...............................................................................70
Introduction. ...............................................................................................................70
Men and Citizens: the Bifurcated Subjectivity of Modern Man..................................72
Emancipation & the Reconstruction of Kantian Freedom. ........................................74
The Triple Transformation of Political Community ...................................................83
The Tripartite Structure of Critical Theory: Normativity, Sociology, & Praxeology 90
Ethical Subjectivity in Linklater's Emancipatory Cosmopolitanism ..........................95
Conclusions ...............................................................................................................100

vi
CHAPTER 3.
CRITICAL INTERNATIONAL THEORY AND THE
POLITICS OF SUBJECTIVITY ...........................................................................................102
Introduction ..............................................................................................................102
On the Achievements of Critical International Relations Theory.............................104
On Discourse Ethics .................................................................................................108
Linklater's Defence of Universality ..........................................................................116
Rationality, Freedom, Subjectivity: The Major Fault-line of CIRT .........................120
Freedom and Inter-Subjectivity ................................................................................129
Relational Individuality and Singularity...................................................................136
The Challenge to Dualism ........................................................................................141
The Politics of Subjectivity: the Subject/Object Split and the Politics of Reality. ....144
Conclusions. ..............................................................................................................148

PART 2.
WORLDS AND WORLD POLITICS ............................................................... 151
Introduction to Part 2 ...............................................................................................152

CHAPTER 4.
BEINGS & BEING: HEIDEGGER & FUNDAMENTAL ONTOLOGY.....................................159
Introduction ..............................................................................................................159
The Ontological Difference & the Leading Question of Philosophy ........................160
Being and Time .........................................................................................................166
Being and Time: Division Two .................................................................................175
Perspectival Presentation of the Whole: Overcoming Metaphysics. ........................182
‘Overcoming’ Metaphysics .......................................................................................189
Conclusions: From a Dualist to Non-Dualist Approach to Emancipatory Politics. 192

CHAPTER 5.
EK-SISTENCE, FREEDOM, AND
AN ETHICAL AND EMANCIPATORY POLITICS ................................................................198
Introduction ..............................................................................................................198
Humans as World-Relating Creatures. .....................................................................200
The Essence of Human Freedom: Heidegger's Ontological Reading of Kant .........209
An Ethical & Emancipatory Politics ........................................................................224
Conclusions: Towards a Politics of Singularity .......................................................236
Conclusions to Part 2 ...............................................................................................240

vii
PART 3.
LIFE, LOVE, AND EMANCIPATION ............................................................ 243
Introduction to Part 3 ...............................................................................................244

CHAPTER 6.
UNDERSTANDING THROUGH LOVE, NOT VIVISECTION:
REIFICATION, DE-REIFICATION, AND DEIFICATION ......................................................247
Introduction ..............................................................................................................247
Kant & Hegel ............................................................................................................249
The Subject-Object Relation from Kant to Hegel .....................................................252
The Problem of Life: Hegel's Monistic Philosophical Ontology ..............................269
‘Ontological’ Implications of the Foundational Subject ..........................................275
Hegelian 'Phenomenology' .......................................................................................284
Conclusions ...............................................................................................................287

CHAPTER 7.
EXPOSURE, TRANSCENDENCE, AND
THE COMMUNITY OF FATE ............................................................................................294
Introduction ..............................................................................................................294
The Philosophy of Love.............................................................................................299
Hegel and Love. ........................................................................................................305
The Struggle For Recognition...................................................................................310
Bound Together: The Community of Fate ................................................................319
Conclusions ...............................................................................................................330

CHAPTER 8.
THE LIVED CHARACTER OF ETHICS ..............................................................................334
Introduction ..............................................................................................................334
Love in Practical Philosophy ....................................................................................335
Love and Law: the Vertical Moral Geometry of Moral Law
and the Ethical Logic of Love ...................................................................................343
Moralität and Sittlichkeit ..........................................................................................354
The Lived Character of Ethics ..................................................................................362
Conclusions ...............................................................................................................366

CONCLUSIONS.
LOVE, ETHICS, AND EMANCIPATION....................................................................................................370
Political and Theoretical Contexts ...........................................................................370

Linklater's Dualist Rationalist Emancipatory Cosmopolitanism. ............................372
A Non-Dualist Praxeological Emancipatory Cosmopolitanism ...............................374
Vivifying Sittlichkeit: a Cosmopolitan Ethos of Love ...............................................379
Our Praxeological Emancipatory Cosmopolitanism ................................................382
Conclusions: Our Contribution to Critical International Theory ............................390
BIBLIOGRAPHY........................................................................................................................................402
viii
Preface
Like all pieces of scholarly work this thesis has a personal history. In the
first semester of my second year as an undergraduate at Cardiff University, I took
David Boucher's course History of Ideas in International Relations, during which I
was introduced to both Francis Fukuyama's The End of History and the Last Man
and Samuel Huntington's The Clash of Civilisations and the Remaking of World
Order.1 I chose to write an essay comparing and contrasting these approaches as a
component of my coursework. This of course required me to engage in the
secondary literature on these texts; yet I found something quite unsatisfactory
about engaging with these discourses on their own terms. This is because it was not
their theoretical inadequacies that I found troubling, but the potentially pernicious
effects of these theoretical interventions. Against the backdrop of the post-Cold
War era, Fukuyama's thesis appeared to warrant the expansion of neo-liberal
political and economic ideology, whilst Huntington's seemed to risk making
potential sources of conflict actual, reinvigorating the military-industrial complex
and vivifying an oppositional sense of American identity through the perpetuation
of discourses of danger that serve to recreate imagined communities.2 It seemed to
me then that these were far from being politically neutral pieces of scholarship, and
that these scholars had a fundamental responsibility for the consequences of the
political imaginaries that they forged and lent credibility to.

1. Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man (New York: Harper Perennial, 1993).
Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilisations and the Remaking of World Order (New York:
Simon & Schuster, 1997).
2. On the use of foreign policy and collective identity formation see David Campbell, Writing
Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity (Manchester: Manchester
University Press, 1998).; Michael J. Shapiro, Violent Cartographies: Mapping Cultures of War
(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997).; Iver B. Neumann, “Self and Other in
International Relations,” European Journal of International Relations 2, no. 2 (1996): 139-74; Iver
B. Neumann, Uses of the Other: “the East” in European Identity Formation (Manchester:
Manchester University Press, 1999).
ix
It was for this reason that theoretical approaches to politics with a
specifically 'normative' intent resonated with me as an undergraduate; Mervyn
Frost's case for normative theory against 'value-free' social inquiry was particularly
influential, and I consistently found ethical questions in international relations to
be the most intriguing ones. 3 Yet I soon found the consequentialist and
deontological frameworks to which I was introduced to be talking at cross-
purposes. It became clear that these general moral conceptions were fundamentally
incompatible, and ultimately rested upon assumptions or commitments that were
neither transparently evident nor appropriately defended: assumptions and
commitments regarding the highest good, what is right, and the nature of human
beings and their place in the world, all of which provide the conditions of
intelligibility for these approaches. It seemed that the application of these
approaches to the cosmopolitical realm, such as the now-classical interventions
from Peter Singer or Charles Beitz, for instance, would simply serve to multiply
and intensify disagreements between competing perspectives on what properly
ethical relations between people might involve, since the international realm is the
realm where human differences are most pronounced.4 It seemed sensible then that
theories aspiring to a global purview should explicitly defend these underlying
assumptions before proceeding.
For this reason meta-theoretical discussions about the importance of

epistemology and ontology in my first year in Aberystwyth struck home. My
exposure to post-positivist and 'critical' theorising led me closer to being able to
coherently articulate what it was that I had found troubling about the range of
political theories that I had encountered: it was the ontological commitments that
remained implicit therein. While sharing the normative theorist's deduction that
value-free inquiry was impossible, critical theorists recognised the importance of
defending their own ontological and epistemological commitments: their
commitment to the ontological priority of the individual over the state, or to human

3. See Mervyn Frost, Ethics in International Relations: A Constitutive Theory (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1996)., especially pp12-40
4. Peter Singer, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Philosophy & Public Affairs 1, no. 1 (1972):
229-43. Charles R. Beitz, Political Theory and International Relations (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1979).
x
freedom, for instance. Despite the strengths of their positions, I felt that normative
theorists such as Frost, Walzer and Rawls relied on such commitments without
adequately defending them.5
During my masters studies I was introduced to the work of Andrew

Linklater and Ken Booth, two of the most prominent and influential theorists
working in the critical tradition of international thought. I felt encouraged and
inspired by their explicit commitment to political analysis that aimed to contribute
to the progressive transformation of international practices and institutions in the
name of human freedom. I was also impressed by the scholarly breadth and
historical depth of their work, and the contributions that both had made to the study
of world politics.6 Yet in spite of this, I could not entirely shake the feeling of
discontent that had earlier characterised my reaction to Fukuyama and Huntington,
and I soon became uneasy about their own meta-theoretical commitments and the
conceptions of freedom that appeared to underwrite their arguments; this disquiet
has motivated and informed the character of my postgraduate studies.
For instance, Booth discusses 'the meaning of freedom' as part of a defence

of his commitment to emancipation in his 2007 magnum opus, Theory of World
Security. 7 An immediate issue to confront, he claims, is the idea of 'false

5. This point will of course be elaborated on shortly.
6. See for instance: Ken Booth, et al., eds. How Might We Live? Global Ethics in a New Century
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001); Ken Booth, and Timothy Dunne, eds. Worlds in
Collision: Terror and the Future of Global Order (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2002); Ken Booth, ed.
Critical Security Studies and World Politics (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 2005); Ken Booth, Theory of
World Security (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007); Ken Booth, ed. Realism and
World Politics (London: Routledge, 2011); Ken Booth and Timothy Dunne, eds. Terror in Our
Time (London: Routledge, 2012); Andrew Linklater, Men and Citizens in the Theory of
International Relations, 2nd ed. (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 1990); Andrew Linklater,
Beyond Realism and Marxism: Critical Theory and International Relations (Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan, 1990); Andrew Linklater, The Transformation of Political Community: Ethical
Foundations of the Post-Westphalian Era (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1998); Andrew Linklater, “The
Harm Principle and Global Ethics,” Global Society 20, no. 3 (2006): 329-43; Andrew Linklater,
“Global Civilizing Processes and the Ambiguities of Human Interconnectedness,” European
Journal of International Relations 16, no. 2 (2010): 155; Andrew Linklater and Hidemi Suganami,
The English School of International Relations: A Contemporary Reassessment (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2006); Andrew Linklater, The Problem of Harm in World Politics.
Vol. 1, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
7. Ken Booth, Theory of World Security.
xi
consciousness.'8 Influential in Gramscian-inspired critical theory, this is 'the idea
that a person or group cannot grasp their true interests because of indoctrination or
traditionalist socialisation.'9 As a result, knowledge, enlightenment is central to
freedom, because 'one cannot have one's own understanding (looking at a matter
with some critical distance) under conditions of indoctrination, traditionalist
socialisation, and inadequate relevant knowledge.'10 Booth then proceeds by stating
that 'we freely choose when our noumenal selves control our phenomenal selves;
in other words, when our actions are not the result of error or passion, but are fully
voluntary, founded on understanding and reason.'11
It struck me that Booth's position here involves a whole raft of

philosophical assumptions regarding the relationship between human
understanding, theoretical reason, freedom, and ethical and epistemological
particularity, which are simply not recognised as contestable (and essentially so).
Furthermore, it appeared that the rhetorical force of a phrase such as 'false
consciousness' is likely geared towards smuggling in contestable assumptions
about the world as fact, elevating the world-view of the proponent and de-
legitimising dissenting voices. In short, whilst ostensibly committed to freedom,
my sense was that Booth's approach to world politics might betray a vanguardist or
contradictory understanding of human freedom, where 'backward-looking'
individuals might ultimately be 'forced to be free' or have their best interests
dictated to them. I found this troubling. My initial reaction to these critical
approaches to world politics, then, was one of deep ambivalence: while profoundly
sympathetic to their aims, I remained suspicious of the meta-theoretical
commitments that underwrote them and of the conceptions of freedom that drove
them, both of which could potentially have profound effects on political practice.
A similar contradictory combination of sympathy for the overarching

argument, coupled with a suspicion of the underlying conception of freedom,

8. Ibid., 112.
9. Ibid. emphasis added
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid., 113. emphasis added
xii
characterised my reading of Andrew Linklater's work; yet Linklater's conception of
freedom was harder to identify than Booth's and thus more intriguing to me. Whilst
receptive to some of the challenges to Linklater's position, I found none wholly
convincing, and I thought the readiness of some critics to simply reject the goal of
12
emancipation somewhat petulant. However, equally unsatisfactory was
Linklater's tendency to respond to criticism with a 'gesture of embrace,' a
characteristic response that appeared to indicate a blind-spot to the nature of the
challenges to his position.13 Given that such challenges often align according to the
divergent intellectual inheritances of various 'critical' approaches to politics, I came
to suspect that Linklater's blind-spot might be essentially related to the influence of
Kant and Marx on his position, and I thought it possible to trace an alternative
trajectory of thinking about freedom that might contribute to an even richer critical
approach to world politics. What follows is an attempt to shed light on this blind-
spot and an attempt to embolden and develop further a critical and emancipatory
approach to world politics.

12. In a graduate seminar that followed the publication of Theory of World Security Ken Booth
recounted an exchange with a prominent IR scholar, possibly Rob Walker, whom he credited with
claiming that ‘emancipation is the problem.’
13. The term ‘gesture of embrace’ is Martin Weber's. Martin Weber, “Engaging Globalization:
Critical Theory and Global Political Change,” Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 27, no. 3
(2002), 302.
xiii
Introduction
Political and Historical Contexts
World politics, in the modern era at least, has primarily been conceived as
relations between states. As Rob Walker notes, that the academic study of world
politics should be referred to as International Relations suggests that what happens
inside states is quite different from what happens outside states. 1 Yet the
distinction between domestic order and international anarchy, which has been
foundational to the discipline of International Relations but has always been
problematic, has become increasingly untenable over the past forty years as
dynamics of globalisation have placed increasing pressures on the nation-state as
an effective institution for managing the vicissitudes of contemporary political life.
Globally we confront shared crises such as climate change, resource

scarcity, the militarisation of cyberspace, the vicissitudes of financial markets,
along with the proliferation and intensification of the means of violence, the
movement of peoples, and drastic inequalities in power and wealth, to which the
nation-state has become increasingly unable to effectively mitigate its
vulnerability. These material developments have been accompanied by shifts away
from the nation-state as the principal locus of authority, legitimacy, and
community; we feel less estranged from the experiences of others beyond our
traditional communities and yet, especially in more diverse and multicultural
societies, there is often a perceived gulf between citizens of the same state. On one
hand, the development of security communities, such as the zone of liberal

1. In what follows, when 'international relations' is not capitalised, I am referring to relations
between states. When capitalised, as in 'International Relations,' I am referring to the field of study
concerned with the study of those relations; usually shortened simply to 'IR.' 'World politics'
includes both, referring to politics viewed from a broader vantage.
1
INTRODUCTION/ Love, Ethics, and Emancipation
democratic peace and the project of European integration, along with expressions
of cosmopolitan solidarity during the Arab Spring and in the Occupy movement, in
addition to the development of cosmopolitan norms such as R2P, appear to indicate
forms of community developing beyond the nation-state. On the other, the rise of
the far right in Europe, religious extremism, and the characterisation of some
conflicts as 'civilisational' seem to indicate the fragmentation of communities and
the realignment of forms of identity that might be regarded as constitutive of
individual human beings as political subjects.
These developments testify to the fact that political life is becoming

increasingly decoupled from its traditional territorial location in the nation-state.
While the loss of the steering capacity of the state was underlined as early as 1976
during the first wave of the globalisation debate, more recently scholars have
argued that these are signs of the transformation of international relations into
something more akin to world politics.2 In light of these transformations, and in the
interests of peace, security, human freedom, and ethics, many have argued that the
task faced at our current historical juncture is to recreate the norms of the polis at a
global level: norms such as the non-violent resolution of conflict, dialogue, co-
operation for mutual benefit, collective security, and the collective management of
resources. Mark Neufeld, for instance, suggests that:
In a context in which the factors which will determine whether the human species will
survive or perish, suffer or prosper, operate on a global scale, a good case can be made that
the polis which is ‘coterminous with the minimum self-sufficient human reality’ is the
planet itself. In short, the problems presently faced by the human species call out for the
identification of the idea of the polis with the planet as a whole: a truly global polis.3
Similarly Richard Beardsworth has argued that 'the material conditions of

an integrated world capitalist economy create an array of global problems,'

2. See Susan Strange, The Retreat of the State (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976).;
John Ruggie, Constructing the World Polity: Essays on International Institutionalisation (London:
Routledge, 1998), 174-175,195-197.; R.B.J. Walker, Inside/Outside: International Relations as
Political Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 183. Heikki Patomäki, After
International Relations: Critical Realism and the (Re)Construction of World Politics (London:
Routledge, 2002), 1.
3. Mark A. Neufeld, The Restructuring of International Relations Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1995), 11.
2
including '[m]igration, human trafficking, climate change mitigation and adaption,

global macroeconomic and financial stability, global health regulation, regional
resource-conflict,' all of which are political issues stemming from increasing
dependence among states and between people; the resolution of which requires
effective decision-making at the global level. 4 These shared international, and
often global, problems mean that, just as the thinkers of the Scottish and European
Enlightenment stood towards a material actuality of the middle to end of the
eighteenth century that required the invention of the polis at a level that could
embed or transform the social consequences of capitalisation, the level of the
nation-state, 'so we today have to re-invent the political at a level and in terms that
will appropriate the planetarisation of these same relations'.5
Echoing such a view, Fred Dallmayr suggests that we presently sit at the
twilight of the so-called Westphalian system, where the juncture of radical state
autonomy and a state of true and increasing human interdependence, wrought by
dynamics of globalisation, has given rise to 'two opposing tendencies: on one side,
ambitions to subject globalisation to global sovereignty (a global Leviathan)' and,
on the other, ambitions towards 'a democratic cosmopolis achieved through the
subordination of sovereignty to global interdependence.'6 Painting a starker picture,
this juncture is characterised by Barry Gills as a struggle between 'Cosmopolis' and
'Empire,' suggesting that global politics is today embroiled in a 'clash of
globalisations' between these two opposed approaches to world order, both
struggling to define the character of globalisation, where the experience of the
global community is drawing us to imagine a world characterised either by greater
collective human responsibility or one that remains ensnared in the naked pursuit
of power and wealth.7

4. Richard Beardsworth, “Assessing Cosmopolitan Theory in World Politics,” e-International
Relations, http://www.e-ir.info/2012/05/27/assessing-cosmopolitan-theory-in-world-politics/
(accessed 25/06/2012, 2012).
5. Richard Beardsworth, “The Future of Critical Philosophy and World Politics,” Millennium-
Journal of International Studies 34, no. 1 (2005), 210, 212.
6. Fred R. Dallmayr, Small Wonder: Global Power and Its Discontents (Oxford: Rowman &
Littlefield, 2005), 55.
7. Barry K. Gills, “Introduction,” in The Global Politics of Globalization: “Empire” Vs
“Cosmopolis”, ed. Barry K. Gills (London: Routledge, 2007).
3
In short, the modern political imaginary, where a person's primary fealty is

to his state, and his interactions with others presupposes a political and cultural
background that does not differ drastically from his own, is being profoundly
unsettled. Yet this imaginary has had a remarkably profound influence, not only on
the field of International Relations, but also on political theory. Although its
precise influence is subject of debate, and despite being couched in broader
historical dynamics such as the capitalisation of economic and social relations and
divisions in Christianity, the Peace of Westphalia, comprised of the Treaty of
Münster and the Treaty of Osnabrück, is commonly recognised as a landmark in
the evolution of the European state and state system.8 The principles of state
sovereignty and territorial integrity associated with it have had an enormous and
lasting impact on human political and social relations, not least for the disciplining
effect that it has had on political thought and practice. That this was to initiate 'the
international problematic' of domestic order/international anarchy is well known,
but it was also to have a lasting impact on the canon of political theory. Suggesting
that the principle of state sovereignty embodies the formalisation of political space
that has functioned as a spatio-temporal resolution of questions of political
community, Rob Walker has argued that the emergence of modern political theory
was coterminous with the emergence of the national, territorial state, both of which
conspiring to produce a vision of politics that would be contained within the state.9
It is both necessary and profoundly challenging to at least partially extirpate

ourselves from this modern political imaginary. The practice of state sovereignty
and the system of sovereign states has embodied what Walker identifies as 'an
historically specific articulation of the relationship between universality and

8. On the historical significance of '1648' see Benno Teschke, The Myth of 1648: Class, Geopolitics
and the Making of Modern International Relations (London: Verso, 2003).; Daniel Philpott,
Revolutions in Sovereignty: How Ideas Shaped Modern International Relations (Princeton.:
Princeton University Press, 2001).; Heikki Patomäki, After International Relations: Critical
Realism and the (Re)Construction of World Politics, 26-36.; R.B.J. Walker, Inside/Outside, 125-
40.; Beardsworth defines 'capitalisation' as: 'an economic process whereby increasing parts of
nature and life are subordinated to the law of value: exchangeability and valorisation (the process,
in turn, by which value is added to an object).' Richard Beardsworth, “The Future of Critical
Philosophy and World Politics,” 208.; on the interaction between capital and state formation in the
evolution of the European states system see: Charles Tilley, Coercion, Capital and Western States:
Ad 990-1992 (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1992).
9. See R.B.J. Walker, Inside/Outside., especially p63
4
particularity in space and time'.10 In simpler terms what is meant by this is that
differences between human beings (religious, political, ethical, etc.), differences
that have often led to violence or the forceful submission of one to another have for
the past few hundred years been managed through a spatial resolution where they
have essentially been treated as if they were the internal affairs of any given state.
Such a resolution was historically specific because it was established as a way to
resolve competing claims to fealty in Europe of the late middle ages, involving
what Jens Bartelson has called a 'sublimation of otherness' whereby order grows
out of disorder, harmony out of conflict, and identity out of difference. 11 In
summary then, the Westphalian system of sovereign states has essentially
functioned as a way of escaping the problem of difference rather than confronting
it, a strategy that Naeem Inayatullah and David Blaney refer to as the 'Westphalian
deferral:'
With the emergence of the states system, the differences constituting and complicating
each state as a particular political community are kept separate and managed within the
territorial boundaries of the state. This demarcation and policing of the boundary between
the 'inside' and 'outside' of the political community defines the problem of difference
principally as between and among states; difference is marked and contained as
international difference. This construction of difference allows us to claim to 'solve' the
problem by negotiating a modus vivendi among political communities.12
Given the material transformations discussed above, such a deferral is no

longer as effective as it might once have been; this calls for a reassessment of the
relationship between universality and particularity with a view to developing more
universalist, less parochial, tendencies that may already be latent within the status
quo in order that we may challenge the spatial resolution of the problem of
difference, a modus vivendi that is gradually disintegrating under the force of
contemporary material and ideational challenges. Standing as an obstacle to this,
however, is that the overwhelming trajectory of thought since the eighteenth

10. Ibid., 176.
11. Jens. Bartelson, A Genealogy of Sovereignty (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995),
24-28.
12. Naeem Inayatullah and David L. Blaney, International Relations and the Problem of Difference
(London: Routledge, 2004), 6-7. Inayatullah and Blaney discuss another prevalent strategy
deployed in the response to difference, the temporal strategy, whereby difference would be
mitigated as traditional societies modernise.
5
century has been geared towards recognising the radical particularity of ontological
and epistemological interests.
Such a trajectory is demonstrated by Hartmut Behr in his recent Ontologies

of the International, a study of the interplay of universal and particular interests
embedded within the ontological and epistemological commitments that have
underwritten various conceptions of 'the world' in generations of political thinkers
from Western antiquity to the present.13 Behr demonstrates that there was a shift in
thought in the eighteenth century, most prominently reflected in the thought of
Georg W. F. Hegel, from universal and universalistic ontologies to particularist
ontologies, and argues that this shift was instrumental in the emergence of
nationalistic, particularist moralities that have since contributed to the loss of ethics
in international political thought and international theory in the twentieth century.14
Echoing an argument made by Heikki Patomäki in After International

Relations Behr makes the case that, as a consequence of the prominence of
particularistic ontologies and epistemologies, a distinctive positivist methodology
evolved throughout the nineteenth century, influencing international political
theory to come. 15 '[I]n contrast to traditional hermeneutic, interpretative, and
speculative metaphysics,' this positivist methodology 'considered "external
realities" and thus structures of inter-national politics in general, as objective and
objectifiable, measurable, and quantifiable.'16 Disputing the myth of a perennial
'realist' tradition then, Behr contends that it was this shift to particularist ontology,
epistemology, and methodology that represents the legacies in which the
establishment of IR as an academic discipline, especially its neo-realist
mainstream, is embedded.17

13. Hartmut Behr, A History of International Political Theory: Ontologies of the International
(Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010).
14. Ibid., 2.
15. Patomäki's argument, however, is that the modern study of 'International Relations' is a
descendant of Hume's empiricist ontology/epistemology. See Heikki Patomäki, After International
Relations: Critical Realism and the (Re)Construction of World Politics, 21-41. Hartmut Behr, A
History of International Political Theory: Ontologies of the International, 2-3.
16. Ibid.
17. Ibid., 3. Realists often claim descent from Thucydides, but this claim has been challenged
elsewhere. Cf. Nicholas J. Rengger, “Realism, Tragedy, and the Anti-Pelagian Imagination in
6
Behr's persuasive conclusion is that, given the conditions of twenty-first-

century politics, the challenges and requirements for a contemporary theory of the
international 'lie in the study of ontological and epistemological dynamics' with a
view to providing a groundwork with which to overcome 'the cemented
frameworks and aporias of particularism to establish renewed ontology(ies) and
respective epistemologies for contemporary and future politics and ethics.'18 He
then suggests that the guiding question for these attempts might be formulated as
follows: 'how should we (re)create the transcendental principle/principles that
recognize and socialize plurality and diversity while not expecting "the other" to
assimilate and/or not violating "the other" through logo- and egocentric
epistemologies?'19 The problem, as Behr concludes and we will demonstrate, is that
there is both a lack of universalist, global ontologies, and reluctance among
contemporary international theorists to engage in new ontologies.
Our Problematic and Conceptual Remarks
This is the problematic to which we respond. Given the material

transformations of human life on the planet, our increasingly international and
global political condition, and in order that we might gradually extirpate ourselves
from the aporias and contradictions of particularist thought that have been
bequeathed to us by modern political and international theory, more universalistic
trajectories of ontological inquiry are needed for contemporary politics and ethics.
Ontology

International Political Thought,” in Realism Reconsidered: The Legacy of Hans Morgenthau in
International Relations, ed. Michael C. Williams (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 134-
135n6.; Richard Ned Lebow, “Texts, Paradigms, and Political Change,” in Realism Reconsidered:
The Legacy of Hans Morgenthau in International Relations, ed. Michael C. Williams (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2007).
18. Hartmut Behr, A History of International Political Theory: Ontologies of the International, 246.
19. Ibid.
7
Ontology, from the Greek 'ὄντος' (being), present participle of the verb
'εἰµί' (to be), and -λογία, (-logia) science, study, or theory, can be understood as a
form of philosophical inquiry into existence: about what exists, and about the
nature of existence, or, what it means to exist. Ontology can be deployed in
different ways but in IR it has tended to mean something quite facile, usually
interpreted simply as relating to what 'objects' are seen to exist in international
relations, whether those objects are states (realists), individuals (liberals), social
structures (Marxists), or 'intransitive objects' (critical realists). Besides the fact that
talking about 'ontology in IR' already limits ourselves to one small corner of the
empirical world, the elevation of some international phenomena over others to a
level of foundational objectivity often tells us more about the political/theoretical
commitments of the advocate than it does about the (empirical) world of
international relations. Indeed, since it ignores or leaves implicit the question of the
nature of the existence of those entities, what we consider to 'exist' in world
politics is hardly an ontological question at all, but rather a mere matter of
articulating our own (subjective) images of 'the world.'
As a branch of philosophical speculation, ontology only really begins after

we realise that the question is not merely about 'what exists,' but is about the
question of existence itself: when we start to question the nature of the existence of
the entities (or phenomena) that we encounter in world politics, or, more
pertinently, the nature of the entity (i.e., the human being) that encounters such
entities (states, individuals, social structures) as 'objects.' 20 We therefore take
'ontology' to mean a philosophical analysis of, or investigation into, 'existence;'
specifically, 'human existence,' and thus what it means 'to be' a human being. As a
result, we will not be focussing on an ontology of 'things' in world politics, states,
intransitive objects or causal powers, for instance - but an ontology of being: an
inquiry into the nature of (human) existence rather than what exists. For reasons

20. Torsten Michel has recently made this argument very forcefully in relation to the treatment of
'ontology' by critical realists such as Alexander Wendt and Colin Wight. Torsten Michel, “In
Heidegger’s Shadow: A Phenomenological Critique of Critical Realism,” Review of International
Studies 38 (2012): 209-22. See also Torsten Michel, “Shrouded in Darkness: A Phenomenological
Path Towards a New Social Ontology in International Relations” (Ph.D Thesis, St Andrews, 2008);
Torsten Michel, “Pigs Can’t Fly, Or Can They? Ontology, Scientific Realism and the Metaphysics
of Presence in International Relations,” Review of International Studies 35 (2009): 379-419.
8
that will become apparent, we are especially concerned with the concept of
'freedom' associated with the nature of human existence, and therefore, what it
means to be a free human being. It is on this understanding of ontology that we
proceed, and it is in this sense that we interpret Behr's call for more universalistic
ontological inquiry.
Universality
At the time of revising this introduction, the plight of so-called 'boat people'
seeking asylum in Australia, is, once again, in the news. There are a number
reasons for this: two weeks ago the Australian parliament enacted tough new laws
seeking to deter asylum seekers, often originating from war-torn countries such as
Afghanistan, Iraq and others in the Middle East, the second season of the popular
and award winning SBS documentary series Go Back to Where You Came From is
currently being aired, and a search and rescue operation is presently underway for
a boat carrying 150 asylum seekers, including women and children, which issued a
distress signal a few days ago off the coast of Indonesia.21
These tough new measures, coming into effect in September 2012, involve
the mandatory deportation of new asylum seekers arriving in Australia by boat to
the Pacific atoll of Nauru or Papua New Guinea. Besides over 300 lives being lost
on the same passage between Java (Indonesia) and Christmas Island (Australia)
since December 2011, the cost to detain asylum seekers since 2000 - removing the
costs for deterrence and anti-people smuggling activities - totalled over Aus$2bn.22
During this period just over 18,000 people arrived by boat, which meant that
Australian taxpayers spent around Aus$113,000 simply to detain each asylum

21. Neil Hume, “Australia Searches for Missing Boat People,” Financial Times. Thursday 30th
August 2012., http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/6a87bd78-f270-11e1-ac41-00144feabdc0.html
(accessed 30th August, 2012).
22. Ibid.; Bernard Keane, “Cost of Detention? $113,000 Per Asylum Seeker,” Crikey. 17th August,
2012 http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/08/17/detention-centre-cost-of-asylum-seekers/ (accessed
30th August, 2012).
9
seeker, on average, across the period.23 Not long after a popular Australian radio
talk-show host, Bob Francis, was publicly censured for telling his radio audience
'bugger the boat people, I say. As far as I'm concerned, I hope they bloody drown
out there on their way over here [sic.],' an Australian Commonwealth minister was
reported as saying that 'the only acceptable policy to my electorate would be for
the Navy to sink asylum boats on sight.'24
Our ways of thinking about such issues are outdated, partly because the
ways that we organise our political lives at a global scale are too. The Australian
case is indicative of a broader contemporary malaise that runs deep and betrays
some of the essential limitations of particularist thought. States are predicated on
the violent exclusion of others, and a global system organised around national
citizenship is simply not designed to deal with mass migrations of people. That
governments spend vast amounts of money on harsh policies of detainment and
deterrence is paradoxical, and such callous disregard for the lives of non-citizens
betrays an abhorrent solipsism that is, sadly, not uncommon.25
Cosmopolitans will often respond to these sorts of issues by insisting that

there are certain moral obligations owed to other human beings qua human beings,
pointing to some shared human property or trait, such as rationality or
vulnerability, in order to provide some neutral ground upon which shared
principles of international coexistence might be established. 26 Alternatively
cosmopolitans might insist that states should live up to their obligations and duties

23. Ibid.
24. Michael Owen, “Radio ‘King’ Slammed Over Boatpeople Tirade,” The Australian. June 8th ,
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/immigration/radio-king-slammed-over-
boatpeople-tirade/story-fn9hm1gu-1226388100400 (accessed 30th August 2012, 2012).; Allan
Asher, “The Lies We Feed Ourselves to Paint Refugees as Villains,” The Punch. 27th August.
2012, http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/The-lies-we-feed-ourselves-to-paint-refugees-as-
villains/ (accessed 28th August, 2012).
25. It the perception of difference that is key here, after all there are nearly 500,000 New
Zealanders living and working in Australia, who need no visa to do so.
26. Habermas's reformulation of the Kantian principle of universalisation is an example of a
contemporary application of the principle of universal respect. He writes: 'A norm is valid when the
foreseeable consequences and side effects of its general observance for the interests and value-
orientations of each individual could be jointly accepted by all concerned without coercion.' Jürgen
Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory (Cambridge, MA: The MIT
Press, 1998), 42.
10
under international law, such as those to 'respect, protect, and fulfil' human rights.27
Although echoing these sentiments, our universalism, our cosmopolitanism,
pursues a different line of argument. We will not simply insist that people or states
must live up to some preconceived subjectivity and act as if they were good moral
or legal subjects, nor will we be relying on the evocation of a common human
community, as if we already faced such a collective singularity, 'mankind' as
such.28
Our approach to universality is of a different kind; it is not one of moral

principles, but of ethical outlook. In essence we are offering a non-foundational
cosmopolitanism; reflecting the understanding of 'ontology' discussed above, our
cosmopolitanism amounts to questioning 'what does such an incident tell us about
the nature of the being of those entities that encounter refugees as others to be
excluded or detained?' Does their prerogative to do so as citizens and agents of a
sovereign state amount to an exercise of their freedom as human beings, or simply

27. By virtue of their membership, states are bound under the United Nations charter to respect
human rights, and through their ratification of successive human rights treaties they assume further
obligations as principal duty-bearers to protect such rights. See
http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/preamble.shtml
28. This common cosmopolitan supposition of a foundational 'human' subjectivity or collective
singularity ('humanity as such') is misguided for three reasons. Firstly, a pre-established
foundational subjectivity is controversial and contestable. Such a controversy is documented in a
recent special issue of International Politics on ethics and world politics, where the central point of
divergence between contributors to this special issue was the problem of referring to a human 'we.'
While Smith, Linklater and Erskine explore the possibility of extending ethical frameworks so that
suffering in world politics might be mitigated, 'Elden, Zehfuss, Hutchings and Vaughan-Williams
inveigh that ethical frameworks produce the world they seek to reform.' James Brasset and Dan
Bulley, “Ethics in World Politics: Cosmopolitanism and Beyond?,” International Politics 44
(2007), 14-15. This 'we' problem derives from the problematic supposition that subjectivity is in
some sense foundational or primordial: that it can be drawn upon to justify the extension of ethical
frameworks rather than being produced by those frameworks themselves. Secondly, such a
supposition runs into difficulties when it comes to the character of our encounter the ‘other’:
whether the other is encountered simply as a mirror image of ourselves, or whether they are
recognised as truly independent and singular beings. This is a point regularly made by so-called
'poststructuralist' approaches to politics and ethics. For examples, see D. Campbell, and M.J.
Shapiro, eds. Moral Spaces: Rethinking Ethics and World Politics (Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press, 1999).; Thirdly, responding to his discourse theory of morality, Benhabib rightly
objects to Habermas’s evocation of a common humanity by arguing that 'a collectivity is not
constituted theoretically, but is formed out of the moral and political struggles of fighting actors.'
Consequently, a common humanity is something that is constructed in an ongoing process, and the
deployment of the language of an anonymous species subject, 'humanity,' 'preempts the experience
of moral and political activity as a consequence of which a genuine "we" can emerge.' Seyla
Benhabib, Critique, Norm, and Utopia: A Study of the Foundations of Critical Theory (New York:
Columbia University Press, 1986), 331. See also Seyla Benhabib, “The Utopian Dimension in
Communicative Ethics,” New German Critique 35 (1985), 95-96.
11
as political subjects? Does an ethical relation to non-citizens consist in the non-

contravention of cosmopolitan norms?
Love, Ethics, and Emancipation: An Overview of Our

Argument
The Nature of the Complaint:

The 'Ontological' Foundations of Normative International Theory
Ontological assumptions and commitments underwrite our understandings

of 'the world' and what it consists of, and serve as the (often unacknowledged)
premises of our political and ethical thought; yet normative international theory has
either tended to be too shallow or conservative with its 'ontological' foundations, or
else it has mis-recognised the partisanship upon which it is based - claims that we
illustrate in Part I with reference to Mervyn Frost, John Rawls, and Andrew
Linklater.
Rawls and Frost
Keen to avoid contestable meta-theoretical commitments and recognise the

particularity of their own ethical claims, we will see that Rawls' and Frost's
respective foundational ethical commitments to the basic structures of a
constitutional democracy and the system of sovereign states lend credence to
Walker's claim that modern political theory has tended to produce visions of
politics that remain essentially caught within the embrace of the nation-state and to
Behr's claim that there has been a reluctance amongst political and international
theorises to engage in more universalistic forms of ontological inquiry.
By circumscribing their approaches to world politics and ethics in this way,

both Rawls and Frost shy away from interrogating the ontological nature of their
12
foundational commitments; commitments that reflect a shallow interpretation of

the nature of 'ontological foundations' simply as the existence of 'objects'
presupposed as the conditions of any ethical theory, rather than as the nature of the
existence of that entity that encounters such foundations as objects. The upshot is
that neither can pose much of a challenge to the violent and questionable practices
associated with the continued existence of the system of sovereign states, nor can
they contribute to an overcoming of the international problematic, outlined above.
Left-Hegelian Thought
In response to Frost we explicitly situate ourselves within a left-Hegelian

tradition of thought. From a Hegelian point of view, it is simply not sufficient for
us to encounter such ethical foundations as 'objective,' since for Hegel what it
means 'to be' is to be free: it is the self-actualisation of freedom in the world that
serves as the ontological foundation (in the fuller sense of the term) of human
existence, and this allows us to criticise practices and institutions that fail to live up
to this normative ideal. It is this foundational commitment to human freedom that
underwrites the left-Hegelian tradition of thought, from Marx all the way down to
contemporary critical theory and critical international relations theory (CIRT).
Defending the view that the future of critical theory lies in CIRT, we learn
that CIRT has developed along two paths since first making inroads into IR in the
early 1980s: a historical/sociological path, inaugurated by Robert W. Cox, that
highlights different futures for international politics, and a philosophical/normative
path, inaugurated by Richard K. Ashley, that uses freedom as a critical standard
with which to criticise the theory and practice of world politics and to indicate
ways forward. We see that the most comprehensive and compelling advocate of
CIRT, Andrew Linklater, has developed a 'twin-track' approach that is reflected in
his insistence of the necessarily 'tripartite structure' of critical theory, where any
critical theory is seen to remain incomplete unless it contains
philosophical/normative, sociological, and praxeological elements.
13
Andrew Linklater's Critical Approach to International Relations Theory
Not content to remain caught within the solipsistic particularism that

characterises much modern political and international thought, Linklater confronts
the international problematic head-on with a self-consciously universalistic
argument that aspires to be sensitive to particularity. Far from taking modern
institutions such as the system of sovereign states as 'objective' ethical foundations,
Linklater adopts a broad and historically, sociologically, and philosophically
informed vantage on contemporary international institutions and practices; one that
is explicitly concerned with ongoing transformations of the Westphalian system
and with possibilities for emancipatory political change latent within it. For these
reasons, and more besides, we maintain that Linklater offers a far more promising
approach to theorising contemporary world politics than do Rawls and Frost.
However, we later find Linklater's emancipatory cosmopolitanism, the

philosophical defence of his CIRT and the justification of his subsequent
sociological and praxeological analyses, to be predicated on the existence of an
ethical subject: an interpretation of the being of human beings that serves as a
foundational ethical commitment: a (subjective) interpretation of the being of
human beings that is treated as if it were a general ontology of being.
Largely a consequence of his reliance on Kant, Marx, and Habermas, this

commitment is reflected in Linklater’s conception of emancipation, which is
presented as a process of the historical self-actualisation of the ethical subject, and
in his defence of universalism against Richard Rorty's anti-foundationalism, which
amounts to the projection of ethical subjectivity on 'the other' and on other others.
Our contention is that this involves Linklater submitting to a form of metaphysical
dualism based upon a foundational subject-object split, where individual human
beings are simultaneously treated as (ethical) subjects and (mind-independent
cognitive) objects. This dualism is metaphysical because ethical subjectivity is
14
treated as if it were the essential nature of human beings qua human beings,
applying to human beings 'as such' and to human beings as a whole.
There are two essential components to Linklater's dualism: an ontological

dualism and an epistemological dualism.29 He commits himself to an ontological
dualism by virtue of his treatment of ethical subjectivity as the essential being of
human beings (whose objects are universal principles), and to an epistemological
dualism because the human being (conceived as ethical subject) is treated as if it
were as a mind-independent cognitive object that is known by the epistemic
subject (i.e., Andrew Linklater). This mind-independent object (the ethical subject)
is what serves as the 'ontological' foundation of Linklater's universalist normative
claims. 'Ontological' is placed in scare quotes to indicate that we do not consider
such a foundation to be ontological in the full sense of the term; this is because,
despite his left-Hegelian commitment to human freedom, by thinking this freedom
as the freedom of the ethical subject Linklater falls back onto a foundational
ontology of 'things,' since the ethical subject is the object presupposed by his
emancipatory cosmopolitanism.
In light of this objection to Linklater’s critical theory we make the broader

claim that, although critical theory professes a high degree of reflexivity regarding
the relation between subject and object, this concern is limited to the role of
knowledge in the recreation of reality and in the emancipatory purposes of theory,
rather than with any possible implications of any foundational commitments to
subjectivity or objectivity; since these implications concern our mode of being in
the world, they are referred to as 'ontological implications.' This omission, we
argue, leads to what we call a 'politics of subjectivity': ethico-political practices
that are ultimately incompatible with a commitment to an ethical and emancipatory
politics.

29. Following Heidegger, we understand metaphysics as a speculative activity that goes beyond
that which is immediately accessible to human beings, seeking to grasp the essence of entities (such
as human beings) in order that general claims may be made about them. Martin Heidegger, The
Essence of Human Freedom: An Introduction to Philosophy (London: Continuum, 2002), 106.
Although such a brief definition is inadequate, we request the reader's patience until Chapter 4
when a more thorough explanation will be given.
15
A Non-Dualist Approach to the Human Being: the Meta-Theoretical

Condition of an Emancipatory Cosmopolitanism
By the end of Part 1 we demonstrate that Linklater's emancipatory

cosmopolitanism, the philosophical defence of his approach to CIRT, is riven by
an internal contradiction, and may ultimately fail by its own standards. We
therefore find the most potent defence of a universalistic, ethical and emancipatory
approach to contemporary world politics to be hamstrung by a foundational
commitment to ethical subjectivity. The deeper problem indicated by this
commitment, we suggest, is both a shallow (and insufficiently universalistic)
philosophical ontology of the human being and a thin conception of human
freedom, where freedom is conceived simply as the freedom of the human being
qua ethical subject. We conclude Part 1 by arguing that a non-dualist approach to
the human being is the meta-theoretical condition of an ethical and emancipatory
politics.
Research Question
Our contention is that Heidegger and Hegel present two potent defences of
a non-dualist approach to the relation between self and world. Since both proceed
from non-dualist premises, both reject any foundational commitments to
subjectivity or objectivity, which they consider to contribute to an alienation of self
from world, and as serving to 'un-live' human existence. Consonant with our earlier
identification with the left-Hegelian tradition of thought, both Heidegger and Hegel
are motivated by foundational ontological commitments (in the fuller sense of the
term) to human freedom and, in contrast to Linklater's rationalist cosmopolitanism
where the relationship between self and world is ultimately mediated by moral
reason, both Heidegger and Hegel (respectively) are concerned with developing
pre- and post-theoretical, phenomenological, relations to reality, and their
16
arguments in this regard help us to develop an alternative, praxeological

emancipatory cosmopolitanism. We thus proceed into Parts 2 and 3 with the
research question:
What are the implications of conceptions of human existence and freedom in

Heidegger and Hegel for critical international theory?
Part 2: Worlds and World Politics
As we proceed, our two principal concerns in Part 2 are to deepen the

ontological foundations (in the fuller sense of the term) of CIRT and to begin our
task of developing a fuller understanding of human freedom upon which an
alternative emancipatory cosmopolitanism might be based. To this end, Chapter 4
engages with Heidegger's Being and Time, where we discuss Heidegger's
existential analytic of human existence. This offers us a firmer (more
universalistic) ontological ground from which to proceed, and we defend the claim
that any attempt to contribute to a more universalistic ontological inquiry for
contemporary politics and ethics must proceed from a recognition of the
ontological difference between entities and the being of entities. Such recognition
would involve resisting the (characteristically dualist) temptation to regard our
own interpretation of the being of beings as the only interpretation, and thus
forgoing an approach to politics and ethics that is predicated on some universal
foundation (such as ethical subjectivity). The upshot is that emancipation cannot be
grounded on the self-actualisation of the ethical subject, as it is by Linklater, but
must be premised on what Heidegger calls 'resolute solicitous being-with,' which is
to be characterised by a de-centred receptivity to the existence of others.
After offering an alternative account of the individual as a world-relating

creature rather than ethical subject, Chapter 5 explores Heidegger's account of
freedom in greater depth. We establish that, before it is associated with any form of
subjectivity (ethical subjectivity, or the political subjectivity associated with
17
citizenship, for instance) freedom must be recognised as the condition of any

interpretation of the being of beings; as the 'ground' of the ontological difference.30
In short, this amounts to repositioning freedom so that freedom is no longer
principally seen as the property of a subject but is recognised as the existential
condition of world-disclosure. It is for this reason that Linklater's projection of
ethical subjectivity (an interpretation of the being of human beings) as a general
ontology of human being involves the abrogation of a central aspect of human
freedom.
We start exploring the ethical and political implications of our position

towards the end of Chapter 5, where we resound calls from the likes of Jean-Luc
Nancy and Jacques Derrida for a 'politics of singularity;' this, we suggest, should
displace the politics of subjectivity that we argued in Part I characterises
Linklater's emancipatory cosmopolitanism. The reason for this, which will become
clearer in Chapter 5, is that the recognition of the ontological difference heralds a
fundamental discontinuity between ethics and politics: while politics is the process
of projecting and contesting interpretations of the being of beings as a whole,
ethics concerns a relation to the other as singularity (rather than as foundational
subject). For this reason we argue that, by predicating his emancipatory
cosmopolitanism on an interpretation of the being of human beings as ethical
subjects, Linklater mistakenly treats his politics as an ethics.
Part 3: Life, Love, and Emancipation
Developing Heidegger's account of resolute solicitous being-with through

Hegel's account of inter-human recognition, the aim of Part 3 is to develop a more
universalistic approach to contemporary politics by outlining the contours of an
ethical and emancipatory politics of love and praxis. Our rationale for turning to
Hegel is fourfold. One of the conclusions to Part 2 is that a central weakness of

30. For Heidegger freedom is the ‘Abgrund’ (groundless ground / abyss) upon which the
ontological difference rests. ‘Ground’ is therefore placed in inverted commas here as it is an
inaccurate translation of ‘Abgrund’. This terminology will be explained in Chapters 4&5.
18
Heidegger's lies in his failure to explore for the interpersonal aspects of freedom
and individuality, a mistake he might have avoided had he been a better student of
Hegel; secondly, the discontinuity between politics and ethics heralded by
Heidegger's fundamental ontology is already there in Hegel's distinction between
Sittlichkeit (ethical life) and Moralität (ethical/moral reason), and Hegel gives a far
more adequate account of ethics than does Heidegger; thirdly, the
phenomenological impulse, an attempt to develop a non-theoretical relation to
reality, although foregrounded by Heidegger, is already there in Hegel (this has
unfortunately been obscured by more rationalist interpretations of Hegel); and
finally, Hegel offers us a phenomenological approach to epistemology that is more
persuasive than the renewed emphasis on the nature and function of language in
post-Husserlian phenomenology, and this provides us with the epistemological
defence of our emancipatory cosmopolitanism.
We initiate Part 3 with a discussion of the subject-object relation from Kant

to Hegel in Chapter 6, where we explore the nature of Hegel's completion of Kant's
critical philosophy and his argument that (ethical or epistemological) subjectivity
is essentially an ongoing social and historical achievement.31 As a result, the
achievement of self-conscious 'subjectivity,' which differs in very significant
respects from Kantian subjectivity, involves recognising that the subject-object
split is not foundational but derivative, and that subject-object dualism is
ultimately overcome through a post-theoretical relationship to reality: a relation
between self and not-self (world) that Hegel discusses with relation to the
experience of 'love.' Such a relation amounts to overcoming object-oriented forms
of consciousness and recognising that the self is fundamentally exposed to the
existence of others, i.e., realising that we are not essentially Kantian/Fichtean
subjects. We then argue that mis-recognising the nature of Hegel's self-conscious
'subjectivity' as a Kantian form of subjectivity (as do Habermas, Linklater, and
Honneth) leads to deleterious implications for our mode of being in the world,
‘ontological’ implications that include diremption, reification, and de-reification.

31. Although Linklater also regards subjectivity as a social and historical achievement, by taking an
essentially Kantian approach to ethics he departs from Hegel in significant ways. The nature and
significance of this divergence will become apparent in Chapter 6.
19
These are all consequences of conceiving the self as a subject standing in a

transcendent and assimilatory relation to the objects of its experience: objects that
include other persons.
Further exploring the nature of self-conscious 'subjectivity,' in Chapter 7

we engage with Hegel's account of the master and slave. Based on the experience
of love, this provides a model of the re-cognitive structure of self-consciousness
and, as a consequence of this re-cognitive structure, the character of our own
individuality is radically dependent on the nature of our relations with others.
Consequently, the achievement of self-conscious 'subjectivity,' the attainment of a
mature personality, requires that we recognise the 'interruptive condition of
subjectivity:' that we are bound together with others in a 'community of fate.' This
leads us to a characteristically Hegelian approach to human freedom: a form of
freedom as an entirely immanent form of transcendence that follows from the
concrete of between persons participating in the dynamic of ethical life. Following
Nancy, we refer to this freedom as 'the crossing of love.'
Our last chapter, Chapter 8, picks up on this latter point, honing in on the
ethical aspect of our argument through a discussion of the distinction drawn by
Hegel between ethical life (Sittlichkeit) and moral reason (Moralität), and the
nature of the relation between these two approaches to society. Ethical life
(Sittlichkeit), we discover, operates according to an 'ethical logic of love,' while
moral reason (Moralität) proceeds according to general laws given through the
exercise of practical reason and is associated with a Kantian approach to ethics.
Learning that ethical society requires the recognition of the mutual dependency of
both perspectives, we demonstrate that, as a result of their foundational
commitments to ethical subjectivity, both Habermas and Linklater mistreat the
notion of ethical life (Sittlichkeit) by asserting the dominance of moral reason over
ethical life. Attempting to rebalance this bias we conclude by advocating the
importance of ethical life and engaged conscientious activity for an ethical and
emancipatory politics.
20
Conclusions: Love, Ethics, and Emancipation
In light of our argument that a genuinely ethical relation to the other would
involve resisting the (characteristically dualist) tendency to project an
interpretation of the being of human beings onto others and engaging with others
as others (as unique singularities rather than as ethical subjects) and having learnt
that there are two aspects of human freedom obscured by Linklater's emancipatory
cosmopolitanism - freedom as the existential condition of any interpretation of the
being of human beings (as ethical subjects, for instance) and freedom as 'the
crossing of love,' where any given subjectivity is transcended through interactions
with others - we conclude that, in order to reflect the fact that human beings are
neither foundational ethical subjects, nor mind-independent cognitive objects, a
more universalistic approach to contemporary (global) politics and ethics must be
predicated on non-dualist meta-theoretical commitments.
Having demonstrated the inadequacies of Linklater's philosophical defence

of CIRT, which depends on a conception of emancipation as the historical self-
actualisation of the ethical subject and an ethical universalism that is predicated on
the universal projection of ethical subjectivity - both of which betray dualist meta-
theoretical premises - we suggest that a more universalistic philosophical defence
of CIRT, an alternative emancipatory cosmopolitanism, might instead be
predicated on what it means 'to be' a free human being. Following Heidegger and
Hegel, this would involve foregrounding resolute solicitous being-with and the
ethical and emancipatory aspects our participation in the dynamic of ethical life;
from a global perspective, we argue that this would involve the cultivation of a
nascent international ethical life.
Recalling Linklater's insistence that any critical theory must include

philosophical/normative, sociological, and praxeological aspects, we conclude that
Linklater's reliance on Habermas's normative ideal of a universal discourse
community as an evaluative tool for critical social theory is no longer sufficient, as
21
it rests on a limited conception of freedom that equates freedom with the exercise
of ethical subjectivity, and is ethically deficient since ethical recognition is
extended to human beings qua ethical subjects. Instead, we argue that a fully
ethical and emancipatory approach to contemporary (global) politics and ethics
would involve self-consciously identifying with others beyond our immediate
circles of concern, taking their interests as not wholly distinct from our own, and
acting accordingly. To this end, displacing Linklater/Habermas's normative ideal of
universal communication, we outline ways in which love can be deployed as an
evaluative tool for critical social theory; how it can be deployed as a non-dualist
normative standard with which to indict forms of ethical habituation (institutions
and practices) that generate and sustain forms of indifference towards others.
Although affirming the praxeological aspects of Linklater's argument in his

The Transformation of Political Community, where he argues that states are
obliged to contribute to the development of forms of community beyond the state
and create new forms of citizenship, we suggest a second practical application of
our argument by proffering love as a guide for ethical and emancipatory praxis.
Not dissimilar to the notion of cosmopolitan citizenship advocated by Linklater
and others, this amounts to a form of cosmopolitan solidarity where the existence
of others (where others are not confined to compatriots or fellow believers) comes
to be seen as part of a deeper fabric of our own self-understandings, and whose
interests are then taken as not wholly distinct from our own. In contrast to
Linklater, whose praxeological arguments are directed primarily towards states and
their agents, the praxeological aspect of our emancipatory cosmopolitanism is
explicitly geared towards individuals and locates the emancipatory project in the
experiences of individual human beings themselves (in the real lives of Bob
Francis's audience, or the Commonwealth minister's constituents), rather than in
civilising processes taking place above them.32

32. On this point we follow Shannon Brincat. Shannon Brincat, “Towards an Emancipatory
Cosmopolitanism: Reconstructing the Concept of Emancipation in Critical International Relations
Theory” (Ph.D Thesis, University of Queensland, 2011), 312,314-315.
22
In brief then, our aim is to effect an 'overcoming' of Linklater's essentially

rationalist cosmopolitanism with a praxeological cosmopolitanism. 33 While
Linklater relies on a conception of the human being as ethical subject as a mind-
independent foundation for his emancipatory cosmopolitanism, we argue that such
a dualism is an inappropriate basis for an emancipatory cosmopolitanism. It is
worth making it clear at the outset that, despite our ardent criticisms of his
emancipatory cosmopolitanism, we are not rejecting Linklater's approach to CIRT.
Ours are not opposing viewpoints. Rather, we are attempting to establish CIRT on
a firmer meta-theoretical foundation; essentially, on what it means to be a free
human being. This is our original contribution to a critical approach to
international theory; one that, we hope, can provide us with a more universalistic
approach to contemporary (global) politics and ethics than one based on a
foundational commitment to an interpretation of the being of human beings as
ethical subjects.
Aim, Scope and Limitations
Our discussion is a meta-theoretical response to ethical and emancipatory

approaches to IR - one that seeks to provide a sounder basis for an emancipatory
cosmopolitan politics than Linklater's. Our focus lies on the ontological aspects of
ethical and political theory, yet our project is necessarily limited in its scope. We
do not engage in a thorough overview of the tradition of critical international
thought, this has already been provided by Rengger and Thirkell-White.34 Neither
do we engage in an overview of the diverse range of approaches to cosmopolitan
thought, a task that has been engaged by many other scholars, most recently
Richard Beardsworth.35

33. Our use of the verb 'overcoming' will be explained shortly.
34. See Nicholas J. Rengger, and Ben Thirkell-White., ed. Critical International Relations Theory
After 25 Years (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007).
35. Richard Beardsworth, Cosmopolitanism and International Relations Theory (Cambridge: Polity
Press, 2011).
23
Furthermore, although our cosmopolitanism is practically relevant, we shall

not be concerned with demonstrating this relevance beyond the arguements offered
in the concluding chapter. There is already a wealth of literature dealing with
concrete proposals for cosmopolitan reform in world politics, and many critical
theoretical approaches to world politics have already demonstrated the practical
relevance of this position; CIRT already has a well-established empirical research
agena that this thesis does not immediately contribute to.36 On the latter point see
Booth, Krause and Williams's influential calls for the restructuring of security
studies, Cox's arguments in international political economy for the examination of
world order and global hegemony, or indeed any application of constructivism,
which is (not unproblematically) considered by Price and Reus-Smit as 'the applied
wing' critical theory.37 In summary, as Linklater notes, 'even a brief analysis of the
evolution of the empirical research agenda over the past fifteen years reveals that
contemporary critical theorists have no reason to apologise to the allegedly more
empirically minded for any failure to deliver concrete analysis.'38

36. On cosmopolitan proposals for reform see David Held's arguments for the reform of the
Security Council, the creation of a second chamber in the UN, the enhancement of political
regionalisation, the use of trans-national referenda, the creation of a new human rights court, the
foundation of a new co-ordinating economic agency at regional and global levels, and the
establishment of an effective, accountable, international military force. In the longer term Held
suggests such reforms should include the entrenchment of cosmopolitan democratic law in a new
Charter of Rights, a new Global Parliament, and an interconnected global legal system. Daniele
Archibugi, and David Held, eds. Cosmopolitan Democracy: An Agenda for a New World Order
(Cambridge: Polity, 1995); David Held, Democracy and the Global Order: From the Modern State
to Cosmopolitan Governance (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995); David Held, “Cosmopolitan
Democracy and the Global Order: A New Agenda,” in Perpetual Peace: Essays on Kant’s
Cosmopolitan Ideal, ed. James Bohman and Mattias Lutz-Bachmann (Cambridge: The MIT Press,
1997).
37. Ken Booth, “Security and Emancipation,” Review of International Studies 17, no. 4 (1991):
313-26; Ken Booth, “Security in Anarchy: Utopian Realism in Theory and Practice,” International
Affairs 63, no. 3 (1991): 527-45; Ken Booth, Theory of World Security (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2007). Keith Krause and Michael C. Williams, eds. Critical Security Studies:
Concepts and Cases (London: UCL Press, 1997). Robert W. Cox, “Social Forces, States and World
Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory,” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 10,
no. 2 (1981): 126-55; Robert W. Cox, Production, Power, and World Order: Social Forces in the
Making of History, vol. 1 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1987); Robert W. Cox,
Approaches to World Order (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996); Robert W. Cox,
“Civil Society At the Turn of the Millennium: Prospects for an Alternative World Order,” Review of
International Studies 25, no. 1 (1999): 3-28; Richard Price and Christian Reus-Smit, “Dangerous
Liaisons? Critical International Theory and Constructivism,” European Journal of International
Relations 4, no. 3 (1998), 264.
38. Andrew Linklater, “The Changing Contours of Critical International Relations Theory,” in
Critical Theory and World Politics, ed. Richard Wyn-Jones (Boulder: Lynne Reiner, 2001), 31-32.
24
A Note on Methodology
Sometimes it is hard to know where politics ends and metaphysics begins: when, that is,
the stakes of a political dispute concern not simply a clash of competing ideas and values
but a clash about what is real and what is not, what can be said to exist on its own and
what owes its existence to an other.39
Our argument is an exercise in international meta-theory, an exercise that involves

responding to the question as to what it is that makes good theory.40 Here we
respond to the more specific question: what it is that makes good critical theory. It
is perhaps Horkheimer who provides the sternest defence of a meta-theoretical
approach to theory when he notes that, although there may be periods when one
can get alone without meta-theory, 'its lack denigrates people and renders them
helpless against force.'41
Horkheimer also supplies what may be the most appropriate response to

those that would question the practical relevance of meta-theory in his insistence
that: 'today the whole historical dynamic has placed philosophy at the centre of
social actuality, and social actuality at the centre of philosophy' and that we should
therefore regard any hostility directed towards meta-theory as 'really directed
against the transformative activity associated with critical thinking.'42 Living up to
the promise of the critical study of world politics requires we recognise
Horkheimer's statements hold true for International Relations, just as much as any
other discipline, and perhaps more than most.43
Our methodology is one of immanent critique, a method that is central to the

work of Hegel, and is later advocated by members of the Frankfurt School, such as
Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno. This immanent methodology 'starts with

39. J.M. Bernstein, “The Very Angry Tea Party,” New York Times. 13th June. (2010).
40. 'International meta-theory ... seeks an answer to the question: "what constitutes good theory
with regard to world politics?"' Mark A. Neufeld, The Restructuring of International Relations
Theory, 2.
41. Cited by Ibid., 1.
42. Cited by Ibid.
43. Mark A. Neufeld, “What’s Critical About Critical International Relations Theory?,” in Critical
Theory in World Politics, ed. Richard Wyn Jones (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2001), 144.
25
the conceptual principles and standards of an object, and unfolds their implications
and consequences. Then it re-examines and reassesses the object [...] in light of
these implications and consequences. Critique proceeds, so to speak, 'from
within.'44 CIRT is explicitly committed to a high degree of reflectivity about the
relationship between subject and object, to the process of human emancipation, and
to the justification of its position according to universalist and universalistic
ontologies; these are the standards in light of which our immanent critique assesses
CIRT. Our mode of reception is closer to Walter Benjamin's 'redemptive
hermeneutic' than it is to an Adornian 'absolute negation,' in that our aim is to
redeem and retain what we consider to be most valuable in Linklater's approach.45

44. Adorno and Horkheimer, quoted in Mark A. Neufeld, The Restructuring of International
Relations Theory, 5.
45. Mark A. Neufeld, “What’s Critical About Critical International Relations Theory?”, 128-29.
26
Part 1.
International Theory
25
Chapter 1.
'Ontological' Foundations in Contemporary
Approaches to International Thought
Introduction.
In light of our aim to contribute to the development of more universalistic

trajectories of ontological inquiry necessary for contemporary (global) politics and
ethics, this chapter is primarily concerned with the role that ontology and
'ontological' foundations have played in international theory. To this end, we
survey influential contemporary 'normative,' meta-theoretical, and 'critical'
approaches to international theory. Maintaining that no theory is possible without
ontological and epistemological (meta-theoretical) assumptions and commitments,
and recalling our explanation that 'ontology' is a form of philosophical inquiry into
what exists and the nature of existence, our central claim is that the dominant
voices in each of the approaches that we survey rely on a shallow ontology of
'things,' rather than an ontology of being, as their ontological foundation.
Lending support to both Behr's claim that the overwhelming trajectory of

thought since the eighteenth century has been geared towards the recognition of the
particularity of ontological interests, and Walker's claim that modern political
theory has overwhelmingly produced visions of politics and ethics that remain
framed by the sovereign state, we shall see that normative international theorists
such as Rawls and Frost attempt to sidestep important philosophical (ontological
and epistemological) questions by taking dominant practices and institutions
associated with the sovereign state as foundational ethical commitments. However,
despite their best attempts, philosophical questions invariably arise due to their
PART 1/ Ch.1. ‘Ontological’ Foundations in International Theory
treatment of such ethical foundations as the 'objects' presupposed as the conditions

of their normative claims.
This leads us to a brief discussion of Hegel, for whom institutions such as the
state do not in themselves have an 'objective' existence, as their objectivity is
conditional upon the nature of the being of the being that encounters such entities
as 'objects.' Put differently, for Hegel the 'objectivity' of dominant practices and
institutions remains dependent upon the extent to which such institutions
contribute to the freedom of the human being: to the self-actualisation of freedom
in the world. We suggest that such a foundational ontological commitment (in the
fuller sense of the term) might represent a more universalistic ontological
foundation for contemporary (global) politics and ethics.
However, mainly due to the prominence and ascendency of critical realism in

contemporary international theory, attempts to bring ontological reflection into IR
have overwhelmingly been confused and facile. This is largely the consequence of
a questionable philosophical commitment to a mind-world dualism, which permits
Wendt and critical realists to separate epistemology from ontology and to prioritise
ontological questions; these commitments have led to an overvaluation of the role
of scientific inquiry in world politics and a marginalisation of alternative
'philosophical ontologies' from debates in international theory. Fortunately
however, the dualist commitments underwriting these approaches to international
meta-theory have recently been subjected to persuasive challenges from Patrick
Thaddeus Jackson and Torsten Michel; the latter pointing to Heidegger's
distinction between entities and the being of entities and arguing that proper
ontology concerns the latter.
In light of this survey, we return to a discussion of left-Hegelian thought,

which is represented by 'critical' approaches to international theory. By refusing to
encounter (currently) dominant practices and institutions in world politics as
'objects,' these approaches overcome the weakness of Rawls and Frost's approaches
to normative international theory. Nonetheless, we suggest that the most persuasive
27
advocate of a critical approach to international theory, Andrew Linklater, might not

overcome the weakness common to the normative theorists and the critical realists;
that is, to rely on a shallow ontology of 'things' rather than an ontology of being.
The 'thing' presupposed by Linklater's CIRT is the ethical subject, which is treated
as if it were a mind-independent object and serves as the 'ontological' foundation
(in the shallow sense of the term) of his critical approach to international theory,
claims that we corroborate in Chapter 2.
We conclude Chapter 1 by affirming Michel's suggestion that deeper

reflection regarding notions of subjectivity and objectivity is called for in
international theory. However, while Michel has shown us that Heidegger can lead
us to a deeper ontological appreciation of subjectivity and objectivity, since he is
apparently uninterested in the problem of knowledge, he can only get us so far. We
therefore conclude by outlining Hegel's phenomenological constructivist approach
to epistemology: a more fruitful phenomenological approach to knowledge than
that can be found in post-Husserlian phenomenology and the approach to
knowledge according to which our argument proceeds.
'Ontological' Foundations in Normative (International)

Political Theory
As Habermas explains, ontological assumptions and commitments serve as

the (often unacknowledged) premises of our political and ethical thought:
Ontological commitments, whether philosophical or scientific, logically precede

substantive claims, and serve as the often-unacknowledged basis on which empirical
claims are founded. In this sense, ontological commitments are 'foundational'--not in the
sense that they provide unshakable grounds that universally guarantee the validity of
claims that are founded on them, but 'foundational' in the sense that they provide the
conditions of intelligibility for those claims. In that way, ontological commitments are
world-disclosing, since they make a particular kind of tangible world available to a
researcher.1

1. Jürgen Habermas, The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity: Twelve Lectures (Cambridge,
Mass.: The MIT Press, 1990), 321.
28
Indeed, the theoretical divergence in the hugely influential

cosmopolitan/communitarian debates in political theory and normative
international theory in the 1980s and 1990s might largely be attributed to an
underlying (and often implicit) disagreement about what the ultimate ground, i.e.,
what the subject, of justice is taken to be: whether that is the individual (the
rational individual/the vulnerable individual/the 'free' individual) or the collective
(the nation/state/polis/religious community).2 In each case these act as foundational
'ontological' commitments: the 'objects' presupposed as the conditions of any
subsequent normative claims.
Given the theoretical divergence in normative international theory, an

intelligent way ahead is to engage in meta-theoretical analysis of the
epistemological and ontological presuppositions underwriting these positions:
evaluating the (ontological) nature of their foundations, and the (epistemological)
status of the claims that follow.3 The latter task is taken up by Molly Cochran in
her Normative Theory in International Relations, an impressive study of the ethical
foundations underwriting a range of approaches to normative international theory,
including Rawls, Walzer, Frost, and Linklater, which results in an appraisal of the
epistemological status of the normative claims that follow from their respective
ethical foundations.4
Situating the cosmopolitan/communitarian debate in normative

international theory within the context of a larger debate in the social sciences
about modernist, foundationalist epistemologies, Cochran argues that the question
of whether moral claims are universal or particular is a tension not primarily about
the scope of moral claims, 'but about how those claims are made [...], about how
claims to ethical judgement in IR are grounded or justified.' Consequently, she

2. There is a huge secondary literature on these debates. For exemplary discussions see Stephen
Mulhall and Adam Swift, Liberals and Communitarians, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Blackwell, 1996). Chris
Brown, International Relations Theory: New Normative Approaches (New York: Columbia
University Press, 1992). Molly Cochran, Normative Theory in International Relations: A Pragmatic
Approach (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).
3. This is the strategy deployed by Kenneth Waltz in relation to causal theories of war. Kenneth N.
Waltz, Man, the State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis (New York: Columbia University Press,
2001).
4. Molly Cochran, Normative Theory in International Relations: A Pragmatic Approach.
29
claims that although the cosmopolitan/communitarian debate is principally

concerned with 'ontological questions,' it 'leaves untheorized the rival foundational
assumptions upon which these ontologies stand.'5 As a result of her evaluation of
the epistemological aspects of different normative theories, Cochran concludes that
'in order to offer a criterion for ethical judgement,' the 'burden of an ethics' is
'shifted back onto ontology.'6
Recalling our earlier explanation that ontology is a form of inquiry into

what exists and into the nature of existence, or what it means to exist, in as much
as these foundational ethical commitments are commitments to entities that are
presupposed as the conditions of any normative claim, disputes about whether the
individual or the community is a more appropriate ethical foundation might be
considered an 'ontological' debate in a shallow sense of the term. That said, since
the 'objectivity' of such foundations is often presupposed, such debates are very
superficial (ontologically speaking) and the ontological questions raised by such
foundational commitments are commonly left unanswered: whether such
foundations can be considered to have objective existence, and what it means to
treat such ethical foundations as objects, for instance.
Supporting Behr's claim that the overwhelming trajectory of thought since

the eighteenth century has been geared towards recognising the particularity of
epistemological and ontological commitments, the root of the problem is that
political theorists usually try hard to evade the ontological questions that invariably
arise from their foundational commitments. Moreover, since a common strategy of
evasion is to take dominant practices and institutions as foundational ethical
commitments, the upshot of this humility is that dominant practices and institutions
are treated as if they were 'objective,' thus lending uncritical ideological support to
the status quo and reinforcing visions of politics and ethics that remain framed by
the sovereign state.

5. Ibid., xvi.
6. Ibid.
30
Since both approaches rest upon foundational ethical commitments to

institutions and practices associated with the modern state, we will explore these
questions in the following section with reference to John Rawls's 'Political
Liberalism' and Mervyn Frost's 'secular Hegelianism.' Although leading to
undeniably persuasive and practical approaches to normative international theory,
as approaches to contemporary (global) politics and ethics they are fundamentally
limited by these foundations. We further argue that such foundations cannot in
themselves be considered 'objective' and must themselves be subject to evaluation;
our suggestion is that these ethical commitments must themselves be underwritten
by a deeper, more foundational ontological commitment to human freedom.
Ethical Foundations in The 'Political Liberalism' of John Rawls
Responding to criticisms of his seminal publication A Theory of Justice

(1971) in an article titled Justice as Fairness: Political not Metaphysical (1985), a
precursor to his Political Liberalism (1993), Rawls asserts the particularity of his
normative claims by explicitly limiting his conception of 'justice as fairness' to a
political conception of justice that applies only to the 'basic structure' of a modern
constitutional democracy.7 Rawls's clarification that his normative theory is only
meant to apply to the political, social, and economic institutions of a modern
constitutional democracy is basically an attempt to sidestep philosophical disputes
regarding the essential nature of persons, since he only intends for his theory to
apply to human beings qua subjects (i.e., citizens) of a constitutional democracy,
and to likewise avoid claims about universal truth, since he does not suppose that
his normative claims apply universally, but only on the condition of a prior
acceptance of these ethical foundations and therefore only within the jurisdiction of
the state. He writes:

7. See: John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1999)., and
Michael J. Sandel, Liberalism and the Limits of Justice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1982).; Alasdair C. MacIntyre, After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory (London: Duckworth, 2007).;
Michael Walzer, Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality (New York: Basic Books,
1983).; John Rawls, Justice as Fairness: Political Not Metaphysical, vol. 14(3), Philosophy &
Public Affairs (1985), 224.
31
In this discussion I shall make some general remarks about how I now understand the
conception of justice that I have called ‘justice as fairness’ (presented in my book A
Theory of Justice). I do this because it may seem that this conception depends on
philosophical claims I should like to avoid, for example, claims to universal truth, or
claims about the essential nature and identity of persons.
[...]
Thus, the aim of justice as fairness as a political conception is practical, and not
metaphysical or epistemological. That is, it presents itself not as a conception of justice
that is true, but one that can serve as a basis of informed and willing political agreement
between citizens viewed as free and equal persons.8
Rawls thus leaves the question open as to whether 'justice as fairness' can
be extended to different societies existing under different historical and social
traditions.9 Reasserting his particularism in his The Law of Peoples (1999), Rawls
explicitly states that his conception of international justice does not claim universal
scope, but applies only to the foreign policy of a liberal people:
[I]t is important to see that the Law of Peoples is developed within political liberalism and
is an extension of a liberal conception of justice for a domestic regime to a Society of
Peoples. I emphasize that, in developing the Law of Peoples within a liberal conception of
justice, we work out the ideals and principles of the foreign policy of a reasonably just
liberal people. This concern with the foreign policy of a liberal people is implicit
throughout. The reason we go on to consider the point of view of decent peoples is not to
prescribe principles of justice for them, but to assure ourselves that the ideals and
principles of the foreign policy of a liberal people are also reasonable from a decent
nonliberal point of view. The need for such assurance is a feature inherent in the liberal
conception. The Law of Peoples holds that decent nonliberal points of view exist, and that
the question of how far nonliberal peoples are to be tolerated is an essential question of
liberal foreign policy.10
Although Rawls is correct to recognise and emphasise the particularity of his

normative claims, by taking the basic structures of a constitutional democracy as a
foundational ethical commitment he effectively treats these structures as if they
were 'objective.' This requires that we accept that these institutions are essentially
'good' (because they are subject to no further evaluation), and that they are here to
stay. Moreover, since his theory of 'justice as fairness,' only applies within states,
and (later) to the outward-directed foreign policy of a liberal state, it serves to
reinforce what Jens Bartelson identifies as the 'parergonal' (framing) logic of
sovereignty, taking sovereignty itself as an unproblematic good and remaining

8. Ibid., 223,230.
9. Ibid., 225.
10. John Rawls, The Law of Peoples (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1999), 9-10.
32
blind to both the contemporary transformations of the Westphalian states-system

and the possibilities of progressive change.11 We will return to these issues shortly.
Ethical Foundations in Mervyn Frost's Constitutive Theory
By taking the state, the system of sovereign states, and global civil society
as his foundational ethical commitments, Mervyn Frost's 'secular' interpretation of
Hegel provides us with a second illustration of the tendency in modern political
theory to try to evade ontological questions and thereby reinforce visions of
politics and ethics that remain contained within the sovereign state.12
Building on the original articulation of his 'constitutive theory of

individuality' as developed in Ethics in International Relations, in his later work
Constituting Human Rights, Frost argues for the centrality of human rights in
international relations, which leads him to explore the apparent conflict between
the rights practices associated with global civil society and those of the society of
democratic states.13 Distinguishing between the rights we have as citizens and the
rights we have as civilians, Frost argues that as participants within global civil
society we claim for ourselves and constitute each other as civilians with first
generation human rights. Similarly, as participants in the global society of
democratic and democratising states, we claim for ourselves and constitute each
other as citizens, as holders of the second and third generation rights that we
associate with citizenship.

11. Bartelson argues that sovereignty functions according to the same logic as the paregon. The
parergon is a problem discussed in aesthetics, centring on the relationship between a frame, a work
of art itself, and its background. The solution, as explained by Bartelson is that: 'a frame, a line of
demarcation, an ontological divide, or geographical or chronological boundary all assert and
manifest class membership of a phenomena, but the frame or line itself cannot be a member of
either class. It is neither inside, nor outside, yet it is the condition of possibility of both. A parergon
does not exist in the same sense as that which it helps to constitute; there is a ceaseless activity of
framing, but the frame itself is never present, since it is itself unframed.' Jens. Bartelson, A
Genealogy of Sovereignty (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 51.
12. On Frost's 'secular' Hegelianism see: Mervyn Frost, Ethics in International Relations: A
Constitutive Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 143-58.
13. Ibid.; Mervyn Frost, Constituting Human Rights: Global Civil Society and the Society of
Democratic States (London: Routledge, 2002).
33
We only 'have' human rights by virtue of our participation within these two
practices, and the context and scope of different types of rights claims therefore
correspond with the context and scope of these respective practices. First
generation rights such as freedom of speech, conscience, and the right not to be
killed or assaulted are negative rights that claim universal scope, applying
universally to all those who participate in global civil society, while second and
third generation rights, such as rights to employment, housing, health-care,
economic and social development, and group and collective rights, are positive
rights that depend on our participation in concrete political institutions such as the
state. Since these institutions are necessary for their provision, these positive rights
can only apply within their jurisdiction.
Although Frost's argument provides a convincing account of the generation

of human rights, and it clarifies the nature and scope of our commitments to these
rights, his normative theory, like Rawls's, is predicated on our acceptance that
practices and institutions such as the sovereign state, the system of sovereign
states, and global civil society, are foundational ethical goods. While such
practices and institutions are the conditions of human rights, which are
undoubtedly a significant historical and political achievement, they are themselves
far from unproblematic; yet by taking them as the ethical foundations of this
normative theory Frost also effectively treats these foundations as if they were
'objective:' they have to be taken as givens, subject to no further evaluation, no
higher court of appeal.
The Return of the Repressed (Ontology)
In her analysis, Cochran rightly disputes the 'objectivity' of these

foundations and refers to them instead as 'weak foundations' that lead to
14
contingently held normative claims. Such a conclusion reflects the

14. Molly Cochran, Normative Theory in International Relations: A Pragmatic Approach, 113-14.
34
epistemological focus of her analysis: she is primarily concerned with the status of
normative claims. However, Cochran recognises that this shifts the burden of an
ethics back onto ontology. 15 Ironically then, despite attempting to evade
philosophical questions by emphasising the particularity of their normative claims
and taking dominant practices as their ethical foundations, treating such
commitments as 'objects' presupposed as the conditions of their normative claims
invites an ontological evaluation of such commitments. A properly ontological
evaluation of Rawls and Frost's ethical foundations would not simply consist in
debating which represents the better ethical foundation, but must involve
questioning the 'objectivity' of such foundations themselves: whether such
foundations have objective existence, what it means to take these ethical
foundations as objective, and what it says about the being of the entity that
encounters such institutions as objects.
Cutting to the chase, our contention is that it is not sufficient to encounter

such foundations as objects and that ontologically speaking we need to dig a little
deeper. This does not require that we reject Rawls or Frost's normative theories but
it does require that we subject their foundational ethical commitments to further
evaluation before accepting their normative claims. It should not be too
controversial to suggest that human freedom might provide a normative ideal with
which to evaluate these ethical commitments. Such a deeper commitment to human
freedom might involve the contention that these practices and institutions could be
considered historical achievements in virtue of their contribution to our self-
actualisation as free beings: for example, that the state might be considered an
achievement to the extent that it provides a sphere in which and through which we
are able to provide ourselves with positive rights, such as those to education,
health-care, and social security. In this way, such a foundational commitment to
human freedom might then underwrite Rawls and Frost's (previously foundational)
ethical commitments, so that the state and the system of sovereign states are no
longer themselves taken as foundational ethical goods but are evaluated against a
normative ideal of human freedom. In this way the ethical claims that follow from

15. Ibid., xvi.
35
their normative theories would hold only on the condition that they contribute to
human freedom.
The Actual and the Rational
This is Hegel's position. For Hegel it is not sufficient for us to encounter

institutions, such as the state, as 'objects;' the 'objectivity' of these entities must
itself be evaluated against a more foundational commitment to human freedom.
Such is the idea behind his (in)famous (and enigmatic) dictum 'what is rational is
actual and what is actual is rational,' for when Hegel talks of 'actuality' he is not
talking about the purely contingent, that which has (empirical) existence, he is
talking about that which is infinite (unconditioned) and free. As H. B. Nisbet
points out, the fact that Hegel is not uncritically validating the status quo becomes
clearer in his Lectures on the Philosophy of Right, where his formulation of the
dictum as 'what is actual becomes rational, and the rational becomes actual,'
emphasises the dynamic and progressive aspect of reason that becomes actual in
the world.16
On Hegel's account then, rather than taking practices and institutions

associated with the modern state as 'objective' ethical foundations, it is a particular
understanding of human freedom that justifies the settled order. As Allen Wood
helpfully explains:
The actual is always rational, but no existing social order is ever wholly actual. In its
existence, the rational Idea of an ethical order is always to some extent disfigured by
contingency, error, and wickedness.17 The present social order must be measured not by a
timeless standard, but by its own ethical Idea [...] There is plenty of room in Hegel’s
ethical theory for criticism of the existing order as an immature or imperfect embodiment
of its own Idea [...] The principles of an ethical order are valid only so long as that order is
rational [...] The foundation of the ethical is its actualisation of spirit's freedom. The cause

16. G. W. F. Hegel, Vorlesungen Über Rechtsphilosophie (Lectures on the Philosophy of Right)
(Stuttgart: Frommann Verla, 1974), 19 51. emphasis added. G.W.F. Hegel, Elements of the
Philosophy of Right, trans. H.B. Nisbet (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 389-
390n22.
17. The Idea is freedom. On the understanding of 'Idea' in Hegel see Glenn Alexander Magee, The
Hegel Dictionary (London: Continuum, 2010), 111-15.
36
of that freedom is served not only by the structure of a rational social order, but also by the
destruction of an order that has lost its rationality [...] Inevitably Hegel's ethical theory
focuses critical attention on prevailing social institutions: Does the existing social order
actualise its Idea? Is the ethical order itself rational, or has it lost its foundation in spirit's
struggle to actualise freedom?18
From a Hegelian perspective then, ontologically speaking, practices and

institutions such as the state do not in themselves have an 'objective' existence, but
must be evaluated with relation to the being of that entity that encounters these
institutions as objects; since for Hegel the human being is a free being, the
'objectivity' of these foundations is conditional upon their contribution to the
freedom of the human being. Put differently, it is the self-actualisation of freedom
that provides the underlying standard by which practices and institutions, Rawls
and Frost's foundational ethical commitments, are to be evaluated.
Hegel's Philosophy of Right is a defence of the view that the ethical state is
the most rational modern form of the actualisation of objective freedom: the state's
rationality is dependent on it being effective at actualising human freedom; when it
no longer serves human freedom it will (presumably) be subject to revision.19 This
is the critical purchase of Hegel's argument. His attempts to show in the
Philosophy of Right how the institutions of modern society, such as the family,
civil society, and the state, actualise freedom in the modern world all presuppose
the possibility that modern society might fail to meet these critical standards: this is
the radical dimension of his ethical theory; the possibility of a radical Hegelian
'left' is immanent in his thought, as is an apologetic Hegelian 'right.'20
As Wood notes, the historical Hegel himself was a moderate, reformist

'centrist,' but to know which Hegel to deploy presupposes the prior judgement as to
whether modern society is really rational.21 By taking the settled norms of state
sovereignty and human rights as foundational goods, Frost has to presume that
these norms are both rational (and have to be reconciled), yet without an

18. Allen W. Wood, Hegel’s Ethical Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990),
256. Emphasis added.
19. G.W.F. Hegel, Elements of the Philosophy of Right.
20. Allen W. Wood, Hegel’s Ethical Thought, 257.
21. Ibid.
37
underlying (foundational) commitment to human freedom Frost cannot claim the

'actuality' of human rights or of the system of sovereign states, and hence is only
able to offer an account of the rationality of the contingent. Insodoing Frost divests
himself of the critical purchase of Hegel's ethical theory: he cannot evaluate these
practices with anything other than the yardstick of their own internal coherence
and thus leaves himself at risk of being charged with being an ideologue of the
status quo, an apologist for the practices of violence and exclusion implicated in
the continued existence of the system of sovereign states.22
Reviving the Philosophical & Confronting the Ontological
With regards to the basic structures of a constitutional democracy and the

liberal state, a similar criticism might be levelled against Rawls's theory of 'justice
as fairness.' The central weakness of both approaches is that by treating them as
foundational, they treat their ethical commitments as objective, rather than
ensuring that the 'objective' status of these ethical commitments is itself conditional
upon the historical self-actualisation of the human being as a free being. Both do so
in order to sidestep metaphysical questions, contestable philosophical (ontological
and epistemological) questions about the nature of human beings. Yet the upshot of
this evasion is that they divest themselves of the necessary resources with which to
counter claims that their foundational commitments are simply the artefacts of
military might or capital, for instance, and that their normative theories are
anything other than ideological justifications of the sovereign state (as historical
materialists might argue).
Moreover, by taking such foundations as 'objective,' both largely preclude

the possibility of ethical and emancipatory change pertaining to these foundations.
Frost is unable to envisage movement beyond the current state of affairs, such as
the potential reform of global institutional arrangements so as to extend the scope

22. On more than one occasion I have heard Chris Brown say that, when asked, Frost cannot decide
whether he is a 'left' or 'right' Hegelian. Based on the evidence given here, I would suggest he is a
right Hegelian.
38
of the provision of second and third generation rights more universally, while the
'parergonal' logic of Rawls's theory of justice, its sharp inside/outside distinction,
means that 'outsiders' have few ethical claims on 'insiders,' and we must therefore
acquiesce to the violent and exclusionary practices associated with the exercise of
state sovereignty.
Both Rawls and Frost thereby reinforce visions of politics and ethics that
remain framed by the state, and offer inert approaches to contemporary (global)
politics and ethics that neglect the historical nature of (currently) hegemonic social
and political institutions, which are unable to provide any guide for future-directed
action, save for the effective management of the status quo. Despite both offering
eminently persuasive and practical approaches to normative questions in
international relations when accepted on their own terms, these terms themselves
rest upon questionable ontological assumptions that remain unresponsive to the
contemporary transformations of the Westphalian system, and leave us impotent in
the face of potentially progressive transformations of our political and social
arrangements.
These essential limitations of Rawls and Frost's approaches to

contemporary (global) politics and ethics are consequent of their attempts to evade
philosophical questions by asserting the particularity of their claims, attempts that
are ultimately unsuccessful. Since normative international theory has so far lacked
ontological reflection (in the fuller sense), we might then suggest that the
conditions of contemporary (global) politics and ethics call for us to confront such
ontological questions, and to do so with more self-consciously universalistic intent;
preferably proceeding from a left-Hegelian commitment to human freedom. In
contrast to the particularism of Rawls and Frost's approaches to normative theory,
such an approach to contemporary (global) politics and ethics would be more
universalistic because it would apply to human beings qua human beings, rather
than to human beings qua participants in global civil society, or qua subjects of a
constitutional democracy. However, as we shall discover in the next section, a
39
central obstacle to such a task is that attempts to bring ontological reflection into
international theory have, so far, overwhelmingly been superficial.
'Ontological' Foundations in International Theory
The previous section provided us with confirmation of both Walker's claim

that modern political theory has overwhelmingly reproduced visions of politics and
ethics that remain framed by the nation-state, and Behr's claim that, although more
universalistic forms of ontological inquiry are required for contemporary (global)
politics and ethics, the overwhelming trajectory of political thought has been
geared towards the recognition of the particularity of its claims. Conseqently,
although indelibly marked by ontological and epistemological, meta-theoretical,
presuppositions and commitments, normative political theorists have attempted to
elude such commitments by conservatively taking dominant practices and
institutions as their ethical foundations, insisting that their claims only apply on the
condition that these foundations are accepted.
International thought has not similarly retreated from confronting the meta-
theoretical aspects of political and social inquiry. This may in part be attributable
to the fact that IR is a derivative discipline that applies insights from other
disciplines such as political science, philosophy, sociology, economics, history,
linguistics, etc., but also because the increasingly heterodox and trans-disciplinary
nature of various studies of war, peace, order and change in the field might have
forced a greater degree of meta-theoretical reflexivity.23 However, owing to the
influence of dualist philosophical commitments on these meta-theoretical debates,
until very recently ontological debates in international theory have overwhelmingly
remained either very basic, or confused; concerned only with an ontology of
'things' that exist, rather than an ontology of being. Notable exceptions to this rule,

23. On IR as a derivative discipline see Ronen Palan, “Transnational Theories of Order and
Change: Heterodoxy in International Relations Scholarship,” in Critical International Theory After
25 Years, ed. Nicholas Rengger and Ben Thirkell-White (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2007).
40
which will be discussed in due course, are relatively recent contributions from
Patrick Thaddeus Jackson and Torsten Michel.24
The Third Debate
Meta-theoretical concerns came to prominence in IR during the 'fourth

great debate' between positivism and post-positivism, somewhat confusingly
referred to in the literature as the 'Third Debate.'25 Positivism involved a unified
conception of science and the adoption of the methodologies of the natural
sciences to explain phenomena in the social realm, and it dominated the academic
study of IR in the latter half of the twentieth century.26 From the early 1980s a
plethora of 'critical' approaches to IR emerged, principally Critical Theorists
inspired by the Frankfurt School and/or Gramsci, normative theorists,
'postmodernists', 'post-structuralists', and feminists.27

24. See Patrick Thaddeus Jackson, “Foregrounding Ontology: Dualism, Monism, and IR Theory,”
Review of International Studies 34, no. 1 (2008): 129-53; Patrick Thaddeus Jackson, The Conduct
of Inquiry in International Relations: Philosophy of Science and Its Implications for the Study of
World Politics (London: Routledge, 2011). and Torsten Michel, “Shrouded in Darkness: A
Phenomenological Path Towards a New Social Ontology in International Relations” (Ph.D Thesis,
St Andrews, 2008); Torsten Michel, “Pigs Can’t Fly, Or Can They? Ontology, Scientific Realism
and the Metaphysics of Presence in International Relations,” Review of International Studies 35
(2009): 379-419; Torsten Michel, “In Heidegger’s Shadow: A Phenomenological Critique of
Critical Realism,” Review of International Studies 38 (2012): 209-22.
25. Yosef Lapid coined the term 'Third Debate' to refer to the debate between positivist and post-
positivist theories of IR. Earlier debates in international theory are referred to as the 'First Great
Debate' (between Realism and Idealism) and the Second Great Debate (between scientific and
classical approaches to IR); what is considered to be the 'Third Great Debate' in IR (between
realism, liberalism and radical approaches) is also sometimes referred to as the 'Inter-Paradigm
Debate.' Consequently, what Lapid terms the 'Third Debate' would be considered to be the 'Fourth
Great Debate.' Yosef Lapid, “The Third Debate: On the Prospects of International Theory in a Post-
Positivist Era,” International Studies Quarterly 33 (1989): 235-54.
26. For a concise yet illuminating overview of the history of positivism and its influence on IR see
Steve Smith, “Positivism and Beyond,” in International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, ed. Steve
Smith, et al. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 14-18,31-35.
27. Habermas and Gramsci influenced the two pivotal texts in this debate, from Richard K. Ashley
and Robert Cox respectively. See Richard K. Ashley, “Political Realism and Human Interests,”
International Studies Quarterly 25 (1981): 204-36; Robert W. Cox, “Social Forces, States and
World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory,” Millennium: Journal of International
Studies 10, no. 2 (1981): 126-55. For a retrospective discussion of their influence see Nicholas J.
Rengger and Ben Thirkell-White., eds. Critical International Relations Theory After 25 Years
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007).
41
What united these approaches was not so much anything substantive as

much as their shared rejection of the assumptions associated with positivism. On
one hand critical approaches challenged the dominance of the neo-realist and neo-
liberal emphasis on technical questions, and on the other they attempted to
introduce social-theoretical concerns in order to move the discipline in a radically
different direction.28 Since international theory underpins and informs international
practice, far from being exercises in 'navel gazing,' the stakes in these debates were
high, since 'once established as common sense theories become incredibly
powerful since they delineate not only what can be known but also what it is
sensible to talk about and suggest[; hence ...] what is at stake in debates about
epistemology is very significant for political practice. Theories do not simply
explain or predict, they tell us what possibilities exist for human action and
intervention; they define not merely our explanatory possibilities but also our
ethical and practical horizons.'29
Indeed, one of the reasons that positivism was dominant for so long lay in
the fact that by determining 'what kinds of things existed in international relations'
its empiricist epistemology had determined what could be studied in IR.30 In order
to challenge this orthodoxy, post-positivist debates were necessarily
31
epistemologically oriented. And yet, despite highlighting the importance of

28. Patrick Thaddeus Jackson, The Conduct of Inquiry, 72. I am aware that this account of the
development of 'the discipline' is not entirely neutral. However, it is a commonly accepted narrative
and it serves the purpose of situating the thesis as a contribution to meta-theoretical debates in IR.
For an alternative history of the discipline see Craig Murphy, “Critical Theory and the Democratic
Impulse: Understanding a Century-Old Tradition,” in Critical Theory and World Politics, ed.
Richard Wyn Jones (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2001); Craig Murphy, “The Promise of Critical
IR, Partially Kept,” in Critical International Relations Theory After 25 Years, ed. Nicholas Rengger
and Ben Thirkell-White (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007).
29. Steve Smith, “Positivism and Beyond,” 13. emphasis added. On the links between international
theory and practice, see also Marysia Zalewski, “’All These Theories Yet the Bodies Keep Piling
Up’: Theory, Theorists, Theorising,” in International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, ed. Ken
Booth, Steve Smith, and Marysia Zalewski (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).
30. Steve Smith, “Positivism and Beyond,” 11.
31. Ashley and Cox's interventions are good examples of this. Richard K. Ashley, “Political
Realism and Human Interests.”; Robert W. Cox, “Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond
International Relations Theory.” The 'great debates' in the discipline's history, between realism and
idealism in the 1930s and 1940s, between the 'scientific' and 'classical' (alternatively, 'traditional')
approaches in the 1960s, or the inter-paradigm debate between realism, pluralism and
globalism/structuralism, did not involve questions of epistemology. As Smith notes, 'the discipline
has tended to accept implicitly a rather simple and, crucially, an uncontested set of positivist
assumptions which have fundamentally stifled debate over both what the world is like and how we
42
theory and bringing dissident voices from out of the margins of the discipline, it
could be argued that the emphasis placed on the reflexive importance of
epistemology as constructive of the world of objects (of states and the states-
system, for instance) coupled with the diversification of epistemological
approaches to the study of IR, a degree of epistemological radicalism emerged
from the Third Debate. This, and increasingly unproductive epistemological
debates, were to occasion a shift back to 'ontology,' most prominently heralded by
Alexander Wendt in the mid-1990s.32
The Turn to 'Ontology'
Given the epistemological orientation of the Third Debate, and the

positivist empiricism that had previously determined 'what kind of things existed in
international relations,' this 'turn to ontology' was always likely. Yet this is not to
suggest that ontological concerns arose only after the Third Debate, since this
would clearly be wrong.33 There have long been approaches that challenged the
foundational commitments of neo-realism, that have stood at variance with those
associated with positivism, and ontological claims permeated the Third Debate.
Nevertheless, it was only after this 'great debate' that IR became explicitly and self-
consciously reflexive about the 'ontological' aspects of social and political
inquiry.34

might explain it.' Although those working in the 'English School' or on the intersection of
international theory and political theory never really bought into the positivist assumptions that
dominated the discipline, it has been positivism that has dominated the overwhelming character of
the discipline of International Relations. Steve Smith, “Positivism and Beyond,” 11.
32. Alexander Wendt, “Constructing International Politics,” International Security 20, no. 1 (1995):
71-81; Alexander Wendt, “The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory,”
International Organization 41, no. 3 (1987): 335-70; Alexander Wendt, “Anarchy is What States
Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics,” International Organization 46, no. 2
(1992): 391-425; Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge
33. On Richard Falk and the World Order School, and peace studies/peace research, see Ken Booth,
Theory of World Security (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 58-69. On dissident
traditions of IR in the USA also see Craig Murphy, “The Promise of Critical IR, Partially Kept.” On
ontological commitments in political thought pre-dating the dominance of positivism or realism see
Hartmut Behr, A History of International Political Theory: Ontologies of the International
34. Steve Smith, “Positivism and Beyond,” 11.
43
By arguing that 'what really matters is what there is rather than how we
know it,' Wendt's proposal was that the IR debate should move away from
epistemological questions (specifically, whether the methods of the natural
sciences could be validly applied to social reality) to questions concerning what
kind of things existed in world politics.35 The logic here is that if what really
matters is what kinds of things exist in world politics, then how we know those
things is not important. Wendt's compromise thus warranted an epistemological
pluralism, promising to accommodate positivists and dissidents alike. However,
such a compromise came at the cost of accepting a critical realist philosophy of
science, and it is this critical realist approach to IR that is currently ascending.36
Wendt's (contentious) distinction between 'epistemological' and

'ontological' questions allows him to argue that ontological questions take priority
over epistemological ones, and allows him to suggest that we look 'beyond given
appearances to the underlying social relationships that generate (in a probabilistic
sense) phenomenal forms.'37 Drawing on Anthony Giddens's structuration theory
and Roy Bhaskar's epistemology of scientific realism, Wendt engages with the
'agent-structure problem.' His most recognisable argument, captured in the pithy
phrase 'anarchy is what states make of it,' is the social constructivist claim that
ideational factors play a role in the recreation of the anarchical structure of the
international system that neo-realists claim govern state interaction, and that this
anarchical system is therefore a phenomenon that is socially constructed and
reproduced by states.38

35. Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics, 40.; Patrick Thaddeus Jackson, The
Conduct of Inquiry, 73.
36. See, for instance, a recent forum on critical realism in the Review of International Studies 38(1)
January 2012. See also the forum 'Scientific and Critical Realism in International Relations'
Millennium-Journal of International Studies 35(2) 2007
37. We will explain why such a distinction is contentious in due course. Ibid. Alexander Wendt,
“The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory,” 362.
38. Alexander Wendt, “Anarchy is What States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power
Politics.” See also Alexander Wendt, “The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations
Theory.”; Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics.
44
Critical Realism
Arguing that 'the intersubjective merely represents one important and

necessary part of the social', critical realists strive to gain deeper access to reality
than that offered by Wendt's social constructivism.39 Whereas Wendt emphasises
the 'reality' of ideational factors (for Wendt the intersubjective nature of social
structures makes ideas 'real'), critical realists consider these factors relatively
superficial, and strive to uncover the 'objective,' 'causal' processes that undergird
the problematics that Wendt argues are intersubjectively constructed.40 Citing the
example of North-South relations, Wight and Joseph claim these are simply not
reducible to intersubjective relations, as Wendt would have us believe, but are
phenomena (appearances) that are underwritten by the 'objective' structure of the
global capitalist system. 41 The implication is that we are thus able to make
scientific, objective claims about 'material' structures, 'intransitive objects' that
structure and condition human relations; herein supposedly lies the emancipatory
potential of critical realist inquiry.42
The central critical realist objection to both positivism and post-positivism

is that both are embedded within a philosophical discourse of anti-realism.43 In
contrast, their own position rests upon an ontological commitment to 'depth

39. Heikki Patomäki and Colin Wight., “After Postpositivism? The Promises of Critical Realism,”
International Studies Quarterly 44 (2000), 217-18.
40. 'What makes these ideas (and thus structure) 'social' [. . .] is their intersubjective quality'
Alexander Wendt, “Constructing International Politics,” 73.
41. Jonathan Joseph, and Colin Wight, “Scientific Realism and International Relations,” in
Scientific Realism and International Relations, ed. Jonathan Joseph and Colin Wight (Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2010).
42. We use the term 'supposedly' because it does not question whether encountering these entities
as 'objects' is a contribution to human freedom or an abrogation of it. Moreover, there is a level of
correspondence here with Booth's questionable claim, discussed in the Preface, that 'one cannot
have one's own understanding ... under conditions of indoctrination, traditionalist socialisation, and
inadequate relevant knowledge.' In other words, that knowledge, enlightenment, is central to
freedom. This equation of theoretical, scientific, knowledge, with freedom is more problematic than
it is commonly treated, as Horkheimer and Adorno demonstrate. Ken Booth, Theory of World
Security, 112. Theodor W. Adorno, and Max Horkheimer, Dialectic of Enlightenment (London:
Verso, 1986).
43. Patomäki and Wight cite Martin Hollis's observation that the 'empiricist theories of knowledge
(upon which positivism is based) are 'anti-realist at bottom,' and David Campbell's claim that
'nothing exists outside of discourse,' in support of this claim. David Campbell, National
Deconstruction: Violence, Identity, and Justice in Bosnia (Minneapolis: Minnesota University
Press, 1998), 24-25. Heikki Patomäki and Colin Wight, “After Postpositivism? The Promises of
Critical Realism,” 216-19.
45
realism,' the view that objects exist independently of our knowledge of them.44 As
Wight explains: 'A commitment to depth realism presupposes that there are things,
entities, structures and/or mechanisms that operate and exist independently of our
ability to know or manipulate them.'45 As a result of this 'ontological' commitment
to the existence of objects that lie beyond our comprehension:
One of the basic tenets of a critical realist approach to explanation is that good theories
refer to a mind-independent world, and that this world therefore exercises a limiting effect
on those theories. Both Searle's 'brute facts' and Bhaskar's 'intransitive' objects of
knowledge serve to mark the role played by an external world in realist philosophy of
science: the world is out there, outside of human knowledge practices, and it stubbornly
resists efforts to conceptualise it in ways sharply at variance with itself.46
However, despite offering robust defences of the importance of 'ontology'

in social inquiry, due to their dualist philosophical commitments, Wendt and other
critical realists often misunderstand or misrepresent the nature of their own
ontological commitments; consequently, their deployment of 'ontology' is confined
to a shallow ontology of 'things' that exist, which in turn leads to a
misunderstanding of the status of scientific inquiry in world politics, and the
marginalisation of alternative 'philosophical ontologies' in IR. Given the
prominence of critical realism and its influence on meta-theoretical debates in IR,
and in order that our conceptual terminology is not confused with theirs, it is worth
addressing these issues before proceeding.
The Marginalisation of 'Philosophical Ontology' in IR Theory
Critical realists take their cue from the 'ontological turn' in IR, from
Wendt's counter-ontology to structural realism.47 The aim of Wendt's intervention
into the postpositivist debate was to shift focus away from epistemological
questions to 'the kinds of things that exist' in world politics. However, such a move

44. Ibid., 217-18.
45. Colin Wight, Agents, Structures and International Relations: Politics as Ontology (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2006), 29.
46. Patrick Thaddeus Jackson, “Foregrounding Ontology: Dualism, Monism, and IR Theory,” 138.
47. Torsten Michel, “In Heidegger’s Shadow,” 211.
46
requires the acceptance of a critical realist epistemology, and in particular 'its twin
presuppositions that knowledge reaches out to a mind-independent world, and that
knowledge can go beyond experience to grasp deeper levels of reality.' 48
Consequently, although Wendt's solution to the Third Debate lent credibility to
non-conventional philosophical approaches to the study of world politics, this
pluralism came with two related costs: 'the widespread promulgation of terms such
as "ontology" and "epistemology" with conceptually specific definitions that
preclude other alternatives, and the virtual disappearance of philosophical ontology
from IR debates.'49
As a result, the very terms of recent debates in IR about 'epistemology' and

'ontology' have 'been set by critical realists starting with Wendt.' 50 Debates
regarding the relation between epistemology and ontology, as well as the
conceptual terminology according to which they have proceeded, are, 'not
surprisingly, critical realist in orientation.'51 These debates arose as a consequence
of Wendt's adoption of critical realism, and it is along critical realist lines that
'epistemological' and 'ontological' questions are defined; yet 'critical realism is
itself a philosophical ontology first and foremost.' 52 Since all ontology is
philosophical, Jackson's distinction here between 'philosophical' and 'scientific'
ontologies is somewhat problematic. However, since critical realism tends to be
treated as a scientific ontology, i.e., as if it were above philosophical contestation,
this distinction serves to highlight the fact that critical realism itself rests upon a
philosophical argument, a mind-world dualism that allows them to separate
ontology from epistemology and to then prioritise ontological questions.53 This fact
has been obscured in recent debates, resulting in the marginalisation of alternative
'philosophical ontologies.'

48. Patrick Thaddeus Jackson, The Conduct of Inquiry, 73.
49. Ibid.
50. Ibid., 74.
51. Ibid., 74,73.
52. Ibid., 73.
53. For a defence of the scientific realism that informs critical realism see Roy Bhaskar, A Realist
Theory of Science (London: Verso, 1997). For a discussion of the relation between scientific
realism and critical realism see Jonathan Joseph and Colin Wight, “Scientific Realism and
International Relations.”
47
The Challenge to Dualism
Critical realism's dualist philosophical commitments thus raise an old

question: the status of scientific inquiry in world politics. 54 Specifically, the
problem is the status of the social scientific findings derived from critical realist
debates, or, as Jackson puts it: 'the issue of whether the knowledge that academic
researchers produce is in some sense a reflection of the world, or whether it is
irreducibly a perspective on the world.'55 After surveying approaches associated
with a dualist approach to social science, including neopositivism, critical realism,
and Habermasian approaches, Jackson argues that social science must be
considered 'an irreducibly partial and perspectival endeavour;' that there is an
inescapably perspectival character to the knowledge that researchers produce.56 As
a result, he suggests, it might be more useful to explore the possibility of a social
science built on monistic premises, as exemplified by Max Weber's conception of
social science.57 He argues that this kind of social science would embrace its
perspectival character and refrain from claims to have captured the objective
essence of anything in the world: 'a monistic social science would serve as a kind
of disciplined process of world-construction, whereby a perspective was first
elaborated in ideal-typical fashion and then used as the baseline from which to
rigorously produce an account.'58
A similarly sophisticated and persuasive criticism of the nature and role of

'ontology' found in Wendt and Wight can be found in the recent work of Torsten

54. For a discussion of this point, see Friedrich Kratochwil, “Constructing a New Orthodoxy?
Wendt’s ‘Social Theory of International Politics’ and the Constructivist Challenge,” Millennium-
Journal of International Studies 29, no. 1 (2000): 73-101.
Jackson's use of 'perspective' here is also problematic. 'Per-spective' means 'seeing through,' i.e., a
particular filter/angle/conceptual scheme through which we can see an aspect of the world as it is in
itself. I thank Hidemi Suganami for a discussion on this point. With this caveat, I will continue to
use the term 'perspective.'
56. Ibid., 131,130.
57. Ibid., 146.
58. Ibid.
48
Michel.59 Despite welcoming the trajectory of taking ontology more seriously, he

highlights how the specific conceptualisation of ontology in critical realist thought
leads to a common problem regarding the lack of 'a deeper appreciation of the
ontological significance of science and language as human activities and
potentialities.'60 Michel demonstrates that this is an intrinsic problem with the
critical realist reading of ontology: while overcoming epistemological
foundationalism on the one hand, it does so through the affirmation of an
ontological foundationalism due to the apodictic positing of 'intransitive objects'
that exist outside and independent of the human mind. Michel's explanation is
worth reproducing at length:
The crux in Wendt's and Wight's arguments lies with the fact that they commit themselves
willingly or not to a foundationalist enterprise and whether based on ontology or
epistemology this move is indeed a very modern one. Wendt, of course would counter this
argument and insist that his re-conceptualisation is thoroughly anti-foundationalist. He
says: "... realism is anti-foundationalist. Thus, although it is common to conflate the two,
the correspondence theory of truth does not entail epistemological foundationalism. What
makes a theory true is the extent to which it reflects the causal structure of the world, but
theories are always tested against other theories, not against some pre-theoretical
'foundation' of correspondence." (Wendt, 1999: 58-9)
What Wendt shows here is not that his theory is anti-foundationalist but that his
epistemology is not monistic. For his whole account to work, as he admits and we have
shown, there must be a mind-independent ontological ground which does not depend on
any epistemological conception. If this ground exists independent of any epistemology, his
epistemology might be anti-foundational but his ontology is not. Apart from that, scientific
realism in the form Wendt and Wight present is not able to confirm the existence of this
ontologically given reality beyond human existence. As was shown by reference to
examples from the natural as well as social sciences above, any attempt to grasp these
"intransitive" objects unavoidably draws them into a web of linguistic meanings dependent
on social practices. Ontology and epistemology are always intertwined and cannot be
conceptualised independent of one another. Their attempt just to say and rely on what "is"
and then devise ex post epistemological tools to establish knowledge is as misguided as
any attempt to devise epistemological devices in order to discern what "is." Any
conceptualisation of what "is" already takes place within a system of social meanings and
knowledge in the same way as any conceptualisation of what can be known already exists
within a framework of assumptions about what "is."61

59. Torsten Michel, “Shrouded in Darkness.”; Torsten Michel, “Pigs Can’t Fly, Or Can They?
Ontology, Scientific Realism and the Metaphysics of Presence in International Relations.”; Torsten
Michel, “In Heidegger’s Shadow.”
60. Ibid., 210.
61. Torsten Michel, “Shrouded in Darkness,” 53-54.
49
The Ontological Difference
Michel proposes that Heidegger offers a path towards an engagement with

ontological matters in a different and more fruitful way.62 Enlisting Heidegger's
notion of the ontological difference, the difference between entities and the being
of entities, Michel argues that the whole debate about what comes prior
(epistemology or ontology) seems to be mistaken, because it rests on a conflation
of entities and the being of entities: of whether an entity might be said to ‘exist’ or
not, and of the nature of this existence.63 He demonstrates that, for Heidegger,
traditional ontological approaches have conflated these two in different ways:
while realists rightly observe that entities exist independently of the human
understanding of them, for them this implied that the being of these entities also
lies outside of human understanding; idealists, on the other hand, have maintained
that the being of entities resides in human understanding, but they then make the
problematic assumption that this means that the entities themselves are also
dependent upon human understanding.64
Recognising that there is a difference between entities and the being of

entities is therefore 'the crucial point through which Heidegger establishes his
transcendent move beyond the realist/anti-realist chasm.'65 It is the conflation of
the ontological difference between entities and the being of entities that leads us to
the stalemate in the realism/anti-realism debate.66 Proceeding from a recognition of
the ontological difference, Heidegger teaches us that 'entities are indeed
independent [of] human understanding (the realist element) but their being as
entities can only be realised through a specific form of being which is human being
(in Heidegger's jargon Dasein). For Heidegger then, any position that ignores the
ontological difference already commits a fallacy before even entering any
realist/anti-realist exchange.'67 Importantly, Heidegger reveals to us that the debate

63. Ibid., 213.
64. Ibid. It is worth noting that the debate between realism and idealism discussed here is one in the
philosophy of social science, rather than in international theory.
65. Ibid.
66. Ibid., 214.
67. Ibid., 213.
50
between realists and anti-realists 'rests on a very specific interpretation of ontology

which posits the "problem of reality" as a problem in the first place.'68 In other
words, the 'problem of reality' only arises because dualists posit a foundational
split between 'seemingly ontologically primitive distinct entities of “subject” and
“object.”'69
The Meaning of Being: Shrouded in Darkness
Heidegger's notion of the ontological difference means that the fundamental

ontological question is not 'what objects exist independent of our knowledge of
them' or 'what entities are there in world politics,' but is 'what is the meaning of the
being of the entity that encounters these entities as objects?' Put differently,
Heidegger is not interested in entities thought of as 'objects' or 'external realities' as
much as he is in the underlying current of the being that encounters these entities;
that is, with the being of beings. 'Heidegger's thought is therefore projected
towards the sine qua non for entities.'70 By inquiring as to the understanding of
Being of the being that encounters entities as 'intransitive objects,' Heidegger's
thought 'goes one step deeper into the matter than CR with its initial focus on
beings.'71 Michel's central point then is that critical realism is 'not proposing a
renewed focus on ontology (in the sense of scrutinising the meaning of being relied
upon in IR) but exhibits an always already posited understanding of the meaning of

68. Ibid., 214.
69. Ibid. Michel quotes Heidegger, who regards the 'problem of reality' as the "scandal of
philosophy": 'The ''scandal of philosophy'' does not consist in the fact that this proof [of an external
world] is still lacking up to now, but in the fact that such proofs are expected and attempted again
and again. Such expectations, intentions, and demands grow out of an ontologically insufficient
way of positing what it is from which, independently and ''outside'' of which, a ''world'' is to be
proven as objectively present.' However, as we will see in Chapter 8 the same point is made
differently by Hegel in the first paragraph of the Phenomenology of Spirit, where he tries to make
us anxious about the idea of epistemology as first philosophy. Martin Heidegger, Being and Time,
trans. John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 1962), 249; G.W.F.
Hegel, Phenomenology of Spirit, trans. A.V. Miller (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977), §73.
71. Ibid.
51
being manifested in scientific enquiry which itself is never questioned or

scrutinised.'72
In other words, although critical realism is interested in ontology in as much

as it is concerned with things that exist, this ontological interest is itself based upon
a prior ontological presupposition; that is, a mind-world dualism and a
commitment to the problematic assumption that scientific inquiry can grasp the
reality of a world that is external to our experience. Through Heidegger's notion of
the ontological difference, Michel thus establishes that 'the focus on ontology as
the ground of theorising is itself under-conceptualised in many instances of CR,'
and that 'a specific commitment to seemingly ontological primitives such as
subjectivity and objectivity is itself in need of deeper and more differentiated
reflection.'73 By demonstrating that the scientific disposition involves a specific
mode of comportment towards the world that presupposes that entities, beings,
appear to us as 'objects,' the heart of Michel's phenomenological critique of critical
realism is the (Heideggerian) contention that the epistemological focus of
philosophical thought in the twentieth century has left ontology, the 'meaning of
being,' 'shrouded in darkness.'74
The central problem with epistemological and ontological foundationalisms,

such as those found in Wendt and Wight, is that the split between subject and
object is not foundational, as they treat it, but always already proceeds from a prior
interpretation of existence, upon which ground subsequent theorising is based. This
'meaning of being' is the pre-understanding that we bring to the world: it is that
which 'opens spaces of being and reveals specific objects in the world in a specific
way but at the same time through its specific horizon conceals others from our
view. This is not a neutral description of the world but a recognition that human
involvement only allows for the deconcealment of a world not the world.'75

72. Ibid., 218.
73. Ibid., 220.
74. Torsten Michel, “Shrouded in Darkness.”; Torsten Michel, “In Heidegger’s Shadow.”
75. Ibid., 221-22.
52
Owing to their dualist assumptions then, Michel concludes that critical

realism does not lead to a new and better conception of ontology, but simply
'reifies the same biases of Cartesian subjectivity, the designative nature of
language, a correspondence theory of truth and the problem-laden concept of
freedom as it was conceived in Kant's third antinomy.'76 In order to transcend these
problems, we need to overcome these dualist commitments and challenge the being
of the entity that encounters things as 'objects,' which for Michel involves 'radically
challenging the way that beings are apprehended in the sciences as we understand
them today.'77
'Ontological' Foundations in Critical International Thought
During our survey of the treatment of 'ontological' foundations in normative

international theory we established that, despite their best attempts, normative
international theorists are unable to sidestep ontological questions, since treating
their ethical foundations as 'objects' presupposed as the condition of their ethical
claims invites questions concerning the nature of the being of that being that
encounters such entities as objects, and lends those practices and institutions
philosophical credibility, rather uncritically. We then suggested that a more
foundational left-Hegelian commitment to human freedom, to the freedom of the
being that encounters such institutions as 'objects,' might represent a more
compelling foundational commitment for contemporary (global) politics and
ethics, since the objectivity of these ethical foundations might then be regarded as
conditional upon the historical self-actualisation of the human being as a free
being. Applying to human beings qua human beings, rather than simply to human
beings qua subjects of dominant practices and institutions, such a foundation might
represent a more universalistic foundational commitment for contemporary
(global) politics and ethics.

76. Torsten Michel, “Shrouded in Darkness: A Phenomenological Path Towards a New Social
Ontology in International Relations [Abstract]” (Ph.D Thesis, St Andrews, 2008).
77. Torsten Michel, “Shrouded in Darkness,” 59.
53
Such a commitment is an ontological commitment in the fuller sense of the

term; one based upon a commitment to the (free) being of the human being.
However, due to the nature of Wendt's intervention into the Third Debate, and the
subsequent ascendance of critical realism, 'ontological' debates in international
theory have so far proceeded according to a shallow ontology of 'things' that exist
in world politics, rather than an ontology of the being of the entity that encounters
such 'things' as objects. This is largely consequent of the dualist philosophical
commitments underwriting such approaches: commitments that have resulted in
the conflation of the ontological difference between entities and the being of
entities, and the virtual disappearance of 'philosophical' ontology from debates in
IR.
In this section of the chapter we return to our discussion of left-Hegelian

thought in light of our survey of the treatment of 'ontology' in international
thought, synthesising the insights gleamed so far with the aim of situating what
will principally be a contribution to critical international thought within a broader
context of 'normative' and 'ontological' approaches to international theory. We
suggest that, although critical international thought overcomes the weakness of
other normative international theory by refusing to recognise the foundational
objectivity of dominant practices and institutions, by virtue of a foundational
commitment to ethical subjectivity, the most persuasive and promising advocate of
this position, Andrew Linklater, commits himself to a form of dualism that
ultimately undermines his own commitment to an ethical and emancipatory
politics; a claim we substantiate in the next chapter.
Critical Theory
Critical Theory and critical theory are related, though not equivalent, areas of
inquiry into the social sciences. In the narrow sense, Critical Theory is associated
with several generations of the west European Marxist tradition, known as the
Frankfurt School, which includes, but is not limited to, Max Horkheimer, Theodor
54
Adorno, Jürgen Habermas, and Axel Honneth. First defined as such by Max
Horkheimer in his 1937 essay Traditional and Critical Theory, for Horkheimer,
theory might be considered 'critical' insofar as it seeks 'to liberate human beings
from the circumstances that enslave them.'78 Jürgen Habermas, a second generation
Frankfurt School social theorist, further develops this nascent epistemology in his
1968 Knowledge and Human Interests wherein he identifies three kinds of
knowledge - technical, practical, and emancipatory - before claiming that any
knowledge about society is incomplete if it does not involve an emancipatory
component.79
Due to this commitment to criticise and transform all the circumstances that
enslave human beings, many 'critical theories' in the broader sense have since been
developed. 80 For this reason, Jay Bernstein's definition of critical theory is
instructive.
'[C]ritical theory is not a theory of society or a wholly homogenous school of thinkers or a

method. Critical theory, rather, is a tradition of social thought that, at least in part, takes its
cue from its opposition to the wrongs and ills of modern societies on the one hand, and the
forms of theorizing that simply go along with or seek to legitimate those societies on the
other hand.81
Critical Theory started making inroads into international theory in the early
1980s with the publication of seminal articles by Richard K. Ashley and Robert W.
Cox; Ashley's Political Realism and Human Interests draws on Habermas, while
Cox's Social Forces, States and World Orders (1981) and his Gramsci, Hegemony
and International Relations (1983) draw on Gramsci.82 Although both were pivotal
in the development of critical international relations theory (CIRT), and both draw

78. Max Horkheimer, Critical Theory (New York: Seabury Press, 1982), 244.
79. Jürgen Habermas, Knowledge and Human Interests (Boston: Beacon Press, 1972).
80. James Bohman, “Critical Theory,” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N.
Zalta (2012). In what follows, when referring to Critical Theory in the narrow sense, that associated
with the Frankfurt School, Critical Theory will be capitalised and/or abbreviated to "CT." When
referring to critical theories in the broader sense, no capitalisation or abbreviation will be employed.
81. J.M. Bernstein, Recovering Ethical Life: Jürgen Habermas and the Future of Critical Theory
(London: Routledge, 1995), 11.
82. Richard K. Ashley, “Political Realism and Human Interests.”; Robert W. Cox, “Social Forces,
States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory.”; Robert W. Cox, “Gramsci,
Hegemony and International Relations: An Essay in Method,” Millennium: Journal of International
Studies 12, no. 2 (1983): 162-75.
55
on a tradition of post-Marxist thought, the 'critical' nature of CIRT is best

conceived in the broader sense of the term described above, since CIRT includes
approaches that draw on a variety of intellectual sources in order to engage with a
range of different 'wrongs and ills' in global politics.
Critical International Theory
Given the emancipatory commitments of critical theory and the dominance

of positivism in IR, critical international theory emerged primarily in response to
the restrictive understanding of role and purposes of theory as reflected in the 'neo-
neo' orthodoxy. Reacting against the predominance of behaviouralism, where the
field was largely characterised by methodological assumptions taken over from the
natural sciences, different areas of contemporary social theory began to be
deployed in the context of international relations, including Frankfurt School
critical theory, so-called 'post-structuralism' and 'post-modernism,' neo-
Gramscianism, feminism, and post-colonialism. Whereas positivists would tend to
regard the purpose of IR to involve the explanation of the workings of the
international system to policymakers so that they could use that knowledge to their
own ends, these critical theorists would regard the pursuit of knowledge in IR to
involve the examination of material and ideational structures that have created and
sustained the existing order, and to identify alternatives to existing structures in
order to rid ourselves of its oppressions.83
For Ronen Palan, writing twenty-five years after the publication of Cox and
Ashley's articles, one of the principal contributions of CIRT has been to radically
re-situate the discipline in relation to the other social sciences. He argues that the
critical tradition abandoned the efforts to establish the study of IR as a separate,

83. For a discussion of the roles of theory and theorists see Marysia Zalewski, “’All These Theories
Yet the Bodies Keep Piling Up’: Theory, Theorists, Theorising.”. For a critical theoretical account
of the relation between academics and practitioners see Ken Booth, “A Reply to Wallace,” Review
of International Studies 23, no. 3 (1997): 371-77; William Wallace, “Truth and Power, Monks and
Technocrats: Theory and Practice in International Relations,” Review of International Studies 22,
no. 3 (1996): 301-21.
56
bounded discipline, but sought to situate IR as a component of pan-disciplinary

studies of global order and change.84 This involved the recognition that IR is
unlikely to serve as a 'first order discipline,' but will remain a 'derivative
discipline,' drawing on more fundamental theoretical claims made in other
disciplines, such as moral philosophy, political economy, sociology, and
linguistics.85 What it does do, Palan notes, is to address a particular, global, aspect
of the human condition that tends to be omitted in other social sciences.
The Two Key Strands of CIRT
As Kimberly Hutchings notes, although taking many different forms, critical

theory 'always distinguishes itself from other forms of theorising in terms of its
orientation towards change and the possibility of futures that do not reproduce the
patterns of hegemonic power of the present.'86 She continues that, despite their
differences, both Ashley and Cox's arguments exhibit the characteristic that makes
them 'critical' in Cox's terms: 'both are oriented towards the possibility of
alternative futures, rather than to the perpetuation of the status quo.'87 Since 1981,
critical international theory has developed in two key ways. Some scholars have
pursued Cox's historical/sociological path of highlighting different futures for
international politics, while others have followed Ashley's ethical path, 'in
particular using the idea of freedom as a vantage point from which to criticise the
theory and practice of international politics and indicate alternative ways
forward.'88 Others, such as Andrew Linklater, have operated on a 'twin track'

84. Ronen Palan, “Transnational Theories of Order and Change: Heterodoxy in International
Relations Scholarship,” 50.
85. Ibid., 50,54.
86. Kimberley Hutchings, “Happy Anniversary! Time and Critique in International Relations
Theory,” in Critical International Theory After 25 Years, ed. Nicholas Rengger and Ben Thirkell-
White (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 72.
87. Ibid. Robert W. Cox, “Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations
Theory,” 87-91.
88. Kimberley Hutchings, “Happy Anniversary!”, 76.
57
approach, linking historical/sociological, philosophical, and praxeological levels of

analysis.89
Straddling both normative and empirical inquiry into world politics, what
unites these approaches is their commitment to the emancipatory purposes of
theory and the possibility of alternative global futures. Given its foundational
commitment to human freedom, to the emancipatory purposes of theory, critical
international theory can be regarded as a powerful contribution to left-Hegelian
thought. In contrast to Rawls and Frost, critical international theorists are not
content to treat dominant practices and institutions as 'objective' ethical
foundations, but are often motivated instead by the Marxian assumption that 'all
that is solid eventually melts into air,' and by 'the belief that human beings can
make more of their history under conditions of their own choosing.'90
Andrew Linklater's 'Critical' Approach to International Theory
Despite articulating critical theoretical concerns in his 1982 book Men and
Citizens in the Theory of International Relations, which drew on the voluntarist
tradition of political thought and Hegel's philosophical history, it was not until the
second edition of the book in 1990 that Linklater explicitly engaged with critical
theory by adding a postscript on Habermas and Foucault. Following the subsequent
publications of Beyond Realism and Marxism (1990), two important articles in
Millennium, and his influential The Transformation of Political Community (1998),
it is with good cause that Andrew Linklater is considered to be 'the foremost
critical theorist of international relations.'91 Given transformations in the material

89. Ibid. Andrew Linklater, “The Next Stage in International Relations Theory: A Critical-
Theoretical Point of View,” Millennium-Journal of International Studies 21, no. 1 (1992): 77-98;
Andrew Linklater, The Transformation of Political Community: Ethical Foundations of the Post-
Westphalian Era (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1998).
90. Andrew Linklater, “The Achievements of Critical Theory,” in International Theory: Positivism
and Beyond, ed. Ken Booth Steve Smith, and Marysia Zalewski (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1996), 280.
91. Andrew Linklater, “Dialogue, Dialectic and Emancipation in International Relations At the End
of the Post-War Age,” Millennium-Journal of International Studies 23, no. 1 (1994): 119-31;
Andrew Linklater, Men and Citizens in the Theory of International Relations, 2nd ed. (Basingstoke:
58
conditions of human life, and that humanity is increasingly existing in a state of

true interdependence, it should not be controversial to claim that 'the future of
critical theory lies with critical international relations theory, a view subscribed to
by a number of "noninternational" critical theorists as well as - as you might expect
- by a number of international critical theorists.'92 It therefore 'seems certain that
Linklater's influence will grow.'93
Critical international theorists such as Linklater are not content to remain

caught within the solipsistic particularism that often characterise other normative
approaches to international theory.94 Although recognising the particularist nature
of morality, he also realises that the conservative response of modern political and
international theory is inadequate for our contemporary (increasingly global)
political condition. For this reason, while keen to balance the claims of
particularity with a necessary universalism, Linklater refuses to encounter
dominant practices and institutions as 'objects,' and develops a broad, historically,
sociologically, and philosophically informed vantage on contemporary institutions
and practices in world politics; interventions that are motivated by a commitment
to contribute to a global politics that would be characterised by greater collective
responsibility, less inequality, and, ultimately, greater levels of human freedom. It
is not surprising then, that, in the words of one sympathetic critic: 'critical IR
theory represents one of the most humane and generally hopeful accounts of
contemporary world politics available. Its insights are profound and its sensibilities

Palgrave Macmillan, 1990); Andrew Linklater, Beyond Realism and Marxism: Critical Theory and
International Relations (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 1990); Andrew Linklater, “The Next
Stage in International Relations Theory: A Critical-Theoretical Point of View.”; Andrew Linklater,
“The Achievements of Critical Theory.”; Andrew Linklater, The Transformation of Political
Community; Andrew Linklater, “The Changing Contours of Critical International Relations
Theory,” in Critical Theory and World Politics, ed. Richard Wyn-Jones (Boulder: Lynne Reiner,
2001).; Nicholas J. Rengger, “Negative Dialectic? The Two Modes of Critical Theory in World
Politics,” in Critical Theory in World Politics, ed. Richard Wyn Jones (Boulder, CO: Lynne
Rienner, 2001), 97. Similar sentiments are expressed by Brincat: Shannon Brincat, “Towards an
Emancipatory Cosmopolitanism: Reconstructing the Concept of Emancipation in Critical
International Relations Theory” (Ph.D Thesis, University of Queensland, 2011), 280.
92. Nicholas J. Rengger, “Negative Dialectic? The Two Modes of Critical Theory in World
Politics,” 97.
93. Ibid.
94. As we saw in the Introduction with reference to Australia's reception of 'boat people,' such a
self-regarding particularism extends to the popular imagination.
59
far more interesting than much of what passes for reflection (even theory) in
international relations more generally.'95
The Dualist Philosophical Ontology of Linklater's Universalism
While Linklater is certainly not the only contributor to the critical project in
IR, the view taken here is that he is the most comprehensive, powerful, and
ultimately the most promising advocate of this position. However, despite being
perhaps the most persuasive international theorist writing today, since both his
conception of emancipation and his defence of moral universalism are predicated
on a foundational commitment to ethical subjectivity, Linklater might fall foul of
the same mistake made by Rawls, Frost, and the critical realists: that is, to rely on
an ontology of 'things' presupposed as the condition of his international theory,
rather than an ontology of being. Whereas Frost and Rawls treat their foundational
ethical commitments as the 'ontological' foundation of their normative claims, and
critical realists rely on a mind-independent 'intransitive object' to provide the
'ontological' foundation that warrants their prioritisation of scientific claims about
world politics, we will argue that Linklater relies on the mind-independent
existence of the individual human being conceived as ethical subject as the
'ontological' condition of his approach to CIRT, which warrants his prioritisation of
universal ethical claims.
If we manage to demonstrate this in the next chapter, Linklater's foundational

commitment to ethical subjectivity would amount to a conflation of the ontological
difference between entities and the being of entities (conceived as ethical
subjectivity), and would submit him to a form of metaphysical dualism: an
ontological dualism that treats ethical subjectivity as the essential being of human
beings (although it manifests itself historically), and an epistemological dualism
where the individual conceived as ethical subject (i.e., the post-conventional
discourse agent) is treated as if it were an 'intransitive object' existing

95. Ibid., 103.
60
independently of the subject's (Linklater's) claim to know it. Consequently,

although keen to balance the claims of moral particularity with a necessary
universality, Linklater's claims to universality arise out of an always already
posited meaning of being (as the historical actualisation of ethical subjectivity) and
its derivative structuring of the ground (what the human being is: an ethical
subject/post-conventional discourse agent), upon which it proceeds. This, we will
contend, is a contradictory and inappropriate basis for an ethical and emancipatory
cosmopolitanism.
A Note on Epistemology
For this reason, as well as the Heideggerian ones he offers, we concur with
Michel's call for a deeper treatment of 'seemingly ontological primitives such as
subjectivity and objectivity.' 96 The strength of Jackson's position lies in his
demonstration that critical realism's approach to ontology, to the 'intransitive
object,' is premised on a mind-world dualism, a foundational split between the
subject and object that occurs between mind and world. The strength of Michel's
position lies in his criticism that dualist approaches to knowledge, approaches that
rely on an epistemological or ontological foundationalism, conflate the ontological
difference between entities and the being of entities. While ontological
foundationalist (realist) approaches treat the object as something that has a mind-
independent existence, epistemological foundationalist (idealist) approaches insist
that the subject is constructive of the world objects: both dualisms conflate the
ontological difference between the mind-independent existence of entities and our
mind-dependent understanding of these entities (the being of these entities).
As Jackson demonstrates, the dualist separation of ontology from

epistemology, and the subsequent prioritisation of either ontological or
epistemological questions, depends on this questionable philosophical commitment
to a mind-world dualism. Due to the ontological aspects of Heidegger’s argument,

61
we agree with Michel that Heidegger can most certainly can lead us to a deeper
appreciation of 'seemingly ontological primitives such as subjectivity and
objectivity.'97 However, since Heidegger claims to be uninterested in the problem
of knowledge, in what we now call epistemology, he cannot take us much further;
for that we need Hegel.98
Michel's criticism of critical realism is that their dualist commitment to the

'objectivity' of intransitive objects leads it to overestimate the significance of
science as a human potentiality, as scientific discourse can only lead us to a
specific kind of knowledge: knowledge about entities, and not the being of entities,
which is disclosed through language.99 Presumably, since scientific discourse only
allows the entities under consideration to appear as scientific objects, recognising
that language is not a neutral toolset for us to make 'objective' statements about the
world, but is vitally important in making the ontological realm intelligible, means
that we have to denounce the epistemological relativism that was the result of
Wendt's intervention into the Third Debate, since more discursively sensitive forms
of inquiry would be less likely to conflate the ontological difference, and thus
allow the being of beings to be disclosed more authentically. Whilst not disputing
Michel's subsequent advocacy of a renewed focus on the nature and function of
language, this focus reflects the interest in language in post-Husserlian
phenomenology, especially in Heidegger's later works. 100 However, this is to
overlook a more fruitful phenomenological approach to epistemology, which can
be found in German idealism; specifically, in Hegel.101
Hegel: A Phenomenological Constructivist Approach to Epistemology

97. Ibid.
98. On Heidegger and the problem of knowledge see Tom Rockmore, Kant and Phenomenology
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011), 140-41.
100. Torsten Michel, “In Heidegger’s Shadow,” 219.; Torsten Michel, “Shrouded in Darkness,” 53-
56.
101. Here I follow an argument developed by Tom Rockmore. See Tom Rockmore, Kant and
Phenomenology., especially pp209-215
62
Michel's rejection of the representationalist approach to knowledge found in

critical realism is based upon a critique and solution found in post-Husserlian
phenomenology. Arguably though, the representationalist approach to knowledge
'reached a high point in the critical philosophy, where Kant demonstrated the
inability to show the world as it is rather than how it appears.'102 Kant, who initially
espouses a representational approach to knowledge, later rejects it and develops a
constructivist approach in its stead, based upon the claim that in some sense we
'construct' the object of knowledge. Despite calling for a phenomenological
epistemology, Kant never developed one; a task that was taken up by Hegel, who
reformulates Kant's a priori constructivism as a posteriori. 103 As Rockmore
explains, Hegel’s view of knowledge is constructivist in three senses:
[F]irst, knowledge arises in an ongoing historical process in which we construct

conceptual frameworks based on prior experience that we test against later experience.
Second, we routinely alter these frameworks when they fail to fit experience; and to alter
the framework alters the conceptual object. Third, since cognitive objects depend on the
conceptual framework, a change in the framework results in a change in the object.104
In contrast to the representationalist approach, where the split between

subject and object occurs between mind and world, Hegel's constructivist
epistemology involves the view that the split between subject and object occurs
within consciousness, and that we only know cognitive objects because we
construct them on the basis of phenomena that appear to consciousness: a
constructive process that is subordinate to the interaction between human beings
situated within historical processes 'in which we come to know the world and
ourselves.' 105 Importantly then, rather than being established through a simple
correspondence between mind and world, 'truth,' 'objectivity,' subject-object unity,
or what Hegel calls 'absolute knowledge,' is never fully achieved, but is perpetually
deferred in an ongoing process within consciousness whereby increasingly
adequate accounts of reality emerge.

102. Ibid., 210. Rockmore adds, 'Kant's criticism of representationalism has never been answered'
Ibid.
103. Ibid., 213. We will return to a more in depth discussion of this in Chapter 6 where we discuss
the subject-object relation from Kant to Hegel, and its ontological implications.
104. Ibid. It is the third point here that really distinguishes Hegel's constructivism from scientific
realism.
105. Ibid., 213-15.
63
Mind/World and Mind-Independent Real
According to scientific realism, an approach to knowledge predicated on

mind-world dualism, the split between subject and object occurs between mind and
world, where the 'intransitive object' is seen to have a mind-independent
('objective') existence. In contrast, Hegel's phenomenological constructivism, as it
has been presented here, calls for a further distinction to be drawn between ‘mind’,
'world', and the ‘mind-independent real’. Since subject and object are both
constructed through the activity of consciousness, such a position involves mind-
world monism because mind and world are not independent: cognitive objects are
constructed historically and are fundamentally dependent on 'mind' (Geist). This
does not, however, mean that we know nothing of reality; it does not require that
we subscribe to anti-realism, a charge Wight and Patomäki level against both
positivism and post-positivism, since there remains a dualism between mind/world
and the mind-independent real, where the latter 'appears' to consciousness. 106
While we are able to construct increasingly adequate accounts of the mind-
independent real, what we actually know is the mind-dependent cognitive object,
not the entity that exists in the mind-independent real. It is the appearance of the
mind-independent real to consciousness that establishes the condition of
falsifiability, thus enabling the possibility of scientific knowledge.
This further distinction between mind/world and mind-independent real is

responsive to the ontological difference. While entities have a mind-independent
reality, the being of those entities, our understandings of them, which remain
reliant on mind-dependent conceptual frameworks, are not. From this perspective,
the problem with dualist approaches to social inquiry is that by taking the subject-
object split as foundational, and occurring between mind and world, they cannot
recognise the distinction between mind/world and mind-independent real. This

106. Heikki Patomäki and Colin Wight, “After Postpositivism? The Promises of Critical Realism,”
216-19.
64
leads to a collapse of this distinction, the conflation of the ontological difference,

and the misguided belief that their 'world' largely corresponds to the mind-
independent real: that 'their world' is 'the world.'
Following a comprehensive survey of phenomenological thought, which,

despite his claim, does not begin with Husserl, Tom Rockmore has recently
concluded that Hegel's 'constructivist strategy, which is routinely overlooked in
phenomenological circles, is arguably the best such approach we currently
possess.'107 Proceeding from the view that 'knowledge does not concern the world
in itself but the world for us,' Hegel's approach situates knowledge within the
historical process and subordinates knowledge construction to the interaction
between human beings.108 In contrast to Kantian constructivism, a dualist approach
to knowledge based upon a foundational subject-object split, according to Hegel's
constructivism, the subject-object split occurs within consciousness; consequently,
knowledge is not representational, but is socially constructed and arises
dialectically. Since subject and object are split within consciousness, and not
between mind and world, neither remain unconditioned. This means that both
reality (what we consider to be 'real' or 'objective') and knowledge (what the
epistemic subject knows) emerge out of relations between human beings. There are
therefore irrevocably plural and historical dimensions to 'subjectivity:' a significant
point that has not been well-heeded by recent interpretation of Hegel, especially
ones (like Habermas and Linklater's) that remain closer to Kant.109
Conclusions

107. Tom Rockmore, Kant and Phenomenology, 213. According to his faculty website at Duquesne
University, Rockmore is currently preparing a manuscript on Epistemology and Phenomenology
that will likely explore these themes further.
108. Ibid., 215.
109. We will return to an extended discussion of the development of the relation between subject
and object from Kant to Hegel in Chapter 6, where we also discuss the inadequacy of the concept of
'subjectivity' in from a Hegelian perspective.
65
Having began the chapter with Habermas's explanation that ontological

assumptions and commitments serve as the (often unacknowledged) foundational
premises of our political and ethical thought, we have surveyed the that role
ontological foundations play in prominent 'normative' and meta-theoretical
approaches to international theory. After criticising the dualist philosophical
commitments that underwrite these approaches, and despite praising Andrew
Linklater's 'critical' approach to international theory, we suggested that a similarly
misguided foundationalism might be at play in Linklater's work.
We established that, by taking dominant practices and institutions associated

with the sovereign state as foundational ethical commitments, normative
international theorists often attempt to sidestep controversial philosophical
questions; an evasive strategy that lends credence both to Behr's claim that the
overwhelming trajectory of thought since the early eighteenth century has been
geared towards the recognition of the particularity of ontological and
epistemological interests, and to Walker's claim that modern political theory has
overwhelmingly produced visions of politics that would be contained within the
nation-state.
However, these normative approaches to international theory cannot evade

the philosophical questions that are raised by its ethical foundations, since treating
these commitments as foundational commitments, the 'objects' presupposed as the
condition of subsequent normative claims, invites the evaluation of such
commitments; we suggested that an ontological evaluation might involve
questioning whether such ethical foundations can be said to have 'objective'
existence, and what it means for us to encounter such ethical foundations as
objects. We then argued that it was not sufficient for us to treat dominant practices
and institutions associated with the sovereign state as 'objective,' offering human
freedom as a more basic ontological commitment that might act as the normative
ideal according to which we could evaluate the (previously foundational) ethical
commitments that underwrite different normative approaches to international
theory.
66
This brought us to a discussion of Hegel, for whom the 'objectivity' of

institutions and practices is conditional on the relation between these practices and
the being of the being that encounters them as 'objects.' Put differently, that for
Hegel the 'objectivity' of these entities is conditional upon their contribution the
self-actualisation of the human being as a free being: on the self-actualisation of
freedom in the world. We argued that this foundational Hegelian commitment to
human freedom, an ontological commitment to the human being as a free being,
might serve as a more universalist foundation for contemporary (global) politics
and ethics. Whereas Rawls and Frost assert the particularity of their normative
claims by limiting them to apply only to human beings qua subjects of a modern
constitutional democracy, or qua participants in global civil society, a foundational
ontological commitment to human freedom would apply to human beings qua
human beings.
This ontological commitment is an ontological commitment in the fuller

sense of the term: an ontology of being, rather than one of things. However, we
argued, attempts to bring ontological reflection into international theory have so far
overwhelmingly been facile, confined to a discussion of 'things that exist' in IR.
This, we saw, was the result of Wendt's intervention into the Third Debate, which
came at the cost of accepting dualist philosophical commitments to a foundational
mind-world split. This dualism is the condition of being able to split epistemology
from ontology, and has led to an overvaluation of the status of scientific inquiry in
world politics, the marginalisation of alternative 'philosophical ontologies,' and the
virtual disappearance of philosophical ontology from debates in international
theory. Fortunately though, these dualist assumptions have recently been
challenged by the likes of Patrick Thaddeus Jackson and Torsten Michel, with
Michel pointing out that Heidegger distinguishes between beings and being, and
that proper ontology concerns the latter.
We then moved on to discuss 'critical' approaches to international thought.

We saw that, since originally making inroads into international theory in the early
67
1980s following the publication of Richard K. Ashley and Robert W. Cox's

seminal Millennium articles, CIRT has followed two key paths: the
historical/sociological path of highlighting different futures for international
politics, and the normative/ethical path of using the idea of freedom as a vantage
point from which to criticise the theory and practice of international politics in
order to indicate alternative ways forward. We learnt that some, such as Andrew
Linklater, operate a 'twin-track' approach, linking historical/sociological, ethical,
and praxeological levels of analysis.
Taking its cues from the wrongs and ills of modern societies, critical theory
is often self-consciously motivated by a left-Hegelian commitment to human
freedom. For this reason, and by refusing to encounter dominant practices and
instructions such as the state as 'objective,' but treating this objectivity as
conditional upon human freedom, critical approaches to international theory might
be seen to overcome the central weakness of other normative approaches to
international theory. However, we concluded by suggesting that, by virtue of his
foundational commitment to ethical subjectivity, Linklater might ultimately fall
foul of the same mistake as Rawls, Frost, and the critical realists: that is, to rely on
an ontological foundation of 'things' as the condition of his approach to
international theory, an ontology of the ethical subject, rather than of the human
being as a free being.
If we succeed in corroborating this claim in the following chapter, Linklater's

critical approach to international theory would rest on a conflation of the
ontological difference between beings that exist (human beings) and being of those
beings (i.e., as ethical subjects / post-conventional discourse agents). This would
mean that Linklater submits to a form of metaphysical dualism: an ontological
dualism based on his treatment of the being of human beings as ethical subjects
(although subjectivity manifests itself historically), and an epistemological dualism
that treats the human being conceived as ethical subject as a mind-independent
intransitive object that serves as the 'ontological' foundation of his critical approach
to international theory.
68
For these reasons we concurred with Michel's call for a deeper treatment of
'subjectivity' and 'objectivity' in international thought; yet we claimed that Michel's
intervention is based on a critique and solution found in post-Husserlian
phenomenology, and that this overlooks a more fruitful phenomenological
approach to epistemology that can be found in Hegel. Since the separation of
epistemology from ontology is predicated on the questionable dualist commitment
to a foundational split between mind and world (a split that we will argue must be
regarded as non-foundational, or derivative), and given that Heidegger is
apparently uninterested in epistemology, while Heidegger can help us with a
deeper ontological appreciation of the relation between subject and object, both
epistemologically and ontologically, Hegel is able to take us further.
Towards the end of the chapter we introduced Hegel's phenomenological

constructivist epistemology, and saw that according to this approach to knowledge,
the split between subject and object occurs within consciousness rather than
between mind and world, whereby cognitive objects are constructed on the basis of
the appearance of phenomena to consciousness, a process that is subordinate to
interactions between human beings situated within historical processes. This
account of knowledge thus calls for a further distinction to be drawn between
mind, world, and the mind-independent real: a distinction to which dualists must
remain blind. We explained that this Hegelian view entails mind-world monism,
because cognitive subject and object both depend on 'mind' (Geist), yet that it
avoids subscribing to anti-realism, since entities in the mind-independent real exist
although they only 'appear' to consciousness. Consequently, what we know is the
cognitive object, not the mind-independent entity; therefore, 'objectivity,' what we
consider to be 'real,' emerges out of relations between human beings situated
within historical processes. As a result, there are plural and historical dimensions
to subjectivity: a point that is not well-heeded in left-Hegelian thought and critical
international theory, and one that we aim to develop.
69
Chapter 2.
Ethical Subjectivity in Andrew Linklater's
Critical International Theory
Introduction.
Having surveyed a range of prominent contemporary approaches to

international theory in the previous chapter, where we defended the view that, by
virtue of their foundational commitment to human freedom, 'critical' approaches to
international theory represented the most persuasive of these approaches to
contemporary world politics, we now turn our attention to a sustained engagement
with the critical approach to world politics that has been developed by Andrew
Linklater. Through a sympathetic exposition of several of his key works, our aim is
to demonstrate that Linklater relies on a foundational commitment to ethical
subjectivity, and our discussion culminates in a philosophical (epistemological and
ontological) evaluation of this commitment before turning to an evaluation of its
ethical and emancipatory credentials in Chapter 3.
We will recall that Linklater is not the only contributor to the critical project
in international theory, yet that he might be considered to be the most persuasive
and promising advocate of this position. We will also recall that since the early
1980s critical approaches to international theory have developed along two key
paths: a historical/sociological path inaugurated by Cox, and a
normative/philosophical path, inaugurated by Ashley; Linklater, we claimed, has
operated a 'twin track' approach, linking philosophical/normative,
PART 1/ Ch.2. Ethical Subjectivity in Andrew Linklater’s CIRT
historical/sociological, and praxeological levels of inquiry: aspects that he refers to

as the 'tripartite structure' of critical theory.
Given that Linklater's work covers an impressive breadth of reference,

spread over many important publications, our engagement with his work is
necessarily limited in scope. Given our problematic, we confine our engagement to
an analysis of the philosophical/normative aspect of his theory, which we often
refer to simply as his emancipatory cosmopolitanism. This aspect of Linklater's
thought is primarily located in his early works: in Men and Citizens, The
Transformation of Political Community, and a series of related articles. Our
rationale for foregrounding this aspect of his critical theory is that it provides the
philosophical justification for his subsequent praxeological and sociological
analyses; indeed, Linklater explicitly refers to these works as a 'ground clearing
exercise' in which he 'sought to overcome challenges to the emancipatory project
of CIRT through the formulation of a philosophical defence of ethical universalism
that could offer the justification for the formation of cosmopolitan political
community.'1 Although already evident in outline in Transformation, Linklater's
later work turns to a more sociologically based analysis that enlists the process
sociology of Norbert Elias to explore the problem of harm in world politics.
Besides the pragmatic necessity to limit the scope of our engagement, the view
taken here, and shared by another recent doctoral thesis in CIRT, is that the
emancipatory politics of Linklater's early work is, if not lost, considerably
weakened by his turn to the process sociology of Elias.2

1. Mark Hoffman, “Restructuring, Reconstruction, Reinscription, Rearticulation: Four Voices in
Critical International Theory,” Millennium-Journal of International Studies 20, no. 2 (1991), 173.
2. Shannon Brincat, “Towards an Emancipatory Cosmopolitanism: Reconstructing the Concept of
Emancipation in Critical International Relations Theory” (Ph.D Thesis, University of Queensland,
2011), 312,303. Linklater has also contributed to the English School. However, in the interests of
brevity we will not be engaging with this work here. See Andrew Linklater and Hidemi Suganami,
The English School of International Relations: A Contemporary Reassessment (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2006).
71
Men and Citizens: the Bifurcated Subjectivity of Modern Man
Linklater's approach to International Relations emerges in Men and Citizens,

originally his doctoral thesis and first published in 1982; the aim of which is the
'[r]ecovery of a critical approach to international politics, initiated by Kant and
Marx (and marginalised by realism and neo-realism).'3 Writing at a time when
realism, neo-realism, and pluralist approaches to international society were
dominant in the study of international politics, Linklater draws on the voluntarist
tradition of political philosophy, most notably Rousseau, Kant, and Hegel, in order
to recover a critique of the international states-system and to 'seek a non-rationalist
foundation for the traditional belief in obligations to humanity.'4
Man's Bifurcated Subjectivity
Central to Linklater's argument is the view that the modern subject leads a
bifurcated existence, between his simultaneous existence as a political being, a
citizen of a state, and his existence as a moral being by virtue of his humanity.
A very significant part of the history of modern international thought has centred upon
what may be termed the problem of the relationship between men and citizens. We may
characterise this problem in different ways as the issue of the proper relationship between
the obligations which men may be said to acquire qua men and the obligations to which
they are subject as citizens of particular associations; or, as the question of reconciling the
actual or potential universality of human nature with the diversity and division of the
political community.5
This notion of a bifurcated subjectivity, the division between man and citizen, is
crucial to understanding Linklater's approach to both international theory and
political theory, since he regards the moral conflict between the obligations of

3. Andrew Linklater, Critical Theory and World Politics: Citizenship, Sovereignty and Humanity
(London: Routledge, 2007), 30.
4. Andrew Linklater, Men and Citizens in the Theory of International Relations, 2nd ed.
(Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 1990), xi.
5. Ibid., x.
72
citizenship and those to humanity to be fundamental to our experience of the

modern states-system.6
Claiming that 'any political theory which ignores the problems created by our
double existence as men and citizens is no longer adequate to the conditions of
modern political life; for it fails to attempt to harmonise all aspects of modern
moral and political experience,' one of Linklater's central contentions, both in Men
and Citizens and in subsequent work, is that a crucial challenge posed to IR theory
in an era of globalisation is the need to reconcile this problematic.7 The posing and
answering of this question is seen to be central to the further development of
international theory, and it leads to 'the establishment of important connections
between a consolidated political theory of international relations and that
remarkable tradition of political thought, beginning essentially with Rousseau,
which is concerned with the enhancement of human freedom.'8 Linklater thus reads
the reconciliation of these rights to be a continuation of the emancipatory project of
the Enlightenment, part of the unfinished project of modernity, because it is in the
name of human freedom that the gap between the universal moral obligations that
we have as men, and the particular obligations that we have as citizens, may be
overcome.
Drawing on the voluntarist tradition of political theory, in Rousseau and Kant

Linklater finds the outlines of a nascent critical approach to international politics
that he seeks to recover. Both Rousseau and Kant addressed the problem of our
simultaneous obligations to humanity and to our compatriots, and both were
committed to the transformative potential of social and political theory: 'common
to each writer was the belief that our experience of living in and among sovereign
states cannot avoid a sense of moral division and political estrangement.' 9
Rousseau considered modern man to be 'dragged by nature and by men in opposite
directions', and that the formation of society, where unity is restored to man's

6. Andrew Linklater, Critical Theory and World Politics: Citizenship, Sovereignty and Humanity,
16.
7. Andrew Linklater, Men and Citizens, 36.
8. Ibid., x-xi.
9. Ibid., 25.
73
social relations, comes at the expense of the duties that individuals owe to each
other as members of the larger society that encompasses the whole human race.10
Yet, for both Rousseau and Kant, modern men were more than simply members of
states and possessed the capacity to express their freedom in the fundamental
reorganisation of their international relations:
Their historical experience was not that of being unchanging and unchangeable insiders
condemned to live within particularistic social systems, but of being self-developing and
self-directing beings with the possibility of transforming existing relations of intersocietal
estrangement into relations of familiarity, so completing a process which had begun in the
ancient world. An unprecedented political project was made possible by the historically
developed notion of the rights and duties inherent in humans themselves, a concept which
produced the possibility of fundamentally extending the boundaries of moral and political
community.11
Linklater locates the foundations of a modern theory of international

relations 'within theories that sought to comprehend the nature of man as an
historical subject, as a self-developing and self-transforming being realising the
conditions of his freedom,' and claims that several themes follow.12 The first is the
argument that the division between citizenship and humanity is 'integral to the
historical movement from attempting to realise autonomy within states to aiming to
advance autonomy in relations between them.'13 This leads to the further argument
that a moral community more inclusive than the sovereign state can be defended on
the basis of human freedom, 'man's unique capacity for self-determination.'14
Emancipation & the Reconstruction of Kantian Freedom.
Kant & Moral Freedom

10. Andrew Linklater, “Hegel, the State and International Relations,” in Classical Theories of
International Relations, ed. Ian Clark and Iver B. Neumann (Basingstoke: Macmillan Press, 1996),
197.
12. Ibid., xii.
13. Ibid.
14. Ibid.
74
It is in Pufendorf and Vattel's theories of natural law that Linklater finds the
most adequate philosophical defences of modern realist and pluralist international
society approaches to international politics respectively. He criticises both,
however, for failing to provide an adequate account of the relationship between the
contractual rights and duties of citizenship and the idea of humanity. While Vattel
overcomes weaknesses in Pufendorf's account, his own account of the state 'fails to
provide a coherent theory of the relationship between the moralities of men and
citizens.' 15 The various inconsistencies in both their approaches 'are finally
overcome in the Kantian theory of international relations.'16
Famously criticising Grotius, Pufendorf and Vattel in Perpetual Peace as

'tiresome comforters' for foregoing the ideal unity of mankind, for Kant
'rationalism required a progressivist understanding of international relations which
conceived the perfectibility of world political organisation as a sublime historical
goal.' 17 According to Kant, 'all men were bound together by the necessary
obligation to so arrange their social and political lives that they could gradually
realise a condition of universal justice and perpetual peace,' because it is by acting
in accordance with moral principles prescribed by his own reason that 'man asserts
independence from the natural world and establishes what is distinctively human in
his nature [...] his uniquely human characteristics, his non-natural being, his
freedom.'18 For Kant, what then follows is the necessity of radically transforming
the political world so that all human beings are able to 'live in conformity with the
imperatives grounded in their common rational nature.'19
It is our 'unsocial sociability' that for Kant provides the fillip to lift ourselves
from out of the state of nature and to establish a new kind of freedom, civil
freedom; a freedom that is expressed in 'legal guarantees for persons and their

15. Ibid., 60.
16. Ibid.
17. Immanuel Kant, “Towards Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch,” in Toward Perpetual
Peace and Other Writings on Politics, Peace, and History, ed. Pauline Kleingeld (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 2006), 79. Andrew Linklater, Men and Citizens, 97.
18. Ibid., 97,99.
19. Ibid., 99.
75
property.'20 For Kant, the highest expression of human freedom however, is not in
the mere fact of choice (natural freedom), nor in the establishment of legal
constraints upon inclination (civil freedom), but in the capacity to exercise self-
constraint and act in conformity with moral imperatives legislated by human
reason (moral freedom).'21
Linklater notes that Kant's typology of human freedoms is influenced by

Rousseau: for both man is most free when living under political conditions where
they can obey 'the laws which they themselves make.'22 As he explains: ‘[i]n
Kantian thought, freedom, if governed by a universal principle, “is the one and
original right that belongs to every human being by virtue of humanity.”'23 The
argument of Perpetual Peace and Idea for a Universal History is that, like the
individuals that had emerged from a prior state of nature, man's moral freedom
eventually obliges states to relinquish their 'wild, lawless freedom' by entering into
a federation of states based on international right. 24 Linklater concludes that
rationalism thus reaches its zenith in Kant's rational moral universalism and his
political cosmopolitanism.
Linklater subsequently discusses the historicist challenges to Kant's

rationalism and the social contract theorists of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau,
challenges that led to the reconstructed defence of particularism in the eighteenth
and nineteenth centuries. Linklater recognises that the historicist critique of
rationalism means that we must reject the rationalist notion of an immutable,
universal human reason (as relied upon by Kant) and he concedes that historicists
are right to say that man is socially and historically shaped. However, historicism
and the resultant relativism are deemed to be self-defeating, because historicism
'denied ethical universalism while paradoxically proclaiming cultural diversity as a
universal ideal.'25 Moreover, Linklater claims, the historicist tradition itself failed

20. Ibid., 142.
21. Ibid.
22. Ibid., 143.
23. Ibid., 112.
24. Ibid., 113.
25. Ibid., 208.
76
to provide an adequate alternative theory of international society. 26 The

combination of these weaknesses lay the groundwork for his own construction of
an historicist theory of international society, 'in conjunction with an analysis of the
historical development of human freedom.'27
Hegel, the Historical Development of Freedom, and its Embodiment in the

Ethical State
Linklater thus engages in a dialectical reading of rationalism and historicism,

where the ethical absolutism of rationalism and the ethical relativism of historicism
are sublated in an approach to international society based upon philosophical
history. From this rationalist-historicist perspective, which is presented as
dialectically transcending the rationalist-historicist opposition, human reason has a
history: 'reason is neither uniform nor inevitably plural and diverse; it is
developmental [...] Ethical absolutism and relativism appear as sides of a false
dichotomy. Neither offers an account of the growth and transformation of both
human subjects and the practices in which they are objectified.'28 Importantly, this
philosophical history allows Linklater to defend the internationalist dimension of
Kantian thought along historical lines. Recognising that Kant's 'unqualified moral
and political individualism' is problematic, he argues that 'with suitable
modification, the more advanced elements of rationalist thinking can be recovered
by re-locating them within a theory of history.'29
A theory of the historical development of human freedom offers good reasons for the
belief in obligations to humanity; it also provides the philosophical resources which enable
us to present a vision of a unified moral and political experience, one which can
accommodate the fact of obligations to humanity without permitting these to conflict with
the roles and responsibilities of other communities.'30

26. Ibid., 60.
27. Ibid.
28. Ibid., 140.
29. Ibid., 144,202.
30. Ibid., 202.
77
Linklater's dialectical treatment of rationalism and historicism is Hegelian in

method, and his philosophical history draws heavily on Hegel's philosophy of
history. In particular he draws on Hegel's criticism of Kant that individualism has
to be located within different forms of social consciousness.31 Linklater's Hegel
focusses on the emergence and evolution of societies 'that are based upon rational,
critical thinking,' where 'the development of human freedom is exhibited in man's
increasing rational control of his self and his environment,' and where 'the
culmination of this process in modern history is the modern state.'32 Within the
state, 'this community of rational law-makers, humans realise the triumph of
thought over nature, and express those capacities (particularly the potentiality for
free, rational choice) which are specific to human subjects.'33 Nonetheless, Hegel's
location of freedom within the state poses a challenge to Kant's cosmopolitanism, a
cosmopolitanism Linklater wishes to retain. His solution, in Men and Citizens and
in a later piece, Hegel, the State, and International Relations is to deploy a left-
Hegelian argument and draw out cosmopolitan elements that are immanent in
Hegel's thought.
Freedom Beyond the State
Linklater notes that Hegel regarded cosmopolitanism as 'simultaneously a

major Western intellectual achievement and a threat to its principal political
accomplishment which was the modern state.'34 Hegel's advocacy of the state was
based on his view that 'the state provided the sole context in which human beings
could unfold their unique capacity for freedom.'35 The ethical state is regarded as
centrally important to the cause of human freedom under conditions of modernity
because it had the capacity to institute the 'synthesis of modern individualistic
rights proclaimed by reason (Moralität) and the strong affective ties towards

31. Ibid., 144.
32. Ibid., 147. Linklater's reading of Hegel is challenged in Part 3.
33. Ibid.
34. Andrew Linklater, “Hegel, the State and International Relations,” 200.
35. Ibid., 194.
78
specific communities (Sittlichkeit).'36 Linklater's criticism of Hegel enlists the help

of E.H. Carr, for whom Hegel was too complacent about war, and failed to realise
that the modern state could in fact cancel the freedom of its own citizens: two
cogent criticisms based in experiences of states in the late nineteenth and early
twentieth century that bore witness to a crisis of modern state structures,
indications of which began emerging in the 1870s, but became most pronounced
between 1914 and 1939. These experiences rendered the exclusivity of Hegel’s
‘ethical state’ problematic, and lead Linklater to a defence of the contemporary
relevance of Hegel based upon a left-Hegelian interpretation of his thought; one
that rightly notes that Hegel's commitment to freedom meant that we would
eventually move beyond the sovereign state.37
As we saw above, Hegel's defence of the ethical state is based upon the view
that it was the most adequate actualisation of human freedom: this was its
rationality. However, in the context of international relations, 'the immediate
problem arises of the apparent contradiction between the principle of human
freedom, which demands the rational organisation of political life, and the actual
operations of the international states-system, the coercive or uncontrolled relations
which pertain to the life of states.'38 For this reason, 'when compared to Kant,
Hegel has often been accused of failing to support the ideal of a universal
community which could uphold the freedom of all humanity. The criticism is that
Hegel failed to acknowledge that the process of recognising the freedom of the
other could be extended further than he had realised into the domain of
international relations.'39
Although he justifiably questions whether Hegel goes far enough, Linklater

rightly defends Hegel by noting that he did not just detect reason in the domestic

36. Ibid., 195-96.
38. Ibid., 148.
39. Andrew Linklater, “Hegel, the State and International Relations,” 199.
79
institutions of the state, but also in the state's external relations.40 He later cites
more recent Hegelian thought, from Shlomo Avineri and Anne Paolucci, in
defence of this claim: for Avineri, Hegel envisaged a world in which 'sovereignty
would diminish and the resort to force would disappear,' while 'Paolucci credits
Hegel with envisaging a universal international society in which all free peoples
are treated as equals.'41 He goes on to note that in some accounts, 'Hegel appears as
a revolutionist precursor of Fukuyama. [For instance,] Smith's recent interpretation
notes that, for Hegel, history is the process of mankind's progressive emancipation
from those forces that inhibit the granting of respect to other individuals, peoples,
and cultures [...] Following Kojève, this interpretation maintains that Hegel
believed the modern state would come to encompass the whole of humanity, thus
ending Andersein, otherness.' 42 Linklater's central point is that Hegel looked
beyond the loosely organised society of states to the possibility of the future
dialectical development of freedom in international relations, although the form
and content of how it might happen is not clear. Rather than pursuing this line of
inquiry, Linklater criticises Hegel for his 'passive philosophical disposition,' and
swiftly moves onto a discussion of Marx.43
Marx & Political Freedom: the Universal Society of Men
The Marxist challenge to Hegel and Kant draws attention to the fact that a
focus on legal and political practices in the development of human freedom is
insufficient, and that we also need to focus on the economic and social conditions
of freedom. This suggests that we need to investigate the nature of international

40. 'Among the rational practices developed in the modern world Hegel included the fact that states
extend recognition to one another and agree to conduct their hostilities without harming 'persons in
their private capacity' Andrew Linklater, Men and Citizens, 148.
41. Andrew Linklater, “Hegel, the State and International Relations,” 193,199.
42. Ibid., 199.
43. Andrew Linklater, Men and Citizens, 155. If he had pursued this line, we might expect him to
explore the implications of Axel Honneth's reworking of Hegelian recognition theory for global
politics, as has been done recently in Brincat's excellent thesis. Axel Honneth, The Struggle for
Recognition: The Moral Grammar of Social Conflicts (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1996);
Axel Honneth, Disrespect: The Normative Foundations of Critical Theory (London: Polity, 2007);
Shannon Brincat, “Towards an Emancipatory Cosmopolitanism:.”
80
economic life, and possibly transform the international economic system so that it
better satisfies the goals of human freedom, for '[i]f freedom refers to that set of
circumstances in which individuals collaborate to maintain conditions favourable
to their own development, then it ought to include cooperation to ensure individual
rights of access to a basic level of economic and social resources. For the freedom
of individuals or communities is simply formal in the absence of the capacity to
exercise that freedom.44
On the Marxist view, 'freedom is understood as global control of social

relations in order to maximise species-powers [where ...] international relations as
relations between particularist forms of organisation give way to a universal
society in which members equalise their access to material resources subject to
their common ownership and collective control.'45 This is becasue, for Marx, men
can only realise their freedom within a properly humanised society, where humans
go beyond intersocietal estrangement and abolish the competitive and conflictual
types of interaction that have prevailed between particularist social groups. This
conception of international society is seen by Linklater to overcome the
shortcomings within the Kantian or Hegelian systems.
The 'Scale of Forms'
By providing a yardstick with which to judge actual historical arrangements

of international society according to an ascending 'scale of forms,' where different
social formations are judged according to their realisation of the conditions of
actualised human freedom, Linklater's philosophical history of the progressive
development of human freedom is used to provide the foundations of a critical
theory of international relations.46 In Men and Citizens, freedom is understood as

45. Ibid., 159-60.
46. Linklater borrows the notion of a 'scale of forms' from Collingwood and, in hindsight,
recognises that it ‘smacked’ of nineteenth century ideas of civilisational superiority. He later
abandons it, replacing it with how the harm principle has been reflected in history. Shannon
81
the 'realisation and expression of the notion of self-determination,' which involves

'overcoming various forms of intersocietal estrangement' and ultimately, the
'exercise of control over the totality of social and political relations.'47
The erosion of intersocietal estrangement is regarded the development of a

nascent international ethical life, whereby international relations are gradually
humanised, ultimately leading to the realisation of the unity of the species: the
achievement, in Kantian terms, of a 'universal kingdom of ends.'48 This process
involves human subjects transcending their citizenship, widening their sphere of
moral concern, and recognising the claims of humanity upon them. 49 The
individual thereby develops a 'moral relationship with his species,' achieving 'an
advanced form of moral consciousness, an intimation of a higher kind of
international political life' and subsequently 'changes in the structure of political
life become essential.'50
Accordingly, Linklater envisages the emergence of a more rational form of

international political life and the development of universal rules of political co-
existence, where we might have rights against each other as men as well as
citizens. 51 He argues that this expansion of moral community requires the
surrender of sovereignty, the dissolution of the state's right to use force, replacing
the balance of power, and a more centralised and principled form of international
government; in short, the institutionalised expression of the Kantian idea of a
universal community of ends.52 Heeding Marx's criticism of Hegel, this would also
require the transformation of economic and social conditions so that individuals
would have access to a basic level of economic and social resources.53 Ultimately
then, it is through the increasing recognition of and adherence to universal

Brincat, “Towards an Emancipatory Cosmopolitanism:,” 297.Andrew Linklater, Men and Citizens,
165. And, one would presume, a more solidarist conception of intentional society.
47. Ibid., xii.
48. Ibid., 195,xiii.
49. Ibid., 188.
50. Ibid., 199.
51. Ibid., 185,185,201.
52. Ibid., 199.
53. Ibid., 200.
82
obligations that Linklater hopes we may overcome 'the bifurcated nature of modern
moral and political experience,' and thereby lead 'morally unified lives.'54
The Triple Transformation of Political Community
Universal Moral Inclusion
While Men and Citizens was concerned with the problem of citizenship, and
specifically, how the benefits accrued through citizenship can be reconciled with
the universal obligations to humanity, Linklater's later work, The Transformation
of Political Community, is concerned with the problem of community; in
particular, with the normative, sociological, and praxeological analysis of practices
of inclusion and exclusion in international society. This move is foreshadowed in
the second edition of Men and Citizens, published in 1990, in which he adds a
postscript on Habermas and Foucault. As we saw in the previous chapter,
following the publication of the first edition in 1982, critical social theories started
making contributions to international theory, and this postscript explores the debate
between Critical Theory and anti-foundationalism through the work of Habermas
and Foucault.
Linklater is particularly complementary about the empirical nature of

Foucault’s work, which – in light of CT's concern with methodology, philosophy
of the social sciences, and communicative action and rationality – he regards as
outpacing CT in its analyses of constraints on human freedom.55 Nonetheless, he
considers the work of both Foucault and Habermas to be capable of lending
support to the original project of Men and Citizens. Foucault’s empirical work is
seen to complement Habermas’s reconstruction of historical materialism, since the
latter incorporates moral aspects of human development; both are read as
extending the themes developed in Men and Citizens, as co-contributors to 'the

54. Ibid., 38-39,25.
55. Ibid., 219.
83
project of developing a critical sociology of moral development in international

relations.' 56 Foucault's discussion of moral subjectification in The History of
Sexuality, for instance, leads Linklater to discuss the possibility of an historical
analysis of the construction of the 'moral other' in international politics, and how
the structures and practices of modern international relations might be changed in
the future 'to include those who have been systematically excluded.'57 This sheds
light on the basic idea that unites Men and Citizens, Transformation and Linklater's
later work on harm: the idea of universal moral inclusion and the extension of
rights to 'outsiders.'
The last word in Men and Citizens is given to 'the two great exponents of
moral or political universalism within the tradition of philosophical history,' Kant
and Marx. 58 Yet the subsequent cosmopolitan/communitarian debate and the
'postmodern' anti-foundationalism of writers such as Michel Foucault and Richard
Rorty leads Linklater to recognise that the universalist vision of international
society presented in Men and Citizens is too substantive and potentially exclusive
of difference. Responding to these challenges Linklater restates his position in The
Transformation of Political Community, a 'magisterial work' that is 'not simply the
best account yet available of the contribution critical theory can make to
International Relations, [but] the most impressive account of international theory in
general to have been produced in Britain since Bull's Anarchical Society.'59
Restating the Universal Moral Community
Although moving away from the more substantive aspects of their

arguments, Kant and Marx remain, and still remain, Linklater's 'two great

56. Ibid., 220,209,219.
57. Ibid., 220-221,226.
58. Ibid., 205.
59. This acclaim is from Steve Smith and Chris Brown, and can be found on the back cover to
Transformation.
84
luminaries.' 60 The Kantian ideal of a universal moral community, in which

humanity might be united 'as co-legislators in a universal kingdom of ends' and the
Marxist ideal of universal association, with its commitment to the 'critique of the
realms of alienation, exploitation and estrangement' that obstruct this ideal, are
both updated and extended through Habermas's discourse ethics and his
reconstruction of historical materialism. 61 In short, Linklater reconceives his
cosmopolitanism along communicative lines; the end-point of the emancipatory
project becoming the realisation of a discursively based cosmopolitan human
community, where emancipation is understood as freedom from unjustifiable
forms of exclusion through inclusion within a discursively conceived universal
human community.62
The Kantian and Marxian ideal of a universal society of moral and political
association remains, but Habermas's normative ideal of the universal
communication community replaces the philosophical history of the development
of human freedom as the standard of social criticism. Reflecting the dialogic turn
in critical society theory, which puts the normative ideal of expanding the realm of
social interaction governed by open dialogue front and centre, the goal of a
universal communication community, or, a 'universal dialogic community in which
the justice of all modes of exclusion is tested in open dialogue' is seen to at once
remain true to Kantian and Marxian ideals, and to do what is necessary to update
and extend them.63 Although Linklater concedes that such a universal community
might be an unattainable goal, it nonetheless serves as a standard of social
criticism, something to aspire to and to approach as nearly as we can.64 The
ultimate purpose is the goal of a future global society that rests upon the consent of
each and every member of the human race and furthers 'the autonomy of all human

60. Andrew Linklater, “Citizenship, Community, and Harm in World Politics. Interview With
Shannon Brincat,” in Critical Theory in International Relations and Security Studies: Interviews
and Reflections, ed. Shannon Brincat, Laura Lima, João Nunes (London: Routledge, 2011), 8.
61. Andrew Linklater, The Transformation of Political Community: Ethical Foundations of the
Post-Westphalian Era (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1998), 84,219-220,79,106,211-212.
62. Richard Shapcott, Justice, Community and Dialogue in International Relations (Cambridge:
63. Andrew Linklater, The Transformation of Political Community, 40-41,220. Norman Geras,
“The View From Everywhere,” Review of International Studies 25, no. 1 (1999): 157-63.
64. Ibid.
85
beings,' rather than one perpetually 'determined by considerations of national

power or by a concern for maintaining order and stability between the most
powerful or potentially disruptive states.'65
A Defence of Universalism
Responding to anti-foundational criticisms of universalism, which he

discusses mainly with reference to the challenge posed by Richard Rorty, Linklater
recognises that a cosmopolitan ethic can itself be exclusive of difference.
According to Linklater’s interpretation of these anti-foundational challenges to
universalism, these criticisms of cosmopolitanism centre around a rejection of the
possibility of an Archimedean viewpoint from which a conception of the good life
might be identified. 66 Linklater’s solution to this problem is to conceive
universality as the ideal of universal inclusion within discourse communities,
where the systematically excluded might be engaged through dialogue. Linklater’s
rationale for this is as follows:
It is not universalism as such which should be at issue in contemporary debates about

ethics and difference but one specific form in which it is supposed that individual reason
can discover an Archimedean moral standpoint that transcends the distortions and
limitations of time and place. The possibility of occupying an Archimedean standpoint
which permits objective knowledge of permanent moral truths which bind the whole of
humanity is a claim that has long been denied - by Hegel's famous critique of the Kantian
categorical imperative, to cite one of the most influential examples. It is a claim which
many of the leading strands of contemporary social and political theory are correct to
deny. Precisely where this leaves moral argument is the intriguing question.67
Linklater's answer to this 'intriguing question' is to distinguish between thick

and thin versions of cosmopolitanism and to identify not with a thick
cosmopolitanism that 'believes in determining the precise content of the good life,'
but with a thin cosmopolitanism that has 'no fixed and final vision of the future.'68
His claim is that such a thin cosmopolitanism would be more radical than ones that

65. Andrew Linklater, The Transformation of Political Community, 22,93,123,22.
66. Ibid., Ch2&3.
67. Ibid., 48.
68. Ibid., 48-49.
86
seek to incorporate all human beings into a single form of life because it would
‘support the development of wider communities of discourse which make new
articulations of universality and particularity possible.'69
By advocating a thin cosmopolitanism Linklater seeks to establish common

ground – shared by foundationalists and anti-foundationalists alike – which he
locates in their shared commitment to a philosophical ethos of critique that is
concerned with problematising the practices of exclusion. 70 The point of
divergence, however, lies in whether 'our' universals can lay claim to universal
normative validity and therefore be binding on persons from other cultures. Anti-
foundationalists such as Rorty deny that this is the case. 71 Conversely,
foundationalists such as Kant and Habermas 'regard the evolution of a critical
orientation towards exclusion and difference as exemplifying progress towards a
rational morality with universal significance.'72 It is on this foundationalist belief
that Linklater proceeds to build his approach to a cosmopolitan community of
humankind.
Linklater takes issue with Rorty's argument that analyses of duties to others
that rest on some notion that others have rights simply by virtue of being human
are 'weak' and 'unconvincing,' arguing instead that sometimes the strongest defence
a culture can give for recognising the rights of outsiders involves nothing other
than an appeal to common humanity.73 Linklater wishes to suggest that there are
duties that members of states owe to others by virtue of their humanity alone and
that other cultures might also assent to this claim. He is aware that:
Writers such as Rorty argue that an ethic which is critical of exclusion may be significant
in the life of the liberal community but it cannot be assumed to have any binding authority
on the rest of the human race. Each community can work out the logic of its own cultural
beliefs and some may impose cosmopolitan checks upon the ethnocentric tendencies

69. Ibid.
70. Ibid., 72,73.
71. Ibid., 76.
72. Ibid.
73. Richard. Rorty, Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1989), 191. Andrew Linklater, The Transformation of Political Community, 78.
87
which reside within their own practices and are the source of profound moral unease. But
none can issue moral requirements which others are obliged to obey.74
Nonetheless, he wants to argue that certain appeals to shared humanity may indeed
be able to lay claim to transcultural validity; that there are duties that members of
states owe to others by virtue of their humanity alone, and that other cultures might
also assent to this universalist claim.75 Nevertheless, this shared ground could only
be established through dialogue, because 'what counts as a compelling reason for
resisting practices of exclusion in a Western society cannot be assumed to hold
automatically for all forms of life.'76
Consequently, in Linklater's updated and restated approach to CIRT

'[u]niversality takes the form of a responsibility to engage others, irrespective of
their racial, national and other characteristics, in open dialogue about matters
which impinge on their welfare [... because] transcultural validity can only be
established by bringing judgements about good reasons for actions before a
tribunal which is open to all others.'77 His thin universality is thus a defence of the
ideal that every human being has an equal right to participate in dialogue in order
to determine the principles of inclusion and exclusion that might govern global
politics. 78 This, he argues, is 'crucial for the radical intensification of the
democratic impulses which are inherent in modernity but are frequently stifled or
cancelled by competing logics of normalisation and control,' and it is in this way,
following Habermas, that Linklater distinguishes his position from Kant's.79
Kant believed that separate moral agents had a duty to ask if it was possible to universalise
the maxim underlying any action. Judgments concerning universalisability involved a
process of private ratiocination for individuals rather than any dialogic encounter with
others. Habermas argues that the test of universalisability is found not in private reason but
in associating with others in wider communities dedicated to open and unconstrained
dialogue.80

74. Ibid., 85.
75. Ibid., 79.
76. Ibid., 101.
77. Ibid., 101-02.
78. Ibid., 107.
79. Ibid., 101.
80. Ibid., 91-92.
88
The Triple Transformation of Political Community
The Habermasian normative ideal of undistorted dialogue thus sets the

trajectory of Linklater's mature emancipatory cosmopolitanism. The development
of dialogic communities in world politics requires, Linklater argues, a radical
agenda of cosmopolitan reform that he outlines as the 'triple transformation' of
political community: transformations that would revolve around commitments to
produce arrangements that are more universalistic, secure greater respect for
cultural differences, and which entail stronger commitments to the reduction of
social and economic inequalities, nationally and internationally. 81 This is the
central thesis of Transformation.
At a minimum this 'triple transformation' of post-Westphalian political

communities would require promoting more inclusive dialogue in international
politics so as to promote the transnationalisation of democracy, while maximally it
would involve the institutionalisation of discourse ethics in global relations by
establishing international and global institutions conducive to the expansion of
‘dialogic communities’ in world politics. Both necessitate the transcendence of
state sovereignty and 'measures to reduce or eradicate the asymmetries of power
and wealth which exist within states and in the global economic and political
system.'82
Such a transformation of political community would lead, not to the demise

of the state, but to its reconstruction: towards new forms of political authority and
citizenship where 'sovereignty, territoriality, nationality, and citizenship are no
longer welded together to define the nature and purpose of political association,'
where multiple political authorities and loyalties could develop, and where states
would assume responsibilities that they have avoided in the past.83 Ultimately then,
the aim is nothing less than the end of the Westphalian era, where societies would

81. Ibid., 3,106,109.
82. Ibid., 109.
83. Ibid., 44,45.
89
no longer confront each other as geopolitical rivals in the condition of anarchy, and
where domination and force is replaced by dialogue and consent, so as to ensure
that 'global arrangements have the consent of a greater proportion of the human
race.'84
The Tripartite Structure of Critical Theory: Normativity,

Sociology, & Praxeology
The emancipatory ethical vision initiated in Men and Citizens and updated
through Habermas also receives concrete analysis of the prospects of its realisation
in Transformation. Echoing Kant's recognition of the necessary passage from
ethics to sociology in his connection of 'the normative defence of perpetual peace
with a sociological account of the prospects for its realisation' in his essays
Perpetual Peace and Idea for a Universal History, Linklater argues that there are
three tasks for any critical theory: the normative or philosophical, the sociological,
and the practical or praxeological, which he later refers to as the tripartite structure
of critical theory.85
We have seen that the normative ideal of dialogue sets the trajectory of
Linklater's emancipatory cosmopolitanism, but for Linklater critical theory requires
more; specifically, it requires 'modes of sociological investigation which analyse
the prospects for achieving progress towards higher levels of universality and
difference in the modern world' and it requires praxeological reflection on the
'resources within existing social arrangements which political actors can harness
for radical purposes.' 86 Praxeology, Linklater explains, is not concerned with
strategy or tactics, 'but with revealing that new forms of political community are
immanent within existing forms of life,' and turning these progressive dimensions

84. Ibid., 8.
85. Ibid., 4. Andrew Linklater, “Citizenship, Community, and Harm in World Politics. Interview
With Shannon Brincat,” 26-27.
86. Andrew Linklater, The Transformation of Political Community, 4-5.
90
against unnecessary constraints.87 Hedley Bull's discussion of alternatives to the

states system is enlisted to this end.88
A New Medievalism
Linklater enlists Bull's notion of a 'New Medievalism,' 'a modern and secular
equivalent of the kind of universal political organisation that existed in Western
Christendom in the Middle Ages,' as an alternative to the Westphalian state; a
central characteristic of this form of organisation is 'a system of overlapping
authority and multiple loyalty.'89 According to Bull, 'we might imagine [...] that the
government of the United Kingdom had to share its authority on the one hand with
authorities in Scotland, Wales, Wessex and elsewhere, and on the other hand with
a European authority in Brussels and world authorities in New York and Geneva,
to such an extent that the notion of its supremacy over the territory and people of
the United Kingdom had no force.'90
Bull suggests that these crisscrossing loyalties and overlapping authorities

might help avoid the classic dangers of the sovereign states by holding all peoples
together in a universal society, while at the same time avoiding the problems
associated with the concentration of power in a world government.91 Given the
trend towards regionalism in many areas of the world, Linklater proposes this
neomedievalism as a model of post-Westphalian political organisation that may be
emulated across the globe, with Europe's neomedievalism providing an ideal of a
more inclusive polity that has moved from a system of states where rivalry and
suspicion prevail, beyond even a more solidarist society of states, where states
increasingly cede exclusive territorial sovereignty and engage in cooperative

87. Ibid., 5-6.
88. Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics, 3 ed. (Basingstoke:
Palgrave, 2002), 225-47.
89. Ibid., 245.
90. Ibid., 246.
91. Ibid.
91
political frameworks that encourage new relationships between sub-state, national

and transnational authorities and solidarities.92
The Extension of Moral Community
Linklater argues that one of the central achievements of the Westphalian

nation-state has been to release societal potentials for achieving levels of
universality and difference within the state, yet that processes of globalisation and
fragmentation are eroding the traditional conceptions of the form of community
within which such a balance has been achieved. He argues that the moral
significance of national boundaries is being reduced, and that while this is creating
new threats and challenges relating to deepening material inequality and the
extreme particularism of ethnic fragmentation, it also creates 'unprecedented
opportunities' for overcoming the 'moral deficits' of states that have previously
been insufficiently universalistic. As a result Linklater argues that, by virtue of
their commitment to the modern conception of citizenship, post-Westphalian era
states are obliged by that commitment to increase levels of universality and
diversity through their participation in the creation of institutional frameworks that
widen the boundaries of dialogic communities beyond the state.93 To this end,
post-Westphalian states are then obliged to participate in one of three modes of
international society:
to cooperate with radically different states to establish and maintain a pluralist

international society; [...] to collaborate with states which have similar conceptions of
human rights to create a solidarist international society; and they have the more far-
reaching obligation when dealing with like-minded states which expose one another to
high levels of transnational harm to join them in designing post-Westphalian
arrangements.94
This move towards post-Westphalian political organisation is to be

accompanied by the creation of new forms of citizenship, the task of which is 'to

92. Andrew Linklater, The Transformation of Political Community, 182,193-198,204.
93. Ibid., 5,7.
94. Ibid., 181.
92
project the achievements of national citizenship out into the sphere of international
relations.' 95 While the transnational citizenship of European states is cited as
progress in the right direction, we are urged to look beyond transnational
citizenship rights found in Europe towards a form of cosmopolitan citizenship.
Although recognising with Falk that 'global citizenship' smacks of the

sentimental and the absurd, he argues that it is best understood not as subjection to
a common world political authority, but as a way of uncoupling citizenship from
the sovereign state so that a sense of moral obligation is felt to all members of the
species.96 Linking cosmopolitanism and citizenship serves the dual purpose of
maintaining that states are not the only moral agents in world politics, and that
individuals and non-state actors have moral duties to the rest of humanity that their
membership in sovereign communities has consistently overshadowed. 97 More
broadly it links individuals to humanity, and would represent a shift away from our
cosmopolitan obligations being conceived as charity, to ones of duty.
Linklater accordingly differentiates between thin conceptions of

cosmopolitan citizenship, which may lead to action out of compassion for the
vulnerable, and a thick conception of citizenship that would attempt to influence
structural conditions of asymmetries of power and wealth, before arguing that
cosmopolitan citizenship requires latter, and therefore international joint action to
ameliorate the condition of the most vulnerable in world society.98 By reconciling
the universal moral commitment to engage all in dialogue with political loyalties to
nation-states, these praxeological aspects of the post-Wesphalian order would thus
contribute to the desire originally expressed in Men and Citizens: the reconciliation
of modern man's bifurcated subjectivity through the promotion of the 'the Kantian
vision of a universal kingdom of ends, and the parallel enterprise of realising the

95. Ibid., 212.
96. Richard Falk, “The Making of Global Citizenship,” in The Condition of Citizenship, ed. Bart
van Steenbergen (London: Sage, 1994), 139. Andrew Linklater, The Transformation of Political
Community, 204.
97. Ibid., 205.
98. Ibid., 206.
93
neo-Marxian ideal of overcoming asymmetries of power and wealth, [which] form

the essence of cosmopolitan citizenship.'99
In Linklater's later work the explicit normativity and praxeology of

Transformation takes a back seat to a historical sociological analysis of practices
of inclusion and exclusion. This turn to sociology reflects comments made in the
postscript to Men and Citizens noting that Foucault's empirical analysis outstripped
the philosophical concerns that preoccupied Critical Theorists. While Habermas
was originally judged by Linklater as the true inheritor of Kant and Marx for
developing both the normative ideal of undistorted communication and providing a
more adequate account of social evolution based on the idea of social learning, in
his later work this mantle is occupied by Elias.100
Linklater's later empirical analyses draw on Elias's process sociology of

civilising processes to develop an historical sociology of the problem of harm in
world politics, a turn that was influenced by an interest in the emancipatory
potential of the harm principle that was stimulated by passages in Marx's The
German Ideology. 101 The significance of this for world politics lies in the
possibility that the reduction of harm in world politics may lead to the gradual
pacification of human social relations, but for Linklater it also serves to
demonstrate the shared human capacity for collective moral learning, and thus the
potential for moral progress in world politics. As against more positive forms of
emancipation, Shannon Brincat notes that this focus is surprising, and argues that
the emancipatory politics of Linklater's early work is lost in this move to Elias, a
move that consequently represents a weakening of the emancipatory project. This
view is shared here.102

99. Ibid., 212.
100. Andrew Linklater, “The Achievements of Critical Theory,” in International Theory:
Positivism and Beyond, ed. Ken Booth Steve Smith, and Marysia Zalewski (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1996), 284.
Shannon Brincat,” 1-2.
102. Shannon Brincat, “Towards an Emancipatory Cosmopolitanism:,” 281,312,303.
94
Ethical Subjectivity in Linklater's Emancipatory

Cosmopolitanism
Linklater's Emancipatory Cosmopolitanism
An egalitarian universalism that treats individual persons as connected yet

distinct and morally equal units of the human species provides the élan that drives
Linklater's approach to CIRT. We see this in the concern to reconcile the
obligations of citizenship and humanity in Men and Citizens and in the advocacy of
cosmopolitan dialogic communities as a strategy by which inclusion within a
universal moral community might be approximated in Transformation.
Adopting a broad vantage on the issue of moral equality of human beings,

Linklater's normative commitment leads him to question, what, if anything,
justifies practices of exclusion that serve to establish a differential equality
between citizens and individuals qua individuals. While the achievement of
citizenship rights are defended as an emancipatory political achievement, the
nature of this achievement remains essentially ambivalent and incomplete until
these positive freedoms are reconciled with broader obligations owed to humanity
in general. The freedoms achieved through citizenship remain incomplete if those
citizens remain bound by the structural constraints of neo-realism, and they are
ambivalent if they negatively impact on the freedom of those excluded, such as in
the pursuit of one-sided goals: national defence, or economic growth at another's
expense, for example. In short, positive freedoms must not come at the expense of
those excluded. The goal then of CIRT, as Linklater sees it, is to contribute to the
gradual reconciliation of particularist freedom, embodied in nation-state
communities, with the universal freedom of moral equals, and to thereby transcend
the structural limitations of the international states system by uniting the species to
form a 'universal kingdom of ends.'
This reconciliation is key to understanding his cosmopolitanism, which takes

on slightly different guises across his work. In Men and Citizens it appears as the
95
advocacy of more universalistic forms of social organisation than the presently

existing international states system, while in Transformation it is reconceived
along communicative lines, with the endpoint of the emancipatory project
becoming the realisation of a universal discourse community. In this later work
Linklater shares Habermas's emphasis on moral-practical learning, Habermas's
reconstruction of Marx's historical materialism - which is based upon the claim that
human history revolves around interaction as well as labour - and the view that
human beings determine the principles that make social order possible.
'[I]n this sphere, they are involved in a process of moral-practical learning which differs
from the realm of technical-instrumental learning in which human beings increase their
mastery of nature. Moral-practical learning is key to the development of free social
relations.'103
In more recent work this emphasis on moral-practical learning is applied as a

form of historical sociological analysis of what Elias calls the civilising process.
While Elias identifies long-term social changes regarding the use of violence,
Linklater also explores whether the notion of the harm principle, the ethical
injunction to cause no serious bodily or mental harm, may represent an appropriate
foundation for thinking about progress in world politics. He remains committed
throughout to an inclusive universalist ethics that may restrict, but does not
contradict those rights given by the state.
Linklater's Foundational Ethical Commitment
In Chapter 1 we emphasised the foundational role that philosophical

(ontological and epistemological) commitments play in our approaches to
international theory. Having explained that an ontological evaluation of such
foundational commitments would include questioning whether such foundations
have 'objective' existence, and what it means for us to encounter such foundations
as 'objects,' towards the end of that chapter we made the suggestion that Linklater's
critical approach to international theory might commit the same mistake as that

103. Andrew Linklater, The Transformation of Political Community, 91.
96
made by the other normative and meta-theoretical approaches that we surveyed: to

rely on a shallow ontology of 'things' rather than an ontology of being as a
foundational ontological commitment. Our exposition of Linklater's CIRT in this
chapter means that we are now in a position to defend such a claim.
Throughout his work, Linklater's emancipatory cosmopolitanism is

essentially concerned with the progressive establishment of the global political
conditions of human autonomy, and since it follows the same argumentative
structure employed by Kant in his essay Perpetual Peace, this is a very Kantian
move. However, the similarities between Linklater and Kant's approaches to
international relations go much further. In that essay, it is ultimately man's ethical
subjectivity, his ability to act according to the categorical imperative, that warrants
the restructuring of international political life whereby states relinquish their 'wild
lawless freedom' and enter into a federation of states based upon international
right.104
That Linklater constantly uses the term 'human subjects' is not incidental; an
historically developing ethical subject with significant debts to Kant's original
formulation undergirds Linklater's CIRT. Linklater's 'Man' is perpetually
confronted by an objective material reality that negates his autonomy, an autonomy
that is conceived as the full appropriation of ethical subjectivity. Reminiscent of
Kant, what persists in Linklater's approach to CIRT is an ethical subject, although
in contrast to Kant, Linklater's ethical subject manifests itself historically. Across
his work, this ethical subject is variously negated by irrational social structures,
exclusionary practices, and parochial ethical discourses.105 In Linklater’s work
emancipation appears as a large scale historical process by which anything that
negates this subjectivity is itself progressively negated, ultimately leading to the
establishment of both the conditions of non-contradiction of ethical subjectivity,
and the gradual self-realisation of this ethical subject over the course of human
history. For Linklater, this involves increasing levels of self-consciousness, the

104. Immanuel Kant, “Perpetual Peace,” 8:357.
105. We will discuss the persistence of the ethical subject in Kant in Chapter 8, having discussed its
pernicious ontological implications in Chapter 6
97
rational mastery of self and world, and the development of species-capacities, such
as that of post-conventional reasoning.
We see this in Men and Citizens with the concern to reconcile modern man's
'bifurcated subjectivity,' the reconciliation of his political experience as a citizen
and his moral experience as a human being in order that he can live a 'morally
unified life.'106 More importantly though, this reconciliation is seen to be essential
to the possibility of self-determination. Although also influenced by Rousseau,
Linklater thus follows a Kantian typology of human freedom where natural
freedom in the state of nature is transcended by the civil freedom of political
society, which is itself transcended by the moral freedom of the ethical subject.
Moral rationality is therefore regarded to be the highest form of human freedom, as
this rationality allows the human being to transcend the determinism of the natural
order and act in accordance with universal moral principles. Ultimately then, as
with Kant, for Linklater men are most free when living under political conditions
that allow them to obey 'the laws which they themselves make.'107
Linklater does recognise that Kant's 'unqualified moral and political

individualism' is problematic, but he invests a great deal in reconstructing the
notion of the ethical subject that underwrites Kant's moral universalism, initially on
his own, but later with the aid of Habermas. 108 The dialectical treatment of
rationalism and historicism, for instance, which occupies a large portion of Men
and Citizens, is essentially an attempt to recover the more advanced elements of
Kantian thought by locating it within theory of history, where Kantian moral
freedom is essentially read as an historical achievement.109
Linklater's reconstruction of Kantian freedom and subjectivity finds its most

sophisticated articulation in Transformation, where ethical subjectivity is manifest
in the idea of the post-conventional discourse agent, as reflected in Linklater's

106. Andrew Linklater, Men and Citizens, 38-39,25.
107. Ibid., 143.
108. Ibid., 102,144.
109. Ibid., 202.
98
reconception of moral universality as the universal responsibility to engage in

dialogue. Habermas's discursive account of moral reasoning providing Linklater
with a new way of transcending moral particularity and an updated normative
standard by which potential and actual transformations of the Westphalian states-
system might be evaluated. Here, Kant's monological account of ethical reason is
replaced by Habermas's dialogical account: while the idea of the categorical
imperative is reworked into the structure of discourse, the Kantian ethical subject
(of universal moral reason) remains, as does the need to reconcile man's bifurcated
subjectivity. As Linklater writes in the Introduction to Transformation: 'The fact
that citizens have to reconcile their identity as citizens with their conception of
themselves as subjects of universal duties and rights is central to the analysis.'110
In his later work, following his own classification of the 'tripartite structure
of critical theory' Linklater moves from both the philosophical / normative defence
of this ethical subject and the praxeological analysis of the possibilities for its
realisation, to an historical sociological analysis of the development of moral
subjectivity over the course of human history. Influenced by Habermas's
reconstruction of historical materialism (and specifically the idea of moral-
practical learning) Linklater engages in his own empirical analysis based upon
Elias's process sociology of civilising processes and the liberal notion of the harm
principle. The aim of such an analysis is to demonstrate both the human capacity
for moral-practical learning, the potential for moral progress in world politics, and
hence the possibility of the gradual pacification of human relations whereby
harmful constraints on human autonomy, such as war, might be removed. While
Kant and Marx's insufficiencies were originally overcome by Habermas's
reconstruction historical materialism and his cosmopolitan ethical ideal of a
discourse theory of morality, it is now Elias who takes centre stage as 'the real heir
to the tradition to which Kant and Marx belonged.111

Shannon Brincat,” 6-7.
99
Conclusions
In light of our exposition of his emancipatory cosmopolitanism, it should be

clear by now why Linklater is considered to be 'the foremost critical theorist of
international relations,' and why 'critical IR theory represents one of the most
humane and generally hopeful accounts of contemporary world politics
available.'112 His proposals for the 'triple transformation of political community,' to
involve greater sensitivity to practices of inclusion and exclusion, stronger
commitments to the reduction of social and economic inequalities nationally and
internationally, the development of a notion of cosmopolitan citizenship, greater
international dialogue, and states’ participation in more solidarist conceptions of
international society to achieve these ends, are cogent. The problem, however, is
that this radical agenda of cosmopolitan reform is predicated on the 'objective'
existence of an ethical subject.
For this reason, although offering us a much more promising approach to

international theory than those offered by Rawls or Frost, whose ethical
foundations are tied to an uncritical acceptance of practices and institutions
associated with the sovereign state, by relying on a shallow ontology of 'things'
presupposed as the 'ontological' foundation of his critical approach to international
theory (i.e., the ethical subject), Linklater falls foul of the same mistake as the
other approaches to international theory that we surveyed in Chapter 1. While
Linklater is correct to encounter entities in world politics, such as the sovereign
state, as 'objective' to the extent that they contribute to human freedom, because
this freedom is conceived simply as the exercise of ethical subjectivity, Linklater's
critical approach rests upon encountering such practices and institutions
(phenomena) as 'objective' on the condition that they contribute to the actualisation
of the human being as an ethical subject, as opposed to the self-actualisation of the
human being as a free being.

Rienner, 2001), 97. Brincat expresses similar sentiments: Shannon Brincat, “Towards an
Emancipatory Cosmopolitanism:,” 280.; Nicholas J. Rengger, “Negative Dialectic? The Two
Modes of Critical Theory in World Politics,” 103.
100
Since it requires of us that we encounter both the ethical subject and ethical
subjectivity as 'objective' foundations – that is, since it presupposes the ‘objective’
existence of the ethical subject – Linklater’s critical approach to international
theory rests on a conflation of the ontological difference, between entities that exist
(human beings) and the being of those entities (as ethical subjects). This submits
him to a form of metaphysical dualism: an ontological dualism by virtue of his
treatment of ethical subjectivity as the essential nature of the being of human
beings, and an epistemological dualism whereby the human being conceived as
ethical subject is treated as if it had a mind-independent ('objective') existence,
independent of Linklater's claim to know it.
As a result of this conflation of the ontological difference, Linklater's

universalism arises out of an always already posited meaning of Being (as the
historical becoming of the ethical subject) and a derivative structuring of a ground
(the mind-independent existence of the individual conceived as ethical subject),
upon which this universalism is founded. Consequently, whereas Rawls and Frost's
ethical foundations are too conservative due to their desire to recognise the
particularity of their normative claims, Linklater's ethical foundation is
insufficiently universalistic because he fails to recognise that his ethical foundation
is partial, rather than 'objective'.
We might then suggest that a more universalistic ontological foundation, one

that is not 'objective' in the sense of having a mind-independent existence but is
more universalistic because it would apply to human beings qua human beings,
would be one based upon an account of what it means to be a free human being,
rather than on a partial interpretation that what it means to be a free human being is
to be an ethical subject. We shall develop such an argument in Parts 2 and 3 after
our appraisal of the ethical and emancipatory credentials of Linklater's
emancipatory cosmopolitanism in the next chapter.
101
Chapter 3.
Critical International Theory and the Politics of
Subjectivity

Introduction
In light of our discussion of the importance of philosophical

(epistemological and ontological) commitments in Chapter 1, Chapter 2 was
concerned with establishing that Linklater's 'critical' approach to international
theory is predicated on a foundational commitment to existence of the ethical
subject; a commitment, we argued, that submits him to a form of metaphysical
(epistemological and ontological) dualism. Given our foundational left-Hegelian
commitment to human freedom, a commitment shared by Linklater, this chapter
evaluates the ethical and emancipatory credentials of Linklater's emancipatory
cosmopolitanism.
In order to clarify where we follow and where we depart from Linklater's

approach to international theory, we begin our discussion with an outline of what
Linklater claims to be the four main achievements of Critical Theory: its challenge
to positivism, its challenge to the immutability thesis, its reconstruction of
historical materialism, and its development of a discourse theory of morality.
While affirming the first two, we remain sceptical regarding the last two, as we
consider them dependent on a foundational commitment to ethical subjectivity,
which we intend to challenge. We turn to a discussion of discourse ethics to
demonstrate this claim, and explore the nature of this approach to morality along
with some of the central objections that have been raised to it.
PART 1/Ch.3. Critical International Theory and the Politics of Subjectivity
We then highlight what has been the major fault-line of CIRT since the
1980s: drawn between those proceeding according to a foundational commitment
to a (potentially) rational, autonomous subject, and those that challenge such a
commitment. We see that a common weakness amongst dissidents is that, while
disputing the ontological commitments of foundationalist approaches, they often
leave their own ontological commitments in the dark. Suggesting that the
foundationalist/anti-foundationalist debate in normative theory bears striking
similarities with the realist/idealist dispute in the philosophy of science, we argue
that a greater degree of reflexivity about the relation between subject and object
might help us transcend this debate.
Having surveyed several recent moves in critical international theory, which

move further and further away from a foundational commitment to ethical
subjectivity, we reinforce our objection that Linklater's emancipatory
cosmopolitanism is based on an overvaluation of one human potentiality (ethical
subjectivity). In short, although both Linklater and Habermas are committed to a
form of ethical constructivism that, like Hegel, subordinates knowledge
construction to the historical process and the interaction of human beings (in this
case knowledge about ethical principles) the problem is that they predicate this
construction, not on the interaction between human beings qua human beings, but
on the interaction between human beings qua ethical subjects.1 We learn that not
only is ethically insufficient, because recognition is extended only to ethical
subjects, but it also complicates Linklater's commitment to emancipation;
Linklater's emancipatory cosmopolitanism, we thus conclude, may ultimately fail
by its own standards.

1. Shifting this analysis from epistemology to ethics does not entail a huge leap; especially given
that Habermas's account of discourse ethics insists on 'the cognitive "knowability" or rational
decidability of ethical principles and metaprinciples.' Fred R. Dallmayr, “Introduction,” in The
Communicative Ethics Controversy, ed. Seyla Benhabib and Fred Dallmayr (Cambridge MA: The
MIT Press, 1990), 2-3. On this claim, and for a recent critique of Rawls's constructivist approach to
justice from an epistemological angle, see Eric Thomas Weber, Rawls, Dewey, and Constructivism:
On the Epistemology of Justice (London: Continuum, 2010).
103
On the Achievements of Critical International Relations

Theory
The Challenge to Positivism
As we saw in Chapter 1, for the greater part of the latter half of the twentieth
century, positivism dominated the academic study of international relations. Its
methodological commitments dominated the 'neo-neo' orthodoxy of neo-realism
and neo-liberalism, both of which subscribed to what Brown calls the Rationalist
Actor Program, within which mainstream realist and liberal institutionalist scholars
such as Waltz, Keohane, and Axelrod looked to understand how rational actors
behave under conditions of anarchy.2 The first achievement of critical theory is to
take issue with positivism by arguing that knowledge does not arise from the
subject's neutral engagement with an objective reality, but reflects pre-existing
social purposes and interests; it then invites observers 'to reflect upon the social
construction and effects of knowledge and to consider how claims about neutrality
can conceal the role knowledge plays in reproducing unsatisfactory social
arrangements.'3 This meta-theoretical intervention has been crucial to both the
critique of neo-realism and to 'the gradual recovery of a project of enlightenment
and emancipation reworked to escape the familiar pitfalls of idealism.'4
Muting The Immutability Thesis
Secondly, critical theory stands opposed to empirical claims about the social
world that assume existing structures to be immutable.5 The central objection is
that 'notions of immutability support structured inequalities of power and wealth

2. Chris Brown, “Situating Critical Realism,” Millennium-Journal of International Studies 35, no. 2
(2007), 413.
3. Andrew Linklater, “The Achievements of Critical Theory,” in International Theory: Positivism
and Beyond, ed. Ken Booth Steve Smith, and Marysia Zalewski (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1996), 279.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
104
which are in principle alterable.'6 The immutability thesis, the idea that human
actions and social structures are 'natural and unchangeable rather than contingent
and renegotiable' is particularly important to neo-realism.7 Central to the neo-
realist position, most evident in the work of Kenneth Waltz, is the proposition that
the international system is made up of sovereign states that interact under a
condition of anarchy; that this structure of the international system is immutable,
and that the actions of international political actors are therefore constrained in a
fundamental way. Most notable in this regard are the constraining effects of an
immutable anarchy on the moral conduct of states in world politics, putative
constraints that Linklater notes 'have the consequence of absolving states of the
moral responsibility for devising practices which will bring more just forms of
world political organisation into existence.'8 From a Critical Theoretical point of
view, the problem with perspectives that subscribe to the immutability thesis is that
they serve to naturalise what is essentially social and historical; Critical Theorists
find this troubling because of their belief that human beings make their own history
and can in principle make it differently.9
Citing forceful challenges to the immutability thesis from Wendt (1987),

Ruggie (1983), Ashley (1988), Bartelson (1995), and Biersteker and Weber (1996),
Linklater supplements these assessments by drawing on critical social theory so
that we may be equipped to distinguish between 'the mutable from the immutable,
the natural from the contingent, in human affairs.'10 As a result, two robustly
defended claims of Kenneth Waltz have been challenged: '[t]he first is that the

6. Ibid.
7. Ibid., 282.
8. Andrew Linklater, The Transformation of Political Community: Ethical Foundations of the Post-
Westphalian Era (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1998), 19.
9. Linklater gives three examples in support of this belief. The first is Marx's critique of bourgeois
political economy, which supposed the institution of private property was natural. The second is
Hegel's critique of the Indian caste-system, which contended that nature decreed that human beings
be arranged into sharply divided social categories. The third is the feminist critique of the
patriarchal claim that the nature of womanhood precludes full involvement in the political realm.
For Marx, private property is not a natural institution but an historical product to be overcome
within Communist society. For Hegel, caste distinctions are not given in nature but arise within a
particular ensemble of social relations in which spirit has yet to release itself from nature. For
feminism, nothing in the nature of womanhood precludes full involvement in a public realm, which
can be reconstituted in the post-patriarchal state. Andrew Linklater, “The Achievements of Critical
Theory,” 282.
105
international system, which has been remarkably similar across whole millennia,
will endure indefinitely. The second is that the anarchic system will thwart projects
of reform as in the past.'11 'The neo-realist riposte has been to insist that advancing
the moral case for a different world order will not prevent the recurrence of old
patterns of inter-state rivalry and war.'12 Although CT recognises that there are
constraints on emancipatory change, it avoids the neo-realist advocacy of
resignation to international political fate by examining prospects for greater
freedom immanent in existing social relations.13 Linklater's own contribution to
CIRT is to engage in an historical mode of analysis that aims to undermine the
neo-realist riposte to critical theory by highlighting philosophical contradictions
within the states-system, its historical contingency, an account of how we might
move beyond it, and a sociological analysis of historical processes that
demonstrates the potential for progressive change in human social relations in the
international realm.
The Reconstruction of Historical Materialism
The most distinctive aspects of Linklater's own contribution to CIRT, which

are most prominent in Transformation and in later publications such as The
Problem of Harm, reflect what he considers to be the third and fourth contributions
of CT. These involve challenging Marx and Marxism 'in order to develop a more
adequate account of social evolution and an improved normative standpoint.'14 The
crucial theme here is the move in critical social theory, inaugurated by Habermas's
reconstruction of historical materialism (the third achievement of CT), from the
paradigm of production to the paradigm of communication, and the subsequent
development of a discourse theory of morality (the fourth achievement of CT).
These achievements are responses to the perceived weaknesses in Marxism, which
are reddressed by:

11. Andrew Linklater, “Neo-Realism in Theory and Practice,” in International Relations Theory
Today, ed. Ken Booth and Steve Smith (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995), 241.
12. Ibid.
13. Andrew Linklater, “The Achievements of Critical Theory,” 280.
14. Ibid., 284.
106
developing the idea of undistorted communication, creating a more complex historical

sociology which is based on the idea of social learning and envisaging the democratisation
of politics, domestic and international. These important developments rework the Marxian
analysis of the historical development of species capacities and construct an account of
human emancipation which is concerned with enlarging the meaning and scope of
discourse rather than with elaborating the relationship between the species and nature.15
Habermas's reconstruction of historical materialism recognises that there are

several axes of social exclusion, of which class power is not necessarily the most
fundamental form, and that forces including, but not limited to, production shape
history. In particular, Linklater regards Habermas's emphasis on forms of social
learning to open new possibilities for the construction of an 'historical sociology
with an emancipatory purpose,' which Linklater develops in his work on civilising
processes and the harm principle.16
The Discourse Theory of Morality
Based upon Habermas's general theory of communicative action and

Lawrence Kohlberg's analysis of individual stages of cognitive development,
where post-conventional morality is identified as the highest form of morality,
according to Linklater the fourth contribution of CT is the establishment of
unconstrained communication as the normative ideal by which the validity of
moral and political principles may be tested. This entails, inter alia, 'a willingness
to question all social and political boundaries and all systems of inclusion and
exclusion.'17 The normative ideal of undistorted communication thus provides an
evaluative tool for critical social theory, and hence:
[C]ritical theory judges social arrangements by their capacity to embrace open dialogue
with all others and envisages new forms of political community which break with
unjustified exclusion [...] Critical theory [...] envisages the use of unconstrained discourse
to determine the moral significance of national boundaries and to examine the possibility
of post-sovereign forms of political life.18

15. Ibid., 284-85.
16. Ibid., 280.
17. Ibid., 285-86.
18. Ibid., 280.
107
For reasons to be given in what follows, we affirm the first two contributions
of CT but remain sceptical regarding the third and the fourth. Linklater is correct to
reflect on the social construction and effects of knowledge, and to challenge the
immutability thesis in order to provide an opening for progressive and
emancipatory approaches to International Relations. He is also right to argue that a
challenging question for international political theory today is how to balance
between pluralist identities and necessary universalisations.19 The problem is that
the accounts of universality and freedom that emerge from Habermas's
reconstruction of historical materialism and the subsequent development of a
discourse theory of morality are based on a dualist commitment to the ethical
subject. Turning now to a discussion of discourse ethics, we will explore the nature
of this approach to morality, highlight some of its weaknesses before
demonstrating the role that it plays in Linklater's CIRT.
On Discourse Ethics
Moral Cognitivism
Purporting to be a universalistic, democratic form of moral practical

reasoning guided by justice, discourse ethics depends on Habermas's general
theory of communicative action, which emphasises the centrality of consent to
intelligible communication. 20 Reacting against a prevalent mood of moral
scepticism, and following the linguistic turn in philosophy (the turn from a focus

19. Andrew Linklater, International Relations: Critical Concepts in Political Science (London:
Routledge, 2000). cited by Hartmut Behr, A History of International Political Theory: Ontologies of
the International (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010), 10.
20. Richard Devetak, “Critical Theory,” in Theories of International Relations, ed. Andrew
Linklater Scott Burchill, et al. (London: Macmillan, 1996), 171. Jürgen Habermas, Theory of
Communicative Action, vol. 1. Reason and the Rationalization of Society (Cambridge: Polity Press,
1986); Jürgen Habermas, Theory of Communicative Action, vol. 2: Lifeworld and System: A
Critique of Functionalist Reason (London: Heinenmann, 1989). See also William Outhwaite,
Habermas: A Critical Introduction (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1994), 68-120.; J.M.
Bernstein, Recovering Ethical Life: Jürgen Habermas and the Future of Critical Theory (London:
Routledge, 1995), 35-57,88-135.
108
on subjectivity or consciousness to one on language), Habermas's account of

discourse ethics insists on 'the cognitive "knowability" or rational decidability of
ethical principles and metaprinciples.'21 Proceeding from the presumption that 'no
vantage point other than discourse itself can provide the objectivity once grounded
in religious authority and metaphysical worldviews,' the aim of discourse ethics is
therefore 'to recover moral objectivity in a posttraditional world no longer able to
look to an overarching moral authority agreeable to all.'22 Discourse ethics is thus
an attempt to provide a non-metaphysical ground for praxis, allied to the
contention that philosophy can avoid metaphysical accounts of reason by showing
how rationality is 'embodied not in metaphysical principles, but in the assumptions
embodied in the activity of discursive communication.'23
Sharing their commitment to the central role that the exercise of human
reason plays in relation to the attainment of moral autonomy, public justice and
progress, discourse ethics owes substantial debts to the philosophies of Kant,
Hegel, and Marx. Habermas's discourse theory of morality shares with Kant the
view that human autonomy involves the adoption of a universalist standpoint from
which to evaluate and justify our actions. However, rather than subjecting maxims
to monological reasoning to make sure they accord with the categorical imperative,
for Habermas a universal standpoint may be achieved through linguistically
mediated inter-subjective communication; his account thus represents a dialogical
account of moral reasoning.
Integrating Hegel's and Marx's insights that the autonomous subject was not an isolated
Cartesian ego, but a historically and socially situated, concrete, and embodied self, in the
early phases of their formulations, they extended this Enlightenment ideal into a general
critique of the material and social conditions which hindered its realisation. In this task,
they were inspired by Hegel's critique of Kant, which showed the necessity of developing

21. Fred R. Dallmayr, “Introduction,” 2-3.
22. William Rehg, Insight and Solidarity: The Discourse Ethics of Jürgen Habermas (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1997), 34.
23. David Hoy and Thomas McCarthy, Critical Theory (Oxford: Blackwell, 1994), 148. 'Praxis, in
the old Aristotelian sense, referred to a dimension of action which was categorically 'ethical'
because it could not be separated from a person's essential being or character (ethos); it meant a
doing which was also a being. It also implied action directed towards a particular end (telos), but an
end immanent within the very means used to achieve it, the practice of 'virtue'.' John Milbank,
Theology and Social Theory: Beyond Secular Reason (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2005), 161.
109
a critique of pure reason into a phenomenology of human spirit - the story of reason's
historical and cultural becoming. Reason was thus given a historical, developmental core.24
Critical Rationalism & the Reconstruction of the Kantian Subject
Habermas enlists this insight of Hegel's to lend support to the emancipatory

possibility that human subjects may involve themselves in the creation of their own
world from a critical rationalist perspective. In so doing, he draws on Kohlberg's
cognitivist theory of moral development, who in turn draws on Jean Piaget's theory
of moral education, both of whom adapt and apply Hegel's phenomenology of
human sprit.25 Distinguishing between pre-conventional, conventional, and post-
conventional stages of morality, Kohlberg identifies the post-conventional stage as
the highest form of morality.26 As Linklater explains, 'pre-conventional morality
exists when actors obey norms because they fear that non-compliance will be
sanctioned by a higher authority; conventional morality exists when norms are
observed because actors are loyal to a specific social group; post-conventional
morality exists when actors stand back from authority structures and group
membership and ask whether they are complying with principles which have
universal applicability.'27
As Habermas rightly points out, Kohlberg's empirical data is theory laden;

indeed, Kohlberg is quite explicit that he wants to follow Kantian practical
philosophy when he explains that the 'assumptions of our psychological theory are
naturally allied to the formalistic tradition in philosophic ethics from Kant to
Rawls. This isomorphism of psychological and normative theory generates the
claim that a psychologically more advanced stage of moral judgment is more

24. Seyla Benhabib, Critique, Norm, and Utopia: A Study of the Foundations of Critical Theory
(New York: Columbia University Press, 1986), 344.
25. Lawrence Kohlberg, “The Claim to Moral Adequacy of a Highest Stage of Moral Judgement,”
Journal of Philosophy 70 (1973), 632. Jean Piaget, The Moral Judgement of the Child
(Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1983).
26. Kohlberg's argument was first presented in his 1958 doctoral thesis under the title of The
Development of Modes of Moral Thinking and Choice in the Years 10 to 16
110
morally adequate, by moral philosophic criteria.' 28 Taking from Kohlberg the

moral cognitivism, the belief that moral subjects can approximate knowledge of
objective moral principles, Habermas modifies Kohlberg's account of post-
conventional morality by situating the procedural conditions of post-conventional
morality within the dialogical framework of discourse ethics, where subjects are
required to publicly justify normative claims and convictions in order to assess
their validity: ratiocination is no longer an individual activity, as in Kant and
Kohlberg, but a collective one. Nonetheless, the moral cognitivist commitment to
the possibility of objective moral principles, and the Kantian ethical subject as both
the ground of such principles and the loci of ethical praxis, remains.29
Challenges to the Kantian-Habermasian Subject
It is these commitments that a range of diverse perspectives from feminist,

poststructuralist, post-colonial, philosophical hermeneutic, and normative political
theory variously take issue with. 30 David Campbell, for example, draws on
Foucault, Heidegger and Nietzsche to make the claim that a 'fundamental
presumption' that enables Habermas's position is a metaphysics of subjectivity,
since it 'makes possible ideas of autonomy and rights as the basis of freedom.'31
Martin Weber disputes this charge, claiming that it 'misses the point of the
pervasive departure from just this framework in Habermas's turn to

28. Jürgen Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action (Cambridge, Mass.: The
MIT Press, 1992). Lawrence Kohlberg, “The Claim to Moral Adequacy of a Highest Stage of Moral
Judgement,” 632.
29. For an introduction to Habermas's moral and political theory, and Habermas's roots in, and
differences from Kant, see Thomas McCarthy, “Kantian Constructivism and Reconstructivism:
Rawls and Habermas in Dialogue,” Ethics 105 (1994): 44-63.
30. Carol Gilligan, In a Different Voice (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993). David
Campbell, “Why Fight? Humanitarianism, Principles, and Post-Structuralism,” Millennium-Journal
of International Studies 27, no. 3 (1998), 504-10. Naeem Inayatullah and David L. Blaney,
International Relations and the Problem of Difference (London: Routledge, 2004), 122-23. Richard
Shapcott, Justice, Community and Dialogue in International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2001). Beate Jahn, “One Step Forwards, Two Steps Back: Critical Theory as the
Latest Edition of Liberal Idealism,” Millennium-Journal of International Studies 27 (1998): 613-41.
31. David Campbell, “Why Fight? Humanitarianism, Principles, and Post-Structuralism,” 504.
111
intersubjectivity, as well as a carefully crafted account of autonomy that does not

rely on a Kantian account of 'unencumbered selves.'32
Nonetheless, turning from subjectivity to intersubjectivity does not extricate

ourselves from a commitment to subjectivity. As Richard Shapcott demonstrates,
in its requirement that discursive agents accept the rational presuppositions of
discourse, discourse ethics relies on participants adopting a post-conventional form
of agency. The problem, as he sees it, is that the account of the kind of
consciousness that is required to engage in conversation 'equates individual human
development with the awareness of the possibility of universality and equates
universality with maturity.'33 Since it presupposes that discourse is only possible
between agents that have transcended their pre-conventional or conventional
moralities, the consequence is that '[t]he other's equality is only realised when they
are emancipated, when they become modern, reflexive unalienated individuals,
when they are assimilated.'34 This puts the discursive objective of assessing the
validity (i.e., the rationality) of claims in tension with objective of universal
inclusion, and gives rise to the possibility of legitimating either the exclusion of
certain agents, or their assimilation.
The Dual Context of Moral Maturity
Another important challenge to discourse ethics arises out of Carol Gilligan's

criticism that Kohlberg's theory of moral development is one sided, since his
account of moral maturity leaves no room for human relationships and care for
others.35 One of Gilligan's central contentions is that there is a dual context of

32. Martin Weber, “Engaging Globalization: Critical Theory and Global Political Change,”
Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 27, no. 3 (2002), 308.
33. Richard Shapcott, Justice, Community and Dialogue in International Relations, 119.
34. Ibid., 119-120,126.
35. Carol Gilligan, In a Different Voice, xii. In fairness to Habermas, he also claims that there must
be something more to moral maturity than Kohlberg account suggests, but his solution is to move
from monologue to dialogue, and strive for a dialogic relation founded on a universal ethics of
speech. Jürgen Habermas, Communication and the Evolution of Society, trans. Thomas McCarthy
(Boston: Beacon, 1979), 89-90. Jürgen Habermas, “Justice and Solidarity: On the Discussion
Concerning Stage 6,” in The Moral Domain: Essays in the Ongoing Discussion Between
112
moral maturity: between care and justice; an insight that has led to the
development of both a feminist, and a phenomenological, ethics of care. 36 A
comparable notion is also supported by both Paul Ricoeur and Axel Honneth in
their respective essays Love and Justice and Love and Morality.37 That this insight
has resonated so profoundly with moral theorists is unsurprising, after all:
Most of us would consider such a person very odd who bases his or her morality solely on
the Kantian notion of duty and justice, like Abraham who would sacrifice his son in the
name of duty. Likewise, most of us would consider immature a person who always listens
to his or her moral sentiments and never considers duty, impartiality, and validly agreed
rules and laws.38
From this perspective, what is objectionable about post-conventional

morality is its emphasis on the supremacy of moral rationality. For Benhabib this
requires that moral subjects abstract from lived experience and adopt the
perspective of what she calls the 'generalised other.'39 From this perspective our
interaction with other people is governed by the norm of formal reciprocity, where
'each is entitled to expect and to assume from us what we can expect and assume
from him or her [...] If I have a right to 'x,' then you have the duty not to hinder me
from enjoying 'x,' and vice versa. In treating you in accordance with these norms, I

Philosophy and the Social Sciences, ed. Thomas E. Wren (Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press,
1990).
36. Nel Noddings, Caring: A Feminist Approach to Ethics and Moral Education (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1984). Seyla Benhabib, Situating the Self: Gender, Community and
Postmodernism in Contemporary Ethics (Oxford: Polity, 1992). Joan C. Tronto, Moral Boundaries:
A Political Argument for an Ethic of Care (London: Routledge, 1993). Virginia Held, Feminist
Morality: Transforming Culture, Society, and Politics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1993). Joanna Hodge, Heidegger and Ethics (London: Routledge, 1995). Patricia Benner, “The
Quest for Control and the Possibilities of Care,” in Heidegger, Coping, and Cognitive Science:
Essays in Honour of Hubert L. Dreyfus, ed. Mark Wrathall and Jeff Malpas (Cambridge, MA: The
MIT Press, 2000). John Paley, “Heidegger and the Ethics of Care,” Nursing Philosophy 1, no. 1
(2000): 64-75.
37. Paul Ricoeur, “Love and Justice,” in Paul Ricoeur: The Hermeneutics of Action (Thousand
Oaks: Sage, 1996). Axel Honneth, Disrespect: The Normative Foundations of Critical Theory
(London: Polity, 2007), 174.
38. Leena Kakkori and Rauno Huttunen, “The Gilligan-Kohlberg Controversy and Its
Philosophico-Historical Roots,” Encyclopaedia of Philosophy of Education (accessed 26th June,
2012), 19. As we shall see in Chapter 8 these arguments are both foreshadowed and outshone by
Hegel's simultaneous response to Kant's moral formalism and theories of moral sentiments from
members of the Scottish Enlightenment.
39. Seyla Benhabib, Critique, Norm, and Utopia, 340-41.
113
confirm in your person the rights of humanity, and I have a legitimate claim to
expect that you will do the same in relation to me.'40
This perspective is contrasted with that of the 'concrete other,' where each
and every human being is treated as 'an individual with a concrete history, identity,
and affective-emotional constitution,' and our relations are governed by the norm
of 'complimentary reciprocity,' where 'each is entitled to expect and to assume
from the other forms of behaviour through which the other feels recognised and
confirmed as a concrete, individual being with specific needs, talents, and
capacities.'41 The characteristic norms of such interaction are those of solidarity,
friendship, love and care, where our interactions go beyond what is strictly
required of us as rights-bearing persons.42 Treating each other in this way confirms
not just our respective humanity, abstractly conceived, but our individuality.43
Interpretive Presuppositions of Consensus and Convergence
Further compounding the problems with discourse ethics are presuppositions

regarding the nature of interpretation that are embedded within Habermas's theory
of communicative action, upon which discourse ethics depends. While Habermas
recognises that we live in different 'life-worlds,' and that our understandings of the
world are conditioned by different background contexts that cannot be completely
represented in theory, he maintains that consensus is still possible, since he
believes that conflicts between first-order theories about object domains are
resolvable in the long run because they 'necessarily presuppose convergence on a
single focus imaginarius, a focal point that is beyond the present field of vision.'44
Consequently, his universalist approach to human interpretation 'posits two rational
presuppositions of rational discourse and inquiry: consensus and convergence.45 It

40. Ibid.
41. Ibid.
42. Ibid.
43. Ibid.
44. David Hoy and Thomas McCarthy, Critical Theory, 201.
45. Ibid.
114
remains to be seen whether these 'rational presuppositions' are warranted; after all,
we can engage others in rational discussion without presupposing that there is
ultimately one true interpretation of morally correct conduct; yet these are the
conditions of Habermas's moral cognitivism and his commitment to the ethical
subject: without them moral principles cannot be considered 'objective.'
The Logocentrism of Discourse Ethics
To recap, discourse ethics requires: i) the adoption of a post-conventional

form of agency that puts the objectives of universal inclusion and the rational
validation of norms in tension; ii) a one-sided perspective of moral maturity, and
iii) questionable presuppositions regarding the nature of human interpretation.
Alone and together, these objections challenge the suitability of discourse ethics
for an emancipatory cosmopolitanism, yet they are all implied in Linklater's
approach to CIRT. For this reason Blaney and Inayatullah are correct to criticise
Linklater for embracing pluralism in only a very truncated form.46 They realise that
'Linklater would surely protest that what he proposes is really nothing more than a
set of "procedural universals" that work to support dialogue by breaking sharply
“with any substantive vision of a good [global] society,”' but rightly recognise that
this response would be deceptive:
as is the similar appeal to a 'thin' proceduralism in liberal thinking generally, including that
in Grotius, Hobbes, and Locke. Rather than being neutral and thereby capable of being
embraced by all, regardless of ethical or political view, it is clear that procedural liberalism
entails a particularly liberal vision of the individual and the cultivation of a peculiarly
liberal set of virtues that may be at odds with and threaten alternative modes of life (see
Galston, 1986; Nandy, 1990; and Hopgood, 2000). Iris Marion Young (1996:123-124)
would also add that the idea of a dialogic community as a deliberative device also
presumes and privileges certain ways of speaking (formal, general, and rationalistic) [...]
Thus, the claim of neutrality or universal consent ‘misrecognizes the partisanship on which
it rests’ (Connolly, 1995:124), and Linklater’s universalism appears as only a particular
(relatively thick and substantive) vision among many. Interestingly, Linklater is quite
aware of this critique (see Linklater, 1996a:290-292; and 1998: 87-100), but he seems to
mostly brush such concerns aside as he returns to his single-minded pursuit of a
cosmopolitan view. Thus [...] Linklater's (global) liberal modernization appears, in
Nandy's terms, as the hegemonic framework within which all other forms of cultural life

46. Naeem Inayatullah and David L. Blaney, International Relations and the Problem of
Difference, 110.
115
are judged. And [...] deviations from the global liberal vision are judged (at least
implicitly) as backward, regressive, or corrupt unless assimilated to the dominant vision.47
This criticism is on the right track, but it is a little overzealous and somewhat
lacking in nuance. In essence though, the problem with both Habermas’s discourse
theory of morality and Linklater’s adoption of it, is the relation of subject to
subject necessary for the rational reconstruction of universal norms – since this
subject-subject relation presupposes a faith in the reconciliatory potential of human
reason, a ‘thin’ conception of the subject regarding the communicative competence
to engage in discussion, and the subject’s inclination to both engage in such an
activity and to act according to principles thus derived.48 These presuppositions are
all implicated in Linklater’s emancipatory cosmopolitanism, and are necessary for
his defence of freedom and universality; yet it remains to be seen whether they are
necessary for, or even conducive to, an emancipatory cosmopolitanism.
Linklater’s Defence of Universality
We saw in Chapter 2 that the basic theme uniting Men and Citizens,
Transformation and Linklater’s later work on harm is the idea of moral inclusion
and the extension of rights to ‘outsiders,’ and that in Transformation this leads to
the normative, sociological and praxeological analysis of practices of exclusion in
international society – in short, that Linklater’s normative commitment to universal
inclusion is what drives his approach to CIRT, as it is this that leads him to
problematise practices of exclusion. While affirming his problematisation of
practices of exclusion, the problem with this strategy is that it is predicated on the
inclusion/exclusion of the subject. For practical and philosophical reasons
universal inclusion was not conceived politically, after all states are predicated on
the differential treatment of citizens and non-citizens, and Linklater’s argument

47. Ibid., 111-12.
48. On this point see the dispute between Schiller and Kant on the relation between duty and
inclination Friedrich Schiller, Werke. Nationalausgabe, vol. 1-42 (Weimar: Böhlau, 1943), 357.
Henry E. Allison, Kant’s Theory of Freedom (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 180-
184,275n3.
116
about post-Westphalian forms of community led not to the demise of the state but
its reconstruction. Rather, universal inclusion was conceived in moral terms, where
universality was reconceived as the universal responsibility to engage in dialogue.
Inclusion through Exclusion? The Nature and Function of Dialogue
It is not self-evident that Linklater’s defence of universalism can be charged

with having a coercive disregard for difference: a common charge against late-
Frankfurt School CIRT, especially from ‘poststructuralist’ or post-colonial
critics.49 Indeed, Linklater is not looking to undermine differences, but is actually
in favour of greater diversification, as reflected in his claim that his thin
cosmopolitanism is more radical than others because supporting ‘the development
of wider communities of discourse’ makes ‘new articulations of universality and
particularity possible.’50 He also later stresses that these wider communities of
discourse are explicitly concerned not only with tolerating difference but with
enlarging human diversity.51 For this reason Blaney and Inayatullah’s criticism that
‘dialogue functions only to break down barriers and moral estrangements, never to
reveal (perhaps irreconcilable) conflicts in values, identities, and forms of life’ is
unfair. 52 For Linklater, particularist claims to irreconcilable differences are
perfectly legitimate, so long as they are made through an engagement with the
other based upon post-conventional reasoning: ‘communicating subjects [need] to
rationalise or account for their beliefs and actions in terms which are intelligible to
others and which they can accept or contest.’53 Herein lies the rub.

49. Martin Weber, “Engaging Globalization: Critical Theory and Global Political Change.” Weber
cites Campbell as an example: David Campbell, “Why Fight? Humanitarianism, Principles, and
Post-Structuralism.” On the post-colonial criticism, see the quote from Inayatullah and Blaney
above.
51. Andrew Linklater, “The Changing Contours of Critical International Relations Theory,” in
Critical Theory and World Politics, ed. Richard Wyn-Jones (Boulder: Lynne Reiner, 2001), 43.
52. Naeem Inayatullah and David L. Blaney, International Relations and the Problem of
Difference, 122.
53. Richard Devetak, “Critical Theory,” 171.
117
The value of greater dialogue should not be at issue; Lyotard is surely correct
to argue that ‘the right to speak, and the right of the different not to be excluded
from the speech community, are fundamental rights.’54 What is at issue is the
nature and the function of dialogue. For instance, the concern for Brown is whether
any particular voices are heard louder than others: ‘[c]learly voices cannot be
excluded arbitrarily, and it would be wrong to suggest that either Habermas or his
followers employ Eurocentric or gender-based criteria to restrict the voices that can
be heard. The more compelling criticism is that although these and other dissenting
voices are heard, the cost is that dissenters are obliged to speak in a particular kind
of way, using, as it were, “received pronunciation” rather than the dialects they
employ in everyday life.’55
In regards the latter, the issue is the commitment to the function of dialogue
as a way of transcending moral particularity and extending moral inclusion. In
Chapter 2 we saw that Linklater responds to anti-foundational criticisms of
cosmopolitanism from the likes of Rorty by distinguishing between thick and thin
versions of cosmopolitanism, associating himself with a thin cosmopolitanism that
entails ‘no fixed and final vision of the future.’56 The validity of the latter claim
will not concern us here: the more pertinent issue is that this thin cosmopolitanism
does entail substantive commitments about how that future should be determined.
To put a finer point on it, we should be taking issue with Linklater’s claim that
discourse ethics involves ‘the willingness to engage wildly different human beings
qua human beings,’ because this future is not to be determined by human beings
qua human beings, but as human beings qua ethical subjects.57

54. Jean-François Lyotard, “The Other’s Rights,” in On Human Rights: The Oxford Amnesty
Lectures, ed. S. Shute and S. Hurley (New York: Basic Books, 1993). Quoted by Andrew Linklater,
The Transformation of Political Community, 98.
55. Chris Brown, “”Our Side”? Critical Theory and International Relations,” in Critical Theory and
World Politics, ed. Richard Wyn Jones (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2001), 198. This criticism
reflects Iris Marion Young's criticism, referred to in the Inayatullah and Blaney quote above.
57. Ibid., 87. Indeed, in the phrase 'wildly different human beings' 'qua human beings' is quite
telling, since the adjective 'wildly different' drops from the latter. Rather than saying 'human beings
qua human beings,' to say 'wildly different human beings qua human beings' is precisely to neglect
the 'wildly different' feature of human beings and impose the idea of 'human beings' upon them:
different human beings are not then engaged as different human beings, but as similarly rational
human beings. I thank Hidemi Suganami for a discussion on this point.
118
Including the Ethical Subject
We saw in Chapter 2 that Linklater interprets anti-foundational criticisms of

cosmopolitanism as revolving around a rejection of the possibility of an
Archimedean viewpoint, which duly leads to his advocacy of a thin
cosmopolitanism where ‘universality takes the form of a responsibility to engage
others [...] in open dialogue.'58 It is this normative ideal, the ideal of unconstrained
communication, that provides Linklater the means with which to ground an
extension of the moral community, to thereby approximate universal moral
inclusion and problematise practices of exclusion. The problem however is that
Linklater's reconceived universalism is predicated on the projection of an ethical
subject, because to be included within the moral community broader than the state,
presumably one must adopt the position of a post-conventional discourse agent, as
this is how the validity of competing particularist claims might be evaluated.59 That
recognition is extended only to others in so far as they are identical with ourselves,
that they are similarly rational agents, reveals the profound ethical deficiency of
the discourse theory of morality that underwrites Linklater's defence of
universalism.60
The problem is Linklater's explicit commitment to foundationalism.61 He

does not regard this to be particularly contentious, citing the foundationalism of
Kant and Habermas, for whom 'the evolution of a critical orientation towards
exclusion and difference' is regarded 'as exemplifying progress towards a rational
morality with universal significance,' and it is on this foundationalist belief that

58. Ibid., 48-49,101-102.
59. In fairness to Linklater, it is not clear whether he goes as far as to submit to the full implications
of Habermas's moral theory, yet this may simply be because he does not feel the need to go into the
details of this theory in a book in international theory that covers a lot of ground. Yet by deploying
Habermas's arguments and not addressing such an issue, Linklater can be criticised by extension.
60. Dallmayr points out (in the context of Nussbaum's moral globalism, rather than Linklater's),
such treatment 'is egocentric in the sense that it appropriates or reduces the alter to the rational self
(or ego), instead of recognizing the distinct otherness of fellow beings.' Fred R. Dallmayr,
“Cosmopolitanism: Moral and Political,” Political Theory 31, no. 3 (2003), 439.
61. See Andrew Linklater, The Transformation of Political Community, 76.
119
Linklater builds his emancipatory cosmopolitanism.62 However, just as CT takes

issue with positivism by arguing that knowledge does not arise from the subject's
neutral engagement with an objective reality but reflects pre-existing social
purposes and interests, inviting observers to reflect upon the effects of knowledge,
the problem with foundationalism is not simply the impossibility of an
Archimedean viewpoint, but lies with the political and social implications of
foundational commitments, such as those to ethical subjectivity.63
In his concession to anti-foundationalism Linklater cites Hegel's 'famous

critique of the categorical imperative' as one influential example of the rejection of
the possibility of an Archimedean standpoint; yet, as we shall see in Part 3, Hegel's
critique of Kant's moralism goes much further than simply rejecting the possibility
of 'objective knowledge of permanent moral truths,' and he is far more concerned
with the social and political implications of Kant's commitment to the ethical and
epistemological subject.64 This is a crucial and important argument that is either
overlooked or ignored by Linklater. In summary then, although Linklater is correct
to argue that it is not universalism that should be at issue in debates about ethics
and difference, his thin cosmopolitan defence of universalism is neither thin
enough nor radical enough.65
Rationality, Freedom, Subjectivity: The Major Fault-line of

CIRT
Subjectivity: Freedom as Autonomy
The deeper problem indicated by Linklater's foundational commitment is that

his emancipatory cosmopolitanism is based on a limited understanding of human
freedom, where freedom is associated with rationality and the exercise of a

62. Ibid.
65. Ibid.
120
foundational ethical subjectivity. Such a commitment to a rational autonomous

subject is one of the hallmarks of political modernity. Reacting against the hold of
religious authority and superstition on seventeenth and eighteenth century social
life, thinkers such as Descartes and Kant tried to install the individual as ground of
knowledge and action in the world, as the cogito ergo sum and the transcendental
unity of apperception respectively. It was through the exercise of theoretical and
practical reason that humans were able to shed their superstitions and irrational
religious beliefs and thereby proceed to establish reliable knowledge about the
world and thus gain increasing control over themselves, the natural environment
and their social relations.
Of course, understandings of freedom have developed over the past three

hundred years, but the autonomous ethical subject as envisaged by Kant still
remains pervasive, especially in late-Frankfurt School CT.66 Just as Linklater's
dialectical treatment of rationalism and historicism in Men and Citizens results in
Kant's ethical subject being sublated into a philosophical-historical understanding
of man, in Habermas the Kantian ethical subject is resuscitated in light of, and with
the aid of, Hegel's critique. This demonstrated the necessity of developing both
Kant's critique of pure reason and the a priori subject into a phenomenology of
human spirit, where reason is given an historical and progressive core.67
While the subsequent paradigm shift from the production (or work) model of
action operative in Hegel and Marx to communicative interaction in Habermas
brought with it a change in the understanding of freedom that underwrites the
emancipatory aims of CT, we ultimately return to a form of neo-Kantianism.68
'[A]utonomy is no longer conceived of as self-legislation (Kant), self-actualisation
(Hegel and Marx), or reconciliation with otherness (Adorno and Horkheimer). It is
viewed instead as the capacity to adopt a universalist standpoint and act on this

66. This includes second and third generation Frankfurt School critical theorists, specifically
Habermas and Honneth.
67. Seyla Benhabib, Critique, Norm, and Utopia, 344. As we shall se in Chapter 6 Habermas's
emergent dualist commitment to the foundational subject represents a significant but an ill-advised
retreat from Hegel's own position.
68. Ibid., 346.
121
basis.' 69 The project of Hegel's Phenomenology returns 'in the form of a

"reconstruction" of the empirical history of the competencies of the species.'70 In
Habermas's case this takes the form of a requirement that the universal discourse
community be comprised of post-conventional agents cognisant of the rational
presuppositions of discourse. Linklater both endorses Habermas's position and
emboldens it in more recent work with the aid of Norbert Elias' historical
sociology.71
The Anti-Foundationalist Challenge
A common response is to remain suspicious about the universality of such

claims to subjectivity, and hence to reject the accounts of freedom, reason, or
community upon which emancipatory or cosmopolitan approaches to politics such
as Linklater's are based. 72 Nietzsche is a particularly influential referent for
challenges to the emancipatory role of reason. Responding to such scepticism
directed toward the Enlightenment and its idea of political life governed by reason,
Martha Nussbaum's essay Kant and Cosmopolitanism opens with a spirited attack
on thinkers sceptical of enlightened human reason.

69. Ibid.
70. Ibid.
71. Andrew Linklater, “A European Civilising Process?,” in International Relations and the
European Union, ed. Christopher Hill and Michael Smith (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005);
Andrew Linklater, “Civilizing Processes and International Societies,” in Globalization and Global
History, ed. Barry K. Gills and William R. Thompson (London: Routledge, 2006); Andrew
Linklater, “Towards a Sociology of Global Morals With an ‘Emancipatory Intent’,” in Critical
International Theory After 25 Years, ed. Nicholas Rengger and Ben Thirkell-White (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2007); Andrew Linklater, “Global Civilizing Processes and the
Ambiguities of Human Interconnectedness,” European Journal of International Relations 16, no. 2
(2010): 155; Andrew Linklater, “Process Sociology and International Relations,” The Sociological
Review 59 (2011): 48-64; Andrew Linklater, The Problem of Harm in World Politics, vol. 1
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011).
72. For instance, Hutchings identifies 'dangerous and unwarranted' temporal assumptions in CIRT
that 'distract attention from political plurality, and thereby risk repeating ‘the hubris of Western
political imaginaries.' Kimberley Hutchings, “Happy Anniversary! Time and Critique in
International Relations Theory,” in Critical International Theory After 25 Years, ed. Nicholas
Rengger and Ben Thirkell-White (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 89.
122
Nussbaum writes that 'under the influence of Nietzsche, eminent thinkers of

quite different sorts have felt dissatisfaction with a politics based on reason and
principle' and have looked to base politics 'less on reason and more on communal
solidarity, less on principle and more on affiliation, less on optimism for progress
than a sober acknowledgement of human finitude and solidarity.'73 All of them are
supposedly 'united in their opposition to a hopeful, active, and reason-based
politics grounded in an idea of reverence for rational humanity wherever we find
it.'74 The arch-foe, she notes, tends to be Kant, because 'Kant, more influentially
than any other Enlightenment thinker' defended a 'truly universal,' 'active, reformist
and optimistic' politics 'based upon reason.'75
Contrary to Nussbaum's portrayal, the real point of contention is not the

objection to a hopeful, active or rational politics, neither is it a rejection of the
reverence of humanity; as Dallmayr notes, 'what unites these diverse thinkers is
their opposition to "foundationalism," which is another word for homogenising
universalism.'76 The point of contention thus lies in what are regarded as the
essentially ambivalent achievements of abstract or instrumental reason and the
problematic associations between reason, freedom, and foundational subjectivity
that operate in Kantian cosmopolitanism. Two examples of such objections –
Hegel's criticisms of Kant's universalism and Adorno's identification that the
achievement of instrumental reason has led to the rationalisation of modern
societies and the domination of institutions over people – are taken up by
'postmodernism,' but the latter are all dismissed by Nussbaum as 'Nietzscheans' or
'post-Nietzscheans.'77

73. Martha C. Nussbaum, “Kant and Cosmopolitanism,” in Perpetual Peace: Essays on Kant’s
Cosmopolitan Ideal, ed. James Bohman (Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1997), 25.
74. Ibid., 26.
75. Ibid., 27. See also Dallmayr's insightful reply: Fred R. Dallmayr, “Cosmopolitanism: Moral and
Political.”
76. Ibid., 430.
Rienner, 2001), 100. Fred R. Dallmayr, “Cosmopolitanism: Moral and Political,” 430.
123
An Inconsistent Critique?
The predictable riposte to anti-foundationalist scepticism is the familiar

charge that the historicist/communitarian/postmodernist rejoinder is self-defeating,
because they simultaneously criticise rational universality while relying on their
78
own implicit universalist claims. This is a cogent criticism. Cochran
demonstrates that 'while they are engaged in shining a spotlight on foundationalist
epistemologies, [postmodern anti-foundationalists] leave in the shadows the
ontologies at work in their own methodological assumptions,' and, despite their
protestations about modern subjectivities, 'a concept of the person and thoughts
about being [...] fuel the ethical claims that follow.' 79 She continues: '[t]he
poststructuralist's Foucauldian understanding of radical autonomy and Rorty's
"liberal ironist" motivate an ethics which aims to realise human autonomy to the
highest degree possible or imaginable.'80 Consequently, she rightly concludes that
'an unacknowledged foundationalism remains in the ontologies at work in their
projects' and that 'a turn away from epistemologically centred thinking places the
burden of standards for ethical judgement onto ontology.’81
And so, while Linklater and Habermas are concerned about potentially
conservative implications of anti-foundationalism, and thereby seek to re-establish
a criteria of truth via Habermas' account of discourse ethics and communicative
action, anti-foundationalists are concerned about the potentially assimilatory,
exclusive, or violent response to difference that foundational commitments entail.82
For their part, anti-foundationalists robustly dispute the charge of conservatism,
and it is worth noting that the dispute here is not over the commitment to human

78. See, for example, Linklater's criticism of historicism, Erskine's criticism of Walzer, and
Cochran's criticism of Rortyian or Foucauldian poststructuralism. Andrew Linklater, Men and
Citizens in the Theory of International Relations, 2nd ed. (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 1990),
130-33. Toni Erskine, Embedded Cosmopolitanism: Duties to Strangers and Enemies in a World of
‘Dislocated Communities’ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 137. Molly Cochran,
Normative Theory in International Relations: A Pragmatic Approach (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1999), 167-68.
79. Ibid.
80. Ibid.
81. Ibid., 167.
82. Jürgen Habermas, Theory of Communicative Action Vol. 1; Jürgen Habermas, Theory of
Communicative Action Vol. 2.
124
freedom.83 Ashley and Walker, for instance, explicitly claim that their theorising is
in a 'register of freedom,' although as Hutchings explains, this 'register of freedom
is identified with the Foucauldian notion of an imperative to constantly transgress
the boundaries of given limitation (in theory and practice) rather than with any
substantive ideal of a world without oppression.'84
Overcoming the Anti-foundationalist/Foundationalist Divide
We thus encounter what has been the major fault-line in critical theory since
the early 1980s: drawn 'between theories that are explicitly committed to the
legacy of the philosophy of history in the work of Kant, Hegel and Marx on the
one hand, and theories that deny the validity of the accounts of progress and
singularity inherent in that legacy on the other.'85 The mutual suspicion here is
justified, yet the two perspectives might not be incommensurable. Both are
motivated by a commitment to human freedom, but talk at cross-purposes because
their underlying philosophical (ontological and epistemological) commitments
remain opaque: whereas foundationalists associate freedom with the exercise of a
foundational (usually Kantian) subjectivity, anti-foundationalists demur the
universality of such a commitment, and hence question whether approaches to
politics that take it as a point of departure might constitute an abrogation of human
freedom rather than a defence of it.
By tracing the development of both ethical subjectivity and the political

conditions within which it might be fully appropriated, Linklater's emancipatory

83. For examples of the "affirmative" aspect of "poststructuralism" see Richard K. Ashley and
R.B.J. Walker, “Introduction: Speaking the Language of Exile: Dissident Thought in International
Studies,” International Studies Quarterly 34, no. 3 (1990): 259-68. D. Campbell, and M.J. Shapiro,
eds. Moral Spaces: Rethinking Ethics and World Politics (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press, 1999); David Campbell, “Why Fight? Humanitarianism, Principles, and Post-Structuralism.”
Nick Vaughan-Williams, “Beyond a Cosmopolitan Ideal: The Politics of Singularity,” International
Politics 44 (2007): 107-24. Richard Beardsworth, “The Future of Critical Philosophy and World
Politics,” Millennium-Journal of International Studies 34, no. 1 (2005): 201-35.
84. Kimberley Hutchings, “The Nature of Critique in Critical International Relations Theory,” in
Critical Theory and World Politics, ed. Richard Wyn Jones (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2001),
83.
85. Kimberley Hutchings, “Happy Anniversary!”, 77.
125
cosmopolitanism most definitely captures an important aspect of human freedom.

Nonetheless, 'post-structuralists' are also correct to identify the transgression of any
given limitation, including that of any established subjectivity, as another
important aspect of human freedom, and to recognise that an autonomous
subjectivity does not exhaust human freedom. They are also correct to recognise
that the foundational commitment to ethical subjectivity is mistaken and poses a
threat to other aspects of human freedom. However, bearing a striking similarity
with Michel's demonstration that debates in international theory about whether
epistemology or ontology comes first is based on a conflation of the ontological
difference between entities and the being of entities, that these two normative
perspectives commonly face each other as adversaries depends on under-theorised
philosophical (epistemological and ontological) assumptions that serve as the
grounds for their respective contributions.
We will recall from Chapter 1 that, while realists rightly observe that entities
exist independently of our claims to know them, the being of those entities does
not; idealists, on the other hand, who rightly maintain that the being of these
entities resides in human understanding, then make the problematic assumption
that this means that the entities themselves are also dependent upon human
understanding.86 The foundationalist/anti-foundationalist debate similarly conflates
the ontological difference. Foundationalists (such as Linklater and Habermas)
rightly recognise that human beings exist independent of our claims to know them,
but they then treat the being of those beings (as ethical subjects) as if it also had a
mind-independent existence; anti-foundationalists rightly recognise that the 'ethical
subject' is a mind-dependent construction, yet since a foundational commitment to
ethical subjectivity leads to potentially exclusive and violent responses to
difference, and due to their commitment to 'irony' or radical autonomy where
freedom is often equated with resistance, they fail to recognise that ethical
subjectivity is a significant historical achievement, and that 'acting as if' we were
ethical subjects is an important aspect of human freedom. We might then draw a
similar conclusion to Michel's concerning the realist/idealist debate: that the debate

86. Torsten Michel, “In Heidegger’s Shadow: A Phenomenological Critique of Critical Realism,”
Review of International Studies 38 (2012), 213.
126
between foundationalists and anti-foundationalists only arises because of

underlying dualist commitments to a foundational split between (cognitive) subject
and (cognitive) object, and that these seemingly primitive ontological categories
are themselves in need of deeper reflection.87
Freedom as the Condition of Ethical Subjectivity: Foucault and Travail

Éthique
A further problem with Linklater's foundational commitment to subjectivity

is that it remains blind to the fact that the process through which we become ethical
subjects is itself grounded in freedom; following Heidegger, this is a point made by
Foucault. That Linklater invests the time and space in both the postscript to Men
and Citizens and in Transformation to discussing Foucault and Rorty indicates that
he recognises the strength of the anti-foundationalist challenge, and perhaps also
that they share more in common than not. However, his 'gesture of embrace'
concedes too little to their critique.88 For instance, Linklater refers in his postscript
to Foucault's empirical work on 'moral subjectification,' which he simply reads as a
way to extend his discussion of the theme of the construction of the 'moral other' in
international politics.89
Yet in the passages to which Linklater refers, Foucault discusses the manner
in which persons form themselves as ethical subjects, a discussion that presents a
powerful challenge to Kohlberg, Habermas, and Linklater's foundational
commitments to subjectivity.90 In this passage Foucault distinguishes between a
'moral code' and moral conduct. Code morality is morality that relies on formal
moral rules, while moral conduct is itself differentiated into motivational guidance
and actual conduct. He writes: 'a rule of conduct is one thing; the conduct that may

87. Ibid., 214.
88. This apt phrase is Martin Weber's Martin Weber, “Engaging Globalization: Critical Theory and
Global Political Change,” 302.
89. Andrew Linklater, Men and Citizens, 220-221,226.
90. See Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality, trans. Robert Hurley, vol. 2: The Use of Pleasure
(New York: Vintage, 1985), 25-28. See also Dallmayr's discussion of this passage Fred R.
Dallmayr, “Cosmopolitanism: Moral and Political,” 430.
127
be governed by this rule is another. But another thing still is the manner in which
(one thinks) one ought to conduct oneself,' where one 'forms oneself as an ethical
subject.'91 This adoption of a position of ethical subjectivity is, for Foucault, a
practice of self-formation, which he calls 'ethical work' (travail éthique).92 As
Dallmayr explains in his commentary, moral conduct is not 'rigidly standardised
but is necessarily differentiated among individuals acting in different times and
places,' for modes of self-formation 'do not differ any less from one morality to
another' than do systems of rules and interdictions.'93
The Deficit of Moral Universalism
The significance of Foucault's argument for our current purposes is not only
that he demonstrates ethical subjectivity to be a labour one performs on oneself in
order to bring oneself into conformity with rules of conduct rather than an innate
human capacity (Kant), or the highest expression of moral maturity (Kohlberg,
Habermas, Linklater).94 Rather, it lies in the fact that, like Heidegger before him,
Foucault acknowledges that freedom is not simply the possession of the subject,
but is also the premise of moral conduct through which one transforms oneself into
an ethical subject. 95 As Foucault explained in an interview before his death,
'freedom has to be seen as the 'ontological condition' of human-being-in-the-world
and as the basis of ethics - where ethics denotes not so much a theory or a codified
set of rules but rather a practice or way of life (ethos).'96
Dallmayr calls the neglect of moral self-formation and the de-emphasis of

concrete motivation, both evident in Linklater's CIRT, the 'deficit of moral

91. Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality, 26.
92. Ibid., 27.
93. Fred R. Dallmayr, “Cosmopolitanism: Moral and Political,” 430.
94. Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality, 27.
96. Ibid. Referring to Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality, 28,54-55,73. Michel Foucault, The
History of Sexuality, trans. Robert Hurley, vol. 3. The Care of The Self (New York: Vintage, 1986).
and Michel Foucault, “The Ethic of Care for the Self as a Practice of Freedom: An Interview With
Michel Foucault on January 29, 1984,” in The Final Foucault, ed. James Bernauer and David
Rasmussen (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1988), 4-7.
128
universalism,' and argues that 'the issue is not simply the slighting of difference as
particularity (which, as such, might still be subsumable under universal rules) [...]
The issue is more serious and has to do with the privileging of moral theory over
praxis, that is, of principles over moral conduct and self-formation grounded in
freedom.'97 This issue of praxis brings into view the domain of politics, a domain
that is unavoidable given the quandaries of moral rules: 'Even assuming
widespread acceptance of universal norms, we know at least since Aristotle that
rules do not directly translate into praxis but require careful interpretation and
application.'98
The sidelining of politics by morality is the result of treating ethical

subjectivity as if it were foundational. Whereas Linklater assumes that we are
always already ethical subjects, and simply equates freedom as the exercise of this
subjectivity, what Foucault, following Heidegger, is pointing to is that we become
ethical subjects through moral conduct/subjectification, and that this process of
subjectification is itself grounded in freedom. Ethical subjectivity is itself therefore
conditional upon a more primordial (practical) freedom, and thus cannot simply be
associated with acting morally. We will explore the implications of this
praxeological aspect of freedom in our discussion of Heidegger's notion of
'solicitous being-with' in Chapter 4.
Freedom and Inter-Subjectivity
Foucault and Dallmayr's emphasis on the importance of praxis as well as

principles of moral conduct reflect promising moves in recent critical theory that
focus on the inter-subjective aspect of human freedom. One of the most
encouraging lines of inquiry in this regard can be found in the recognition theory
of Axel Honneth, a third generation Frankfurt School theorist, and in the work of
Shannon Brincat, whose recent doctoral thesis engages Linklater's CIRT through

98. Ibid.
129
Honneth.99 The relative balance of influence between Kant, Hegel and Marx shifts
in favour of Hegel in Honneth's work.100
Love, Rights, and Solidarity
In contrast to Habermas and Linklater's reliance on Kant, Honneth draws

more on early Hegel, whose theory of recognition is developed into a social-
psychological theory. In contrast to the influence of Kohlberg on Habermas and
Linklater, empirical support is lent to Hegel's speculative insight in the
Phenomenology into the intersubjective conditions of subjectivity with aid of
social psychologist George Herbert Mead and child psychologist David Winnicott,
where inter-subjective relationships of recognition are seen as crucial in the
development of individual personality.
For Honneth, the achievement of basic self-confidence in childhood is

supplemented in the further development of personality in later life by the
development of self-respect and self-esteem. 101 A loving relationship (such as
parental love) is the basis of self-confidence, while self-respect involves the
awareness of oneself as a person, as a responsible moral agent entitled to the same
status and treatment as every other person; while self-esteem involves the sense of
what it is that makes the self a distinctive individual and is developed through the
person's participation in activity that is of value to the community. 102 These
different practical relations to the self are connected to three different kinds of
recognition: love, rights, and solidarity.103

99. Axel Honneth, The Struggle for Recognition: The Moral Grammar of Social Conflicts
(Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1996); Axel Honneth, Disrespect: The Normative Foundations of
Critical Theory. Shannon Brincat, “Towards an Emancipatory Cosmopolitanism: Reconstructing
the Concept of Emancipation in Critical International Relations Theory” (Ph.D Thesis, University
of Queensland, 2011).
100. Although, as we shall see in Chapter 8, this does not go far enough, particularly in reference to
Honneth's Kantian view of morality.
101. Axel Honneth, The Struggle for Recognition: The Moral Grammar of Social Conflicts, 120.
102. Ibid., 121.
103. Ibid., Ch5.
130
It is the empirical experience of disrespect, or 'moral injustice,' when human

'subjects' are 'denied the recognition they deserve' and which create the moral
feelings of 'shame, anger or indignation' that provides Honneth with the
'pretheoretical basis for social critique.'104 The fillip to social change is then seen to
arise as a response to the injury of one of these forms of self-relation: the denial of
rights, for instance, is an injury to self-respect, and the emotional response to this
injury provides the affective motivation that can lead to resistance and the struggle
to have those rights recognised. In contrast to Habermas's notion of distorted
communication, these moral experiences are not 'aroused by a restriction of
linguistic capabilities' but by the 'violation of identity claims acquired in
socialisation.'105 The project of emancipation is therefore not just about securing
the conditions of subjectivity, but is also essentially connected to relations of inter-
subjectivity. While Honneth himself does not reflect much on the cosmopolitan
dimension of recognition theory, Brincat argues that the expansion of claims for
'love, rights and solidarity' in global social relations demonstrates that recognition
theory has a global dimension and that ethical life (in this case, claims for
recognition) simultaneously operates domestically and globally.106
The Emancipatory Credentials of Process Sociology
We will recall that Linklater's insistence on the 'tripartite structure' of any

critical theory enjoins a sociological analysis of the prospects for the realisation of
any normative argument, and that Linklater endorses Habermas's reconstruction of
Marx's historical materialism, which calls for an emancipatory historical sociology
based on the idea of social learning and the historical development of species
capacities; what we might refer to as an historical sociological analysis of the
actualisation of the ethical subject. Drawing on Elias, Linklater develops such an
approach in his later work on civilising processes and the harm principle. Brincat's

104. Ibid., xix.
105. Ibid., 163,167. See also Shannon Brincat, “Towards an Emancipatory Cosmopolitanism:,”
310-11.
106. Ibid., 360. A different perspective on 'ethical life,' also derived from Hegel, will be outlined in
Chapter 8
131
deployment of Honneth's theory of inter-subjective recognition represents a

promising move away from Linklater's foundational commitment to subjectivity,
one motivated by a scepticism regarding Linklater's later reliance on Elias's
process sociology, and one that gestures towards the recognition of what Dallmayr
identifies as the deficit of moral universalism. However, such a move, we shall see,
does not manage to overcome Linklater/Habermas's foundational commitment to
ethical subjectivity.
In light of Honneth and Joas's criticism of Elias, who demonstrate that Elias's
process sociology relies on the authoritarian and repressive structures of the state
as the 'necessary subjugating central authority for any gains toward "civilisation,"'
Brincat rightly questions the merits of Linklater's recent reliance on Elias's work.107
He notes that Linklater's focus on the reduction of harm for the pacification of
human social relations, as opposed to more positive forms of emancipation, is
surprising, and suggests that Honneth's intersubjective concept of autonomy offers
complimentary insights into Linklater's research agenda that can help further the
emancipatory project of CIRT.108 The problem with Linklater's reliance on Elias's
process sociology in relation to the harm principle is that it fails to take 'into
account the importance of recognitive acts implicit within this process and upon
which the normative potential of the harm principle is fundamentally reliant.'109
For this reason, Honneth's 'refinement' of Hegel's recognition theoretic approach
and the diagnosis of social pathologies are seen by Brincat to be 'broadly
supportive of Linklater's ideal of emancipation through the transformation of
political community and in ways more effective than Elias' process sociology.'110
Brincat then argues that 'it is only through recognition that the unequal moral
significance of proximate and distant suffering - the privilege given to the suffering
of the same “survival group” over all “others” - that has been the common concern
of Linklater's work, can be overcome,' and that hence it is only the combination of

107. Ibid., 308,326.
108. Ibid., 281.
109. Ibid., 298.
110. Ibid.
132
Habermasian discourse ethics, Eliasian process sociology and Honneth's

recognition theory that can offer the complementary and holistic account necessary
to ground the philosophical, empirical and sociological aspects of Linklater's
project of emancipation.111 Honneth's recognition theory is therefore offered as 'an
empirical means to ground an emancipatory politics concerned with a movement to
a cosmopolitan community' that 'gestures towards an ideal vision of a global
recognitive sphere that affirms all aspects of human difference and individuality
and which has been expanded to include all human-beings.'112
The 'Intersubjective' Turn
The emphasis placed on the intersubjective aspect of human freedom by

Honneth and Brincat is a significant contribution to critical theory. In particular,
through Honneth, Brincat rescues the emancipatory politics of Linklater's earlier
work that is lost in his turn to Elias's process sociology by locating the
emancipatory project of critical theory and CIRT 'within the experiences of the
“dominated” themselves rather than civilising processes that take place “above
them.”'113 In so doing, Honneth and Brincat also represent an important departure
from the teleological side of Kantian cosmopolitanism, whose guarantee that
perpetual peace will come about as though by a logic taking place 'behind the
backs or over the heads' of political subjects 'leaves little or no room for politics or
the active shaping of political life as such,' which casts a shadow over Linklater's
approach to CIRT. 114 Despite this important departure, and although it offers
significant contributions to the emancipatory project of CIRT, the 'intersubjective'
turn in Honneth's recognition theoretic is not simply a 'refinement' of Hegel's

111. Ibid., 311
112. Ibid., 327.
113. Ibid., 312,314-315.
114. Robin Cohen and Robert Fine, “Four Cosmopolitan Moments,” in Conceiving
Cosmopolitanism: Theory, Context, and Practice, ed. Steven Vertovec and Robin Cohen (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2003), 142. Nick Vaughan-Williams, “Beyond a Cosmopolitan Ideal: The
Politics of Singularity,” 112.
133
notion of recognition, but an overhaul; one which misreads Hegel as a theorist of

intersubjectivity and thus fails to appropriate the full force of his insights.115
Reading Hegel Through a Kantian Kaleidoscope
The root of the misunderstanding lies in the reliance on subjectivity in the

accounts of 'intersubjectivity.' Hegel never uses the term intersubjectivity, and
subjectivity in Hegel has a very different meaning to the meaning it has acquired
today, where it usually relates to an individual person, a meaning implicit in the
term 'intersubjectivity.'116 Although dating back to Aristotle, in its modern usage it
is Kant's definition of the subject that remains pervasive. For Kant '[a] person is a
subject whose actions can be imputed to him [...] subject to no other laws than
those he gives to himself, either alone or at least along with others.’117
For Hegel however, the subject and the individual are two very distinct
categories. The subject is not an individual consciousness formed in its interactions
with other individuals, but is a particular relation between individuals and
universals: this is a very different proposition.118 Honneth, as well as Linklater,
Habermas, and others, uncritically accept Kant’s identification of the individual
and the subject, and hence read Hegel through ‘the kaleidoscope of a Kantian
conception of the subject,’ a conception to which Hegel was profoundly
opposed.119 While Honneth is right to emphasise the importance of love in human
relationships and in the development of personality, as we shall see in Part 3, love

115. This questionable interpretation of Hegel's notion of recognition is not confined to Honneth.
Andy Blunden has shown that other pragmatic interpretations of Hegel, such as Francis Fukuyama
and Robert Williams also commit the same mistake. See Andy Blunden, “The Missing Mediation in
Pragmatic Interpretations of Hegel,” http://home.mira.net/~andy/works/missing-mediation.htm
(accessed 29th June 2012, 2012). We shall outline what we consider to be more powerful insights
of Hegel's in Part 3.
116. Ibid.
117. Immanuel Kant, The Metaphysics of Morals (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991),
50/223.
118. Andy Blunden, “The Missing Mediation in Pragmatic Interpretations of Hegel.”
119. This is Blunden's term. Ibid.
134
has a much more profound existential/ontological and emancipatory meaning in

Hegel that is obscured by Honneth’s kaleidoscopic reading of him.
For Hegel the autonomous subject is an institution, ‘an artefact created by the
practices of modern life: the intimate family, the market economy, and the liberal
state. Each of these social arrangements articulate and express the value and the
authority of the individual; they give to the individual a standing she would not
have without them.’120 These institutions manufacture the idea of an autonomous
individual, an ethical subject of its own actions. Honneth et al. thus read into Hegel
a ‘methodological individualism’ that not only finds no support in his writing, but
to which his whole project was an attempt to overcome.121
Hegel’s notion of recognition is not only incomprehensible as a relation

between Kantian subjects, but from a Hegelian perspective, the individualism
associated with the Kantian subject effectively alienates us from political reality.122
As will become clear in Chapter 7, Hegel’s struggle for recognition is not a
confrontation between two independent subjects demanding recognition from each
other, as is implied by Honneth’s recognition theoretic, but is a process of self-
differentiation through which two independent persons (self-consciousnesses)
emerge from a single dominant shared subjectivity. Honneth’s ‘reworking’ of
Hegel’s recognition theory is thus based on a very creative reading of Hegel; its
key failure ‘the doomed attempt to read Hegel through either a Kantian conception
of the subject, or the common sense view of the individual as an autonomous
being.’123 As Blunden correctly concludes: ‘[t]o appropriate Hegel’s great insights

120. J.M. Bernstein, “The Very Angry Tea Party,” New York Times. 13th June. (2010).
121. Andy Blunden, “The Missing Mediation in Pragmatic Interpretations of Hegel.” The term
'methodological individualism' is Blunden's. Since methodological individualism is an approach to
explaining society and social phenomena solely in terms of decisions and choices made by
individual human beings, where there is no such thing as society, social phenomena, and social
forces, applying this label to Marxist or post-Marxist critical theorists such as Honneth, Brincat, or
Linklater can be seriously misleading. It is, however, an instructive way of communicating the fact
that these readings of Hegel mistakenly associate subjectivity with individuality, and thus overlook
the fact that for Hegel individuals stand in a particular relation to categories of subjectivity and
objectivity. We will return to this point in Chapter 6
122. See Bernstein's review of Honneth's most recent work for a criticism of this kind: J.M.
Bernstein, “Axel Honneth, the Pathologies of Individual Freedom: Hegel’s Social Theory
(Review),” Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews (2010).
135
into social philosophy, the very first task must be the renovation of the concept of
“subject”, rejecting both naïve Cartesian or positivist conceptions and anti-
humanist conceptions like those of structuralism and poststructuralism.’124
Relational Individuality and Singularity
Blunden’s criticism of ‘poststructuralism’ is not entirely merited, and recent

work taking orientation from Heidegger can be read as (indirect) contributions to
the task initiated by Hegel of challenging Kant’s association of the individual with
subjectivity, and with foregrounding the fundamental debt owed by individuality to
its relational construction. There are a number of interesting contributions in this
regard, but Louiza Odysseos’s work on the ‘coexistential subject’ and Jean-Luc
Nancy’s work on ‘singularity’ are worth singling out.125
Coexistentiality
In contrast to other philosophers drawing on Heideggerian thought, such as

Sartre, Levinas, Gadamer, Derrida, and Agamben, Nancy re-emphasises the role of
‘Mitsein’ (being-with) in Heidegger’s thought, opening the implications of
Heidegger’s thought for politics and ethics in a new way.126 Central to Nancy’s

124. Ibid.
125. Louiza Odysseos, The Subject of Coexistence: Otherness in International Relations
(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2007). Jean-Luc Nancy, The Inoperative Community
(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1991). Jean-Luc Nancy, Being Singular Plural
(Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2001). Frederik Olafson's work and Stephen K. White's
survey of the 'weak ontological turn' in political theory are also worthy of note. Frederick A.
Olafson, What is a Human Being? A Heideggerian View (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1995); Frederick A. Olafson, Heidegger and the Ground of Ethics: A Study of Mitsein (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1998). Stephen K. White, Sustaining Affirmation: The Strengths of
Weak Ontology in Political Theory (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000).
126. Jean-Luc Nancy, The Inoperative Community, xiii. This discussion of Nancy serves to
introduce us to his thought and contextualise him in relation to the overall argument, we will
engage in a more thorough engagement with his work, and Heidegger's, in Chapter 5. For an
overview of Nancy's relevance for IR see Martin Coward, “Jean-Luc Nancy,” in Critical Theorists
and International Relations, ed. Jenny Edkins and Nick Vaughan-Williams (London: Routledge,
2009).
136
argument is the Heideggerian understanding of humans as world-forming beings

whose experiences are singular and unique, due to the essential facticity of the
human mode of being. Crucially, for Nancy (and Heidegger) the self is not best
thought as a subject because it is not essentially distinct from the experiences that
constitute it, but is instead deeply implicated in its relation to them; at the deepest
level individual human beings cannot be seen as antecedent to their relationality.
The reason for this is that for Nancy, the proximal fact of human existence is
coexistence, the coexistence of individuated selves that are co-originary or
relational from the start, and who are constituted through their relations towards
singular and multiple worlds.
The Subject of Coexistence
Nancy’s prioritisation of relationality over subjectivity, his focus on the

coexistential nature of human existence, leads to a way of thinking about human
sociality that prioritises neither the individual nor the community, since to focus on
the general or the particular detracts from the coexistential nature of sociality. This
aspect of Heideggerian thought is taken up in IR by Louiza Odysseos. Odysseos’s
primary engagement is with the concept of coexistence in IR. She argues that the
dominant social ontology in IR is individualistic, and that as a result coexistence
has traditionally been understood as the social and political co-presence of
homologous unitary entities, such as states or individual human beings, and that
this perpetuates an untenable commitment to the modern subject and obscures the
co-constitutive relation between self and other.127 Odysseos turns to Heidegger in
order to demonstrate that subjectivity is coexistential from the start, arguing that
coexistent entities should be considered as heteronomic rather than simultaneously
present autonomous entities, which results in the need to recognise the primacy of
the radical embeddedness of the self in the world, and hence to forgo conceiving
the self in ways that essentialise any perspective of the subject.

127. Louiza Odysseos, The Subject of Coexistence.
137
Since the subject is inescapably bound up in webs of relations that constitute

it as a concrete entity, Odysseos echoes Nancy’s insistence on prioritizing
relationality over subjectivity, arguing that ‘theory can no longer be seen as
consisting of establishing relations between non-relational subjects, self-sufficient
in an ethical and political sense, but must reflect the priority of relation over
subjectivity.’ 128 This leads her to claim that IR theory needs to develop a
‘theoretical sensibility that is attuned to the existence of a self constituted by
otherness [...] so as to promote an international political theory that has at its
centre, not the modern subject, but rather an understanding of coexistence as the
proximal fact of human life.’129 Human propriety, on this account, involves ‘the
appropriation of one’s own being as heteronomous being-with,’ rather than the
realisation of some foundational subjectivity.130
Heteronomy
Odysseos’s argument that the subject must be understood as heteronomous

rather than autonomous has significant implications for the way that we think
about freedom. Rather than relating to the ideal of self-directing action of
autonomous individuals, freedom for Odysseos (as for Heidegger) relates to a
heightened sensitivity to the coexistential nature of subjectivity and to the
possibility of the ‘freeing up’ the possibility of human existence as being-with-
others. Consequently, rather than referring to capacity of individuals to initiate
autonomous action, on this view freedom has to do with ‘freeing up, in the sense of
properly disclosing, the proper possibilities for the kind of Being that Dasein is,
i.e., being-in-the-world with others.’131
Odysseos’s charge against Linklater is that due to his subjectivist ontology,

or, as it has been presented here, his reliance on ethical subjectivity, means that he

128. Louiza Odysseos, “Radical Phenomenology, Ontology, and International Political Theory,”
Alternatives 27 (2002), 399.
129. Ibid., 374.
130. Louiza Odysseos, The Subject of Coexistence, 107.
131. Ibid.
138
confuses freedom with the conditions of possibility of a certain kind of

subjectivity.132 Because politics is understood as the negotiation of the terms, or
the field of possibilities, of human (co)existence, any limitation on this negotiation
should be regarded as compromising human freedom. For Odysseos (as for
Heidegger), freedom and coexistence are not simply about inclusivity and
universality, but must also involve calling into question the edifice of the modern
subject upon which accounts of liberal cosmopolitanism rest, since freeing up the
possibility of human existence as being-with-others must involve foregoing
conceptions of the self that essentialise any perspective of the self as subject.133
The problem then is not that Linklater attempts to include the excluded other, but
that he does not engage with the prior issue ‘as to how one could allow [human]
existence [Da-sein] to show itself as other-determined, that is, as being
heteronomous and coexistential from the start.’134
A Politics of Singularity

132. Ibid., xxii.
133. Ibid., xxiii.
134. Ibid. In regards the relational constitution of subjectivity and its importance for international
theory, it should be noted that Brincat makes similar claims of Honneth's recognition theoretic to
those Odysseos makes for her 'coexistential subjectivity.' Brincat's claim is that Honneth can help
us to understand social relations in a way that can expand the purview of IR theory: Honneth does
not allege that individual human-beings possess specific constitutive essences, an assumption that
underlies Hobbesian, Machiavellian, Liberal, 'First-Image' Realist and even Neo-Realist accounts.
This has allowed Honneth to focus on the role of conflict between social groups as the site of social
reproduction rather than as between individuals (as assumed by Hobbesian and rational choice
theorists), or between structural entities (as assumed in systems theorists, realism and neo-realism
and by structuralists and post-structuralists). Instead, human beings, as social actors, are regarded as
the product of ongoing, intersubjectively constitutive practices that are themselves part of the
ongoing interpretations and struggles of participants. Shannon Brincat, “Towards an Emancipatory
Cosmopolitanism:.” Cf. Louiza Odysseos, “Dangerous Ontologies: The Ethos of Survival and
Ethical Theorizing in International Relations,” Review of International Studies 28 (2002): 403-18.
Both claims seem entirely right, and there are notable similarities here with the relational view of
subjectivity that has been applied to an analysis of collective identity formation in the work of Iver
B. Neumann, David Campbell, and Maja Zehfuss. Iver B. Neumann, “Self and Other in
International Relations,” European Journal of International Relations 2, no. 2 (1996): 139-74; Iver
B. Neumann, Uses of the Other: “the East” in European Identity Formation (Manchester:
Manchester University Press, 1999). David Campbell, Writing Security: United States Foreign
Policy and the Politics of Identity (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1998). Maja Zehfuss,
“Constructivism in International Relations: The Politics of Reality,” International Politics 44, no. 1
(2007): 58-71.
139
A similar scepticism regarding the reliance on a foundational subjectivity

informs Nick Vaughan-Williams’s approach to cosmopolitan thought.135 Surveying
the cosmopolitanism of Daniele Archibugi, David Held, and Linklater, Vaughan-
Williams draws out their shared commitment, with various modifications, of a
Kantian cosmopolitical ideal, with special reference to the Stoic, Christian, and
Kantian ideal of extending hospitality to others.136 Drawing on Derrida’s argument
that there is an economy of violence at the heart of any ethical generality,
Vaughan-Williams argues that there exists a structural impediment to the
cosmopolitan ideal of the ‘mutual acknowledgement of, and respect for, the equal
and legitimate rights of others.’137 For, according to Derrida, ‘it is only ever
possible to extend hospitality to the other while at the same time, scandalously and
paradoxically, sacrificing all the others to whom it is also necessary to respond.’138
Echoing moves made by Dallmayr, Honneth, and Brincat, Derrida’s answer in his
later works is a relocation of ethics to politics, to what Vaughan-Williams calls a
‘politics of singularity.’139
Derrida’s ethico-political thought shares a great deal with Nancy, especially

the latter’s commitment to relational subjectivity. Rather than understanding
ethico-political relations as relations between human beings qua subjects, as other
cosmopolitans such as Linklater tend to do, there is for Derrida a primordial sense
of solidarity with others ‘caught up in conflict, famine, or other disastrous
circumstances’ that exceeds any notion of common citizenship, as if all were
‘citizens of the world,’ a sense of solidarity that relates to ‘the incalculable
singularity of everyone, before any “subject” [...] beyond all citizenship, beyond
every “state”, every “people”, indeed even beyond the current state of the
definition of a living being as a living “human” being, and the universality of

135. Nick Vaughan-Williams, “Beyond a Cosmopolitan Ideal: The Politics of Singularity.”
136. Ibid., 118.
137. This argument is most pronounced in Jacques Derrida, The Gift of Death (Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1996). David Held, Democracy and the Global Order: From the Modern State to
Cosmopolitan Governance (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995), 244.
138. Nick Vaughan-Williams, “Beyond a Cosmopolitan Ideal: The Politics of Singularity,” 118-19.
139. Alex Thomson, Deconstruction and Democracy: Derrida’s Politics of Friendship (London:
Continuum, 2005), 67. Nick Vaughan-Williams, “Beyond a Cosmopolitan Ideal: The Politics of
Singularity,” 119.
140
rational calculation.’140 Singularity, and a politics of singularity is thus offered as

an alternative site around which to think about relationality, and an alternative
approach to the ‘tired and totalising’ polis/cosmopolis dichotomy that shapes much
thinking regarding the possibilities of global order.141 Derrida’s argument for a
‘democracy to come’ is one attempt to grapple with such a politics of singularity,
and should be considered an important contribution to thinking about the radical
sensibility, the democratic impulse that lies at the heart of approaches to CIRT.142
The Challenge to Dualism
We may venture the suggestion that what unites the approaches surveyed in
this section is the common challenge to the treatment of ‘subjectivity,’ and
especially ethical subjectivity, as in some sense foundational. Odysseos’s analysis
of the ‘subject of coexistence’ demonstrates that coexistent entities, such as
ideological systems, states, civilisations, and the modern political/ethical subject,
owe radical debts to alterity, while Vaughan-Williams’s identification of an
economy of violence at the heart of any ethical generality highlights the fact that
cosmopolitanism cannot simply be based on ethical universals, and has to be
motivated more by a political concern for the singularity of human beings and
political contexts.
Consequently, all the writers mentioned above may be read in some way as
contributions to what it might mean to approach international relations from non-
dualist assumptions. Moreover, they demonstrate that we cannot legitimately rely
on the idea of a foundational subject, ethical or political, to provide the ground for

140. Jacques Derrida, “Nietzsche and the Machine: An Interview With Jacques Derrida By Richard
Beardsworth,” Journal of Nietzsche Studies 7 (1994), 240. Jacques Derrida, “Autoimmunity: Real
and Symbolic Suicides. A Dialogue With Jacques Derrida,” in Philosophy in a Time of Terror:
Dialogues With Jürgen Habermas and Jacques Derrida, ed. Giovanna Borradori (Chicago:
Chicago University Press, 2003), 120.
141. Nick Vaughan-Williams, “Beyond a Cosmopolitan Ideal: The Politics of Singularity,” 108.
142. On CIRT as democratic impulse, see Craig Murphy, “Critical Theory and the Democratic
Impulse: Understanding a Century-Old Tradition,” in Critical Theory and World Politics, ed.
Richard Wyn Jones (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2001).
141
principles of coexistence or cosmopolitan ethical ideals. In fact, there is an

interesting argument to be made that Nancy and Odysseos’s arguments about
relational subjectivity might be able to provide Foucault and Rorty with the
ontological ground to base their claims to radical autonomy and liberal irony,
which Cochran demonstrates they rely upon but do not defend.
However, these approaches are largely concerned with critique, with reacting
against and resisting any foundational determination of the being of beings with
the aim of freeing us up for alternative possibilities, while those that do strive to be
more affirmative (Honneth, Brincat) remain reliant on an (intersubjective) subject.
This is not to say that a ‘politics of singularity’ is not affirmative: it is. However,
the relations between the emancipatory aspect of Derrida’s politics of singularity,
the argument in Spectres of Marx and Linklater’s emancipatory approach to
international relations, remain relatively untheorised. Our argument will attempt to
redress this.
Ethics as Pragmatic Critique?
This is not the first engagement with Linklater on meta-theoretical lines: we

briefly introduced another, Molly Cochran’s Normative Theory in International
Relations, in Chapter 1. Her focus, however, is on the epistemological status of the
normative claims that follow from the foundational ethical commitments of various
normative approaches to international theory, rather than on an explicit evaluation
of the ontological aspects that underwrite them. Similarly disputing the
‘objectivity’ of these foundations, she refers to them as ‘weak foundations’ that are
presupposed as the conditions of subsequent normative claims, and argues that
these can only lead to contingently held ethical claims relating to principles of
sovereignty and universal moral inclusion.143 Cochran’s criticism of both Frost and
Linklater, for example, is that they both mistakenly treat the claims derived from
their weak foundations as non-contingent, and that because we cannot rely on any

143. Molly Cochran, Normative Theory in International Relations: A Pragmatic Approach, 113-14.
142
firm foundations, any mind-independent object, international ethics should be

conceived instead simply as a form of pragmatic critique.
Cochran’s pragmatism is an anti-foundationalist approach to normative

theory that draws on Rorty and Dewey. However, the problem with this pragmatist
approach to ethics is that it must ultimately remain ambivalent about the validity of
the weak foundations that it would presumably flit between as circumstances
change, leading to ethical claims that cannot be made with much conviction. In
contrast, a normative argument that proceeds according to a constructivist
epistemology, such the Hegelian one outlined in Chapter 1, might be able to
present a renewed defence of Linklater’s critical approach to normative theory
(i.e., one motivated by a foundational commitment to human freedom) against
other’s, such as Frost’s.
As we have seen, the problem with Linklater’s approach is that he treats the
cognitive object (i.e., the ethical subject) as if it had a mind-independent existence,
which functions as the foundation of his universalism and hence also his
emancipatory cosmopolitanism. Yet if we proceed from non-dualist premises and
engage in a ‘philosophical ontology’ of what it means to be a free being (rather
than simply assume that this amounts to the exercise of ethical subjectivity), if
deemed persuasive, we might consider our ontological argument to represent a
contribution to the construction of our understanding of the human being as a
cognitive object (i.e., a mind-dependent interpretation of the human being as a free
being). This is our intent as we move into Parts 2 and 3. Such an exercise might
constitute a renewed defence of a characteristically ‘critical’ approach to
international theory due to a more persuasive philosophical defence of its
foundational commitments, commitments that are more universalistic than
alternatives (such as Frost’s) and hence more appropriate for contemporary
(global) politics and ethics.
143
The Politics of Subjectivity: the Subject/Object Split and the

Politics of Reality.
Ethical Theories as Exercises in World-Making
We will recall from Chapter 1 that one of our objections to dualist

approaches to international theory was that they suppose a foundational split
between subject and object occurring between mind and world; that this conflates
the ontological difference between entities and the being of entities, and means that
they cannot recognise the distinction between mind/world and mind-independent
real. When an interpretation of a mind-independent entity (such as the human
being) serves as the ‘ontological’ foundation of a universalist theory (such as
Linklater’s emancipatory cosmopolitanism), the mind-dependent cognitive object
is projected out onto the mind-independent real and is treated as if it had a mind-
independent ‘objective’ existence. Since they presume to ‘know’ the cognitive
object, such a projection entails a simultaneous claim to (epistemological)
subjectivity by the claimant. This is a position of power; one that attempts to usurp
the essentially social and historical process through which the mind-dependent
cognitive object, our understanding of the being of the human being, is
constructed.
Since foundationalist ethical frameworks depend an interpretation of the

being of beings as their ethical foundation (the post-conventional discourse agent
by discourse ethics, for instance) universalist ethical reasoning is essentially a
political exercise: it is an exercise in world-making, becasue these ethical theories
produce the world they seek to transform144 For example, in Linklater’s account of
CIRT, attempts to mediate differences involve ‘the other’ having to adopt a
position of ethical subjectivity: that they become a post-conventional discourse
agent. Such an approach to ethical universalism betrays a false neutrality because it

144. On ethical frameworks producing the works they seek to transform see Brasset & Bulley's
summary of the contributors to a special issue of International Politics on ethics and world politics.
James Brassett and Dan Bulley, “Ethics in World Politics: Cosmopolitanism and Beyond?,”
International Politics 44 (2007), 14-15.
144
is predicated on presuppositions about what is essential about human beings, i.e.,

their ethical subjectivity. Linklater thereby depoliticises his politics by presenting it
as an ethics, elevating his politics above political contestation. This depoliticises
the ontological assumptions that he brings to the cognitive object (i.e., his
presumption that the human being is essentially an ethical subject), which serves as
the foundation for his subsequent normative, sociological, and praxeological
claims.
To restate our central complaint: by treating emancipation as the historical

actualisation of the ethical subject, where the material conditions that negate the
full appropriation of ethical subjectivity are themselves progressively negated, and
providing a defence of moral universalism as the universal responsibility to engage
in dialogue, Linklater’s emancipatory cosmopolitanism rests on a conflation of the
ontological difference between human beings and the being of human beings.
Linklater’s approach to CIRT thus overvalues one human potentiality (ethical
subjectivity) and is based upon relations between human beings qua ethical
subjects. Ethical and emancipatory relations are thus reduced to relations between
intransitive objects (i.e., ethical subjects), which is morally deficient because
recognition is extended only to ethical subjects. Moreover, this projection of
ethical subjectivity neglects the process of moral self-formation, the process by
which we become an ethical subject, a process that is grounded in human freedom.
A less sympathetic critic of Linklater might then conclude that Linklater’s
emancipatory cosmopolitanism is neither ethical nor emancipatory.
A Non-Dualist Account of the Human Being: the Meta-Theoretical Condition

of an Emancipatory Cosmopolitanism
CIRT professes a high degree of reflexivity about the relation between

subject and object, but focus lies in the role of that theorising plays in the
recreation of social reality and in the emancipatory purposes of theory, and scant
attention has been paid to the (ontological) implications of any underlying
145
commitments to ethical subjectivity, or of our ‘knowledge’ about mind-

independent objects, for our modes of being in the world. In his discussion of the
subject-object split Linklater’s takes issue with the positivist claim to separate facts
from values, arguing that critical theory collapses the subject-object distinction.
For Linklater this collapse makes it impossible to engage in politically neutral
analysis of an external reality, where a neutral subject faces an independent object,
and this rightly leads to emphasis being placed on the role that knowledge plays in
the reproduction of social reality.145
This collapse of the subject-object distinction is tied to Habermas’s

identification of three kinds of knowledge, technical, practical, and emancipatory,
and leads to the claim that ‘knowledge about society is incomplete if it lacks the
emancipatory purpose.’146 This is because ‘[a]ny assumption that critical theory
starts from normative and inevitably subjective preferences whereas problem-
solving theory avoids moral commitments in order to grapple with basic truths
objectively is therefore untenable.’147 The upshot of Habermas's identification of
three knowledge-constitutive interests is that the attempt to collapse the
subject/object distinction in Critical Theory has led to an overwhelming focus on
demonstrating the impossibility of value-free social inquiry.
While this has resulted in 'human needs and purposes' being brought to the
fore of what counts as valuable knowledge, and it offers a cogent defence of the
normative aims of critical theory, the consequence has been that reflexivity
surrounding the relation between subject and object has been limited to
epistemology; to the problem of knowledge rather than that of being. 148 For
instance, when it comes to ethical theorising, Linklater falls back on a foundational
commitment to the ethical subject, and fails to consider the implications of this
commitment; implications that might even undermine the commitment to
emancipation. For this reason, along with the others given throughout this chapter

145. Andrew Linklater, “The Achievements of Critical Theory,” 295-96.
146. Ibid., 281.
147. Ibid.
148. Ibid.
146
and in Chapter 1, we proceed into Parts 2 and 3 with the intent of developing a
non-dualist approach to CIRT, one not predicated on a foundational commitment
to subjectivity or objectivity. In other words, an anti-foundational emancipatory
cosmopolitanism.
Given our discussions so far, it should be not be surprising that we will turn
to Heidegger and Hegel for such a task. Both depend on foundational ontological
commitments (in the fuller sense of the term) to human freedom, and both proceed
from non-dualist premises that can give us a deeper appreciation of seemingly
ontological primitives such as subjectivity and objectivity. Whereas dualists
suppose that the split between subject and object occurs between mind and world,
as is implied by the Kantian association of subjectivity with individuality, for
Hegel at least, the subject-object split occurs within consciousness. This introduces
a vertical dimension to both subjectivity and objectivity that has hitherto been
ignored.149 A non-dualist approach to understanding the human being as a free
being would recognise that dualism is not foundational but derivative, and that
claims to subjectivity and objectivity are essentially political exercises that must
remain open to contestation.
This does not involve rejecting the very many contributions that Linklater
has made to CIRT; rather it seeks to integrate his insights with those of his critics,
surveyed above. Whereas Linklater’s foundational commitment to ethical
subjectivity results in an essentially rationalist emancipatory cosmopolitanism,
where the relation between self and world is ultimately mediated by moral reason,
Heidegger and Hegel are keen to develop a non-mediated, phenomenological
relation to reality, and their arguments in this regard will help us to develop an
alternative praxeological emancipatory cosmopolitanism. We thus proceed into
Parts 2 and 3 with the research question:

149. This is a Hegelian insight, but for an example of such a split between subject and object
occurring within an individual self-consciousness, rather than simply between mind and world, see
G.H. Mead's famous distinction in social psychology between the "I" and the "Me," where the "I" is
the subject, the initiator of actions, and the "Me" represents the cognitive object, known only
retrospectively. George H. Mead, Mind, Self and Society From the Standpoint of a Social
Behaviouralist (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1934), 173-78.
147

Conclusions.
Given the material conditions of contemporary (global) politics and ethics,

we argued in the Introduction that international theory needs more universalistic
trajectories of ontological inquiry. Following our survey of ‘ontological’
foundations in international theory in Chapter 1 we suggested that Linklater
represented the most powerful advocate of a left-Hegelian tradition in IR, and
promised an approach to IR that remained universalistic while recognising that
certain forms of universalism can submerge or extinguish difference. After
demonstrating that Linklater’s emancipatory cosmopolitanism is predicated on the
existence of the ethical subject, we discussed the philosophical (ontological and
epistemological) inadequacies of this foundational commitment in Chapter 2
before initiating an evaluation of the ethical and emancipatory credentials of such
an approach to world politics in Chapter 3, which will continue in Parts 2 and 3.
In light of these discussions, we conclude Part 1 by reasserting the view that

Linklater’s approach to international theory is one of the most persuasive and
promising available. He presents a forceful defence for the recovery of the ethical
imperative that animated IR in the early years; one that rightly places normative
ideas and the prospects for change at the heart of the discipline’s research agenda.
Three of his contributions are particularly cogent: his criticism that the neo-realist
reduction of the study of international relations to an analysis of elements of
recurrence and repetition is profoundly mistaken, that the discipline has a deeper
purpose that is both normative and philosophical, and his contention that IR should
be concerned with an analysis of the potentials for the transformation of political
148
community. 150 Furthermore, his characterisation of the ‘tripartite structure’ of

critical theory – the view that any normative, philosophical position is incomplete
as critical theory if it does not include sociological and praxeological analyses of
the prospects for its realisation – offers a strong rebuttal to would-be criticisms that
his emancipatory vision is hopelessly utopian.151
However, although his emancipatory cosmopolitanism, and the praxeological

and sociological analyses that follow, represent and important contribution to the
development of one aspect of human freedom in international relations, the
freedom of the ethical subject, Linklater’s key mistake is to treat his commitment
to ethical subjectivity as a foundational one since this leads to what we have called
a ‘politics of subjectivity,’ where his politics are presented as an ethics.
Consequently, we claimed that Linklater’s emancipatory cosmopolitanism is
ethically deficient because, contrary to his claim to engage human beings qua
human beings, ethical recognition is extended only to human beings qua ethical
subjects. Such a commitment also undermines his commitment to emancipation,
because it emphasises moral universality at the expense of emancipatory praxis and
moral self-formation grounded in freedom. Ultimately then, Linklater’s
emancipatory cosmopolitanism may fail by its own standards.
The deeper problem indicated by Linklater’s reliance on the foundational

subject is both a limited philosophical ontology and a thin understanding of human
freedom, where freedom is associated with rationality and the exercise of
subjectivity. Indeed, as Brincat demonstrates, one of the problems with this
exclusive focus on the freedom of the ethical subject is that, in Linklater’s later
works for instance, we are led to a level of analysis so broad (i.e., world history)
that we risk losing the emancipatory and ethical potential of critical theory.
Dallmayr, Honneth, Brincat, and Odysseos all reminded us that freedom is not
simply the possession of the subject, and that emancipation is not just about
securing the conditions within which subjectivity can be exercised (as

151. Although this has not prevented some from decrying it as such. See Randall L. Schweller,
“Fantasy Theory,” Review of International Studies 25, no. 1 (1999): 147-50.
149
foundationalists such as Kant, Habermas, and Linklater assume), but is also about
inter-personal relations and emancipatory praxis. Linklater’s foundational
commitment to ethical subjectivity undermines this inter-personal, relational
aspect of human freedom, and thus represents an inappropriate basis for an
emancipatory cosmopolitanism.
That said, this does not require that we reject Linklater’s emancipatory
cosmopolitanism. Rather, we should recognise it as a potent defence of one aspect
of human freedom: i.e., the self-realisation and autonomy of the ethical subject.
The ideal of more inclusive dialogue in international relations, along with his
proposals for the triple transformation of political community in Transformation,
are basically sound. What we must realise, however, is that these arguments are
predicated on a one-sided conception of human freedom, and that social interaction
governed by open and rational dialogue cannot legitimately claim to be either an
essential expression of human freedom, or its highest form. Moreover, that moral
rationality is not an effective arbiter of difference. As a result, we must look
elsewhere for a reliable guide for emancipatory praxis and a more universalistic
evaluative tool for critical social theory; one that can offer a guide for an
emancipatory cosmopolitanism not based on a commitment to subjectivity.
150
Part 2.
Worlds and World Politics
151
PART 2/ Introduction
Introduction to Part 2
We explained in the Introduction that there was a shift in thought in the

eighteenth century from universal and universalistic ontologies to particularist
ontologies, a shift that was instrumental in the emergence of nationalistic,
particularist moralities that have since contributed to the loss of ethics in
international political thought and theory in the twentieth century.1 We also saw
that as a consequence of the prominence of these particularist ontologies and
epistemologies, a distinctive positivist methodology evolved during the nineteenth
century, and that it was the combination of this shift to particularist ontology,
epistemology and methodology that is the legacy in which the establishment of IR
as an academic discipline, especially its neo-realist mainstream, is embedded.2 We
then concluded with Behr that – given the material and ideational conditions of
twenty-first century (global) politics – the challenges and requirements for a
contemporary theory of the international ‘lie in the study of ontological and
epistemological dynamics’ with a view to providing a groundwork with which to
overcome ‘the cemented frameworks and aporias of particularism to establish
renewed ontology(ies) and respective epistemologies for contemporary and future
politics and ethics.’3 Such an approach, we prescribed, must be able to recognise
plurality and diversity without ‘expecting “the other” to assimilate and/or not
violating “the other” through logo- and egocentric epistemologies’4
Assessing Linklater’s self-consciously universalistic approach to

international theory in Part 1, we argued that, despite offering perhaps the most
persuasive and comprehensive of the ‘critical’ approaches to contemporary world
politics, his emancipatory cosmopolitanism was hamstrung by a foundational
commitment to the ethical subject/ethical subjectivity. This commitment, we
argued, rested on a conflation of the ontological difference, and involved Linklater

(Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010), 2.
2. Ibid., 3.
3. Ibid., 246.
4. Ibid.
152
submitting to a form of metaphysical dualism: comprised of a foundational

ontological commitment to ethical subjectivity, and a foundational epistemological
commitment to the ethical subject as a mind-independent cognitive object. As a
result, we claimed that Linklater’s defence of universalism was predicated on the
‘projection’ of ethical subjectivity onto ‘the other’ and other others, and that his
conception of emancipation is essentially an account of the historical actualisation
of the ethical subject. Such an emancipatory cosmopolitanism was ethically
deficient because it presumed that the other adopt a position of ethical subjectivity,
and we questioned its emancipatory credentials because too little attention was
paid to the role of praxis or inter-personal relations as against the exercise of
ethical subjectivity.
The Argument of Part 2
Having outlined the insufficiencies of various alternatives in Part 1, we

initiate our response to the problematic outlined above in Part 2. Our two principal
concerns here are to deepen the ontological foundations (in the fuller sense of the
term) of CIRT, and to begin our task of developing a richer account of human
freedom upon which an emancipatory cosmopolitanism might be based. To this
end, Chapter 4 engages with Heidegger’s Being and Time. By eschewing a
foundational commitment to subjectivity and focussing instead on an existential
analytic of human existence, we argue that Heidegger’s ‘fundamental ontology’
can lead us to a more universalistic foundation for contemporary politics and ethics
than can Rawls, Frost, or Linklater. Whereas Rawls and Frost’s ethical foundations
mean that their normative theories apply only to human beings qua political
subjects of dominant institutions and practices associated with the sovereign state,
and Linklater’s applies only to human beings qua ethical subjects, Heidegger’s
fundamental ontology of human existence can provide us an ontological
foundation that might apply to human beings qua human beings.
153
In contrast to Linklater’s universalism, which arises out of an always already

posited meaning of Being (as the historical becoming of the ethical subject) and its
derivative structuring of a ground (the mind-independent ‘objective’ existence of
the individual conceived as ethical subject), Heidegger’s fundamental ontology
solicits any universalistic approach to politics and ethics to proceed from a
recognition of the ontological difference. This would involve resisting the
(characteristically dualist) temptation to regard our interpretation of the being of
beings as the only interpretation and forgoing approaches to politics and ethics
predicated on some mind-independent foundation (such as the ethical subject). The
upshot would be that emancipation could no longer equate to the universal self-
actualisation of ethical subjectivity, as it is for Linklater, but must be premised on
what Heidegger calls ‘resolute solicitous being-with,’ an engagement between self
and world characterised by a de-centred receptivity to the existence of others. Such
emphasis on practical engagement with others as others would begin to emend
Linklater’s neglect of the praxeological aspect of human freedom in his account of
emancipation.
After offering an account of the individual as first and foremost a ‘world-

relating creature’ rather than an ethical subject, Chapter 5 explores Heidegger’s
account of freedom in greater depth. Here we establish that, before it is associated
with any form of subjectivity (ethical subjectivity, or the political subjectivity
associated with citizenship, for instance) freedom must be recognised as the
condition of any interpretation of the being of beings, as the ‘ground’ of the
ontological difference. This amounts to a repositioning of freedom, so that freedom
is no longer principally seen as the property of a subject, but is recognised as the
existential condition of world-disclosure. It is for this reason that we then claim
that Linklater’s projection of ethical subjectivity (one interpretation of the being of
human beings) as a general ontology of human being amounts to an abrogation of
one aspect of human freedom.
We start exploring the ethical and political implications of our position

towards the end of Chapter 5, where we resound calls from the likes of Jean-Luc
154
Nancy and Jacques Derrida for a ‘politics of singularity;’ this, we suggest, should
displace the politics of subjectivity that we argued in Part 1 characterises
Linklater’s emancipatory cosmopolitanism. The reason for this, which will become
clearer in Chapter 5, is that the recognition of the ontological difference heralds a
fundamental discontinuity between ethics and politics: while politics is the process
of projecting and contesting interpretations of the being of beings as a whole,
ethics concerns a relation to the other as ‘singularity’ (rather than subject). As a
result, we argue that a more universalistic approach to ethics would be one based
on the ethical relation: on a relation to the other as other, rather than as an ethical
subject.
Heidegger and the Critical Tradition
We are all too well aware that, given the character of the man and his
political involvements, the suggestion that Heidegger can offer us important
contributions to an ethical and emancipatory cosmopolitanism is to court both
controversy and misunderstanding. As Nikolas Kompridis notes in his recent
Critique and Disclosure, a singularly important contribution to critical theory
based upon the thesis that reconciling Habermas and Heidegger is necessary for the
renewal of the critical tradition: ‘the idea of integrating Heidegger’s thought into
critical theory may be greeted with suspicious resistance if not outright revulsion
by some critical theorists. And the idea that Heidegger’s thought can contribute to
the renewal of critical theory is more likely to be greeted with disbelief (if not
derision) than with curiosity.’5 He continues ‘[t]he fact is, both Heidegger’s person
and his thought have played the role of critical theory’s “other:” he is the very
antithesis of the critical intellectual as critical theorists imagine “him.”’6 Kompridis
demonstrates, however, that Habermas badly misunderstands Heidegger’s insights

5. Nikolas Kompridis, Critique and Disclosure: Critical Theory Between Past and Future
(Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 2006).
6. Ibid., 32.
155
into world-disclosure, and mishandles arguments that are vitally important for a
renewal of critical theory.7
Whereas in Habermas, the central praxis of democracy is located in the

removal of the barriers to the implementation of practical discourses, Heidegger
offers us a way of reformulating praxis in terms of decentred receptivity and open
engagement with others, where receptivity is characterised, not by a ‘mindless
submission,’ but by an ‘intensification of one’s cognitive and affective
capabilities.’8 In contrast to the neo-Kantianism of Kohlberg, Habermas, Elias, and
Linklater, decentring is not a learning process, and it ‘is not about overcoming our
partial view of things in order to arrive at the single right answer to a moral
problem. It is not about a “transcendence” of our parochial self in order to achieve
an impartial or objective view of things; it is about an enlargement of self, opening
it up to what was previously closed.’9
As Dallmayr has noted, this has important implications for the notion of
inter-human recognition; implications that go beyond Honneth’s account of ‘inter-
subjective’ recognition.10 Whereas in the past recognition has been seen to operate
purely on a cerebral level – such as in the extension of moral community only to
post-conventional discourse agents (Habermas), or as a confrontation between two
independent subjects claiming recognition from one another (Honneth) –
Kompridis’s interpretation of Heidegger’s concepts of receptivity and solicitude
reconnects cognition with affect and sensibility.11 For Kompridis, what this brings
into view is not a ‘bland universalism or cosmopolitanism,’ but ‘an increased
sensitivity to the presence and endangered state of plural “local worlds” – plural
understandings not subsumable under a single notion of being.’12

7. Ibid. Preceding Kompridis's critique, Dallmayr has also demonstrated that Habermas has a very
poor grasp of the significance of Mitsein (being-with) in Heidegger's thought. See Fred R.
Dallmayr, The Other Heidegger (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1995), 59-60.
8. Nikolas Kompridis, Critique and Disclosure: Critical Theory Between Past and Future, 59.
9. Ibid., 211,213.
10. Fred R. Dallmayr, “Nikolas Kompridis. Critique and Disclosure: Critical Theory Between Past
and Future. (Review),” Notre Dame (2009).
11. Ibid.
12. Ibid.; Nikolas Kompridis, Critique and Disclosure: Critical Theory Between Past and Future,
219.
156
We shall not, however, be concerned with defending Heidegger’s thought

against Habermas and the Frankfurt School. This is a task that has already been
accomplished by both Fred Dallmayr and Nikolas Kompridis, with Dallmayr
noting that Kompridis’s Critique and Disclosure performs the valuable function of
nudging rank-and-file critical theorists away from certain ‘orthodox’ school
positions that Habermas himself now seems ready to abandon.13 Neither will we be
discussing ‘The Heidegger Affair,’ as his disastrous political involvements have
come to be known, since this has been covered extensively elsewhere and there is
nothing here that will add to that discussion.14 Besides, the standard disclaimers
and explanations offered by those sympathetic to his work sound increasingly stale
and trite, and detract from the very real contributions that Heidegger has to offer to
the way that we think about politics; these should now be taken on their own terms.
We will be concerned then with demonstrating the fact that Heidegger

provides very real and very powerful insights into ‘philosophical ontology’ that
can contribute greatly to the development of more universalistic ontology for ethics
and politics at a global level. What is more, the centrality afforded to freedom by
Heidegger – as the ‘groundless ground’ (Abgrund) of human existence and the
condition of politics – represents a potentially important contribution to the left-
Hegelian tradition of evaluating practices and institutions against their contribution
to human freedom. More than this though, by redressing the dualism that

13. See Fred R. Dallmayr, Between Freiburg & Frankfurt: Towards a Critical Ontology (Amherst:
University of Massachusetts Press, 1991). Nikolas Kompridis, Critique and Disclosure: Critical
Theory Between Past and Future. Fred R. Dallmayr, “Nikolas Kompridis. Critique and Disclosure:
Critical Theory Between Past and Future. (Review).” I stress that we will not defend Heidegger's
thought against criticism since that has been done extensively elsewhere. I have no interest in
defending Heidegger 'the man.' In this regard I concur with G.B. Smith's argument: 'We must
confess that speculative genius need not imply nor be aligned with moral virtue or practical
wisdom. Indeed, we seem to have it as a doctrinal statement, from no less an authority than
Aristotle, that there is a chasm between moral and theoretical virtue ... Heidegger lends credence to
the existence of this distinction.' Gregory Bruce Smith, Martin Heidegger: Paths Opened, Paths
Taken (Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007), viii.
14. See Fred R. Dallmayr, The Other Heidegger; Victor Farias, Heidegger and Nazism
(Philadelphia University Press: Temple University Press, 1989); Thomas G. Pavel, “The Heidegger
Affair,” MLN 103, no. 4 (1988): 887-901; Tom Rockmore, “Heidegger After Farias,” History of
Philosophy Quarterly (1991): 81-102; Tom Rockmore, On Heidegger’s Nazism and Philosophy
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997); Gregory Bruce Smith, Martin Heidegger: Paths
Opened, Paths Taken; Richard Wolin, The Politics of Being: The Political Thought of Martin
Heidegger (New York: Columbia University Press, 1990).
157
characterises Kant, Habermas, Linklater (and possibly also Marx) Heidegger’s

‘philosophical ontology’ has an important role to play in the future of the critical
tradition.15
Indeed, since one of the central contentions made here is that we may be
constitutively unable to build a valid emancipatory cosmopolitanism from dualist
premises, in order to contribute to a more universalistic philosophical ontology for
IR – especially one committed to emancipatory and ethical relations between
persons – we must take cues from Heidegger’s understanding of fundamental
ontology.16 Infact, given the profundity of his ontological insights and that he is
considered by many to be the twentieth century’s ‘greatest thinker,’ the onus of
justification should rather be on any philosophical ontology that does not engage
with Heidegger’s ‘fundamental ontology.’ With this in mind, we proceed in the
recent spirit of the reconciliation of what have seemed to be divergent trends in
critical theory: where Heidegger’s relation to the critical tradition is
complementary, rather than antagonistic.17

15. Whether or not Marx can be considered an ontological dualist is the subject of ongoing debate.
On Marx's ontological dualism see Anthony King, The Structure of Social Theory (London:
Routledge, 2004), 107-21., while for an opposing perspective, see Murray E.G. Smith, “Against
Dualism: Marxism and the Necessity of Dialectical Monism,” Science & Society 73, no. 3 (2009):
356-85.
16. Heidegger's apparent shift from a monistic to a pluralist ontology in a late seminar does not
negate this contribution. On this shift see Nikolas Kompridis, Critique and Disclosure: Critical
Theory Between Past and Future, 219. Braver makes a convincing case that Heidegger should be
read as an ontological pluralist see Lee Braver, A Thing of This World: A History of Continental
Anti-Realism (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 2007), 171-75.
17. Although Dallmayr's Between Freiburg and Frankfurt was an early attempt at this
reconciliation, for Dallmayr it is Critique and Disclosure that 'in a way signals the end of a period
marked by divergent, even opposite tendencies: on the one hand, the "postmodern" fascination with
"extraordinary" rupture (or rapture), and on the other, the streamlining of critical theory in the mold
of a rule-governed, rationalist normalcy.' Fred R. Dallmayr, “Nikolas Kompridis. Critique and
Disclosure: Critical Theory Between Past and Future. (Review).” See also Fred R. Dallmayr,
Between Freiburg & Frankfurt: Towards a Critical Ontology. On the reconciliation between
Derrida and Habermas see Richard Beardsworth, “The Future of Critical Philosophy and World
Politics,” Millennium-Journal of International Studies 34, no. 1 (2005): 201-35.
158
Chapter 4.
Beings & Being: Heidegger & Fundamental
Ontology
Introduction
This chapter engages with Heidegger’s Being and Time, read in a way that
emphasises the profound challenges that it poses to dualism; specifically, to the
idea that we might encounter the world in a relation of (epistemological) subject to
(mind-independent) objects. Central in this regard is Heidegger’s argument that our
encounter with entities is never neutral: that ‘things’ never appear to us as they are
‘in-themselves,’ but are always encountered with subjective pre-understandings,
interpretations of the ‘object’ that we surreptitiously project onto it; entities that
include other human beings.
In a related move – though applying to action as opposed to understanding –

Heidegger profoundly unsettles any commitment to ‘subjectivity’ by arguing that
man exists essentially as potentiality rather than ground (as is implied by
‘subjectivity’), and that our mode of being in the world is fundamentally
conditioned by existential structures that inform and condition our individual
existences. In the process, Heidegger offers us a much deeper account of human
existence and sociality than can be provided by accounts that depart from notions
of ‘subjectivity’ or ‘intersubjectivity.’ Not only does this subvert
Habermas/Linklater’s approach to critical theory, but also those of more recent
critical theorists such as Honneth and Brincat.
PART 2/Ch4. Beings & Being: Heidegger & Fundamental Ontology
Although beginning with an analysis of our experiences of human existence,

Heidegger has something altogether grander in his sights: the meaning of Being in
general, or, what existence ‘as such’ might mean. This question of Being is
approached through a phenomenological hermeneutical method, and leads to an
interpretation of Being in general from an analysis of our experience of our
particular existences.1 Thus it is through a phenomenology of the being of human
beings (and of other entities such as rocks and hammers) that Heidegger attempts
to gain a grasp on Being as a whole. Due to human finitude, he soon realises that
the meaning of Being in general is out of our reach, and so ‘temporality’ is posited
as the transcendental horizon of any interpretation of Being. This has profound
implications for our mode of being in world; this includes a conception of freedom
as ‘resolute solicitous being-with others,’ and Heidegger’s famous call for an
‘overcoming’ of metaphysics. We shall see that, in essence, the latter amounts to a
call for us to ground any universalist claim – claims to what the human being is,
for instance – in 'fundamental ontology': in an understanding of the experience of
existence. Put differently, it is an attempt to establish ‘perspectivality’ or ‘doxa’ as
originary to human existence.
The Ontological Difference & the Leading Question of

Philosophy
The Ontological Difference and the Forgetting of Being
Heidegger’s guiding aim in his most influential work, Being and Time, is to
address the question of the meaning of Being. For Heidegger, this requires that we
distinguish between beings (Seiende) and Being (Sein), or, between entities and
their existence. Three kinds of entities are identified by Heidegger, each of which

1. On hermeneutics and phenomenology see John D. Caputo, “Husserl, Heidegger, and the
Question of a “Hermeneutic” Phenomenology,” Husserl Studies 1 (1984): 157-78. and Susann M.
Laverty, “Hermeneutic Phenomenology and Phenomenology: A Comparison of Historical and
Methodological Considerations,” International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2, no. 3 (2003): 21-
35.
160
having a different kind of existence. Mere things, such as rocks, the existence of
which is characterised by being ‘present-at-hand;’ tools, the existence of which is
characterised by their ‘readiness-to-hand;’ and human beings, whose existence is
characterised by Da-sein (there-being). Importantly then, entities and their being
are not coterminous, and the existential uniqueness of human beings lies not in
their subjectivity, but in their Da-sein (there-being). What is particularly unique
about human beings is that they have access to Being, ‘that which determines
entities as entities, that on the basis of which entities are already understood.’2
Being is thus related to the understanding, and so only human beings can have an
understanding of Being: rocks and tools clearly cannot.3 Importantly, contra the
dualist, human beings never encounter entities as knowing subject to mind-
independent object, as we always encounter the entity with a more or less
unconscious understanding of it, and project upon it meaning and possibilities.
Heidegger’s famous example is the hammer. As a ‘substance,’ something

‘present-at-hand,’ a hammer is simply a composite of wood and metal: these
properties do not make the hammer a hammer. The hammer only becomes a
hammer when a person (a Da-sein) who understands what a hammer is used for,
encounters it. The being of the hammer, its existence as a tool, is dependent upon
its being understood as such by a human being: the properties of a hammer are not
intrinsic to that object, but are essentially dependent on the entity that encounters it
as an object. Da-sein’s pre-theoretical understanding of the entities it encounters
informs the meaning and possibilities projected upon that entity. A carpenter will
project onto the hammer different possibilities than a physicist would, for example.
Similarly, to use Wight and Joseph’s example, a radical Marxist will project upon
‘the international system’ a very different understanding of its meaning and
possibilities than will the executive of a large hedge-fund. Neither Da-sein’s
understanding of this entity is a transparent reflection of a mind-independent
reality, but always occurs ‘in the light of Being.’ Heidegger’s inquiry into ‘the

2. Martin Heidegger, Being and Time, trans. John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson (Oxford:
Wiley-Blackwell, 1962), 25-26.
3. For a challenge to Heidegger's anthropocentrism here see Giorgio Agamben, The Open: Man and
Animal (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004).
161
meaning of Being’ in Being and Time is thus not directed towards an analysis of
the meaning of the entities that are encountered by Da-sein, and neither is it
directed towards the meaning of Da-sein itself, it is directed towards the meaning
of Being in general: the underlying current, the sine qua non of Da-sein’s
encounter with entities.’4
Arguably, the question of Being has been the fundamental question of both
philosophy and theology. Why is there something rather than nothing? Is there any
support for human or cosmic existence? Is the universe primarily composed of
matter, or spirit? Are human beings essentially rational or are they asocial beasts
that need to be subdued? Da-sein has interpreted Being in various ways, and these
various interpretations have influenced our political and ethical lives since they
inform our interpretations of the being of the entities that we encounter. What
would life be like in a ‘state of nature?’ What then justifies authority? Security
(Hobbes)? Protection of property? (Locke) Democratic legitimacy? (Rousseau) Is
man essentially rational? If so, then surely we should act in a way that allows him
to flourish as a rational being (Kant). In a theological register, Christians may
encounter other human beings as essentially all God’s children, fallen, but
endowed with reason and essentially good, and standing towards the earth as
stewards of God’s creation. Each understanding of Being will inform the way that
human beings (Da-sein) interpret their own existence, and will inform the
possibilities that they project for themselves and for others.5 These are all examples
of different interpretations of Being that serve as the sine qua non of Da-sein’s
encounter with entities in the world, both ‘things’ and other human beings. In each
case the encounter with entities occurs in the light of an understanding of Being,
‘that on the basis of which entities are already understood.’6

4. Torsten Michel, “In Heidegger’s Shadow: A Phenomenological Critique of Critical Realism,”
Review of International Studies 38 (2012), 221.
5. 'As a nominalized infinitive, Dasein has no plural. It refers to any and every human being, in
much the way that das Seiende, lit. “that which is,” refers to any and every being. When more than
one person is in play Heidegger speaks of (the) other(s) or Dasein-wifh (Mitdasein). He revives the
original sense, “being there,” often writing Da-sein to stress this.' Michael Inwood, A Heidegger
Dictionary (Oxford: Blackwell, 1999), 42.
6. Martin Heidegger, Being and Time, 25-26.
162
Heidegger thus distinguishes between ‘ontic’ inquiry and ‘ontological’

inquiry, where ontic inquiry explores determinations that pertain to specific entities
– such as rocks, hammers, or human beings – and ontological inquiry, which
explores the meaning of Being itself. This is Heidegger’s ‘ontological difference,’
his ‘most prized philosophical innovation.’ 7 While a hammer has an ontic
existence independently of our knowledge of it, its being, its existence as a tool, is
dependent upon our understanding of it. Similarly, although human beings have an
ontic existence independently of our knowledge of them, their being as specifically
human existences does not, and relies upon an interpretation of Being.
Heidegger’s central complaint against the Western philosophical tradition is

that, while it has been concerned with the question ‘what are beings,’ it has
forgotten that there is a distinction to be drawn between entities and their
existence. Consequently, ontological questions, questions about existence, have
been reduced to questions about ‘what is’ rather than the ‘being’ of what is. The
forgetting of the ontological difference has thus reduced the study of ontology, of
what it means ‘to be,’ to the study of the ontic. Since it has merely asked ‘what are
beings,’ the central question of philosophy, the question of what it means ‘to be,’
has been a leading question; it has led us away from inquiring as to the nature of
Being itself. Heidegger gives interpretations of reality as mind or spirit (Geist), as
matter or force, as becoming, representation (Vorstellung), will, substance, subject,
energia as example responses to this leading question. In each case entities appear
as entities ‘in the light of Being’ (Sein), but Being itself is not thought: whenever
metaphysics ‘represents’ entities, Being, as the ‘clearing,’ has already happened.8

(Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 2006), 219.
8. Paul Gorner, Twentieth Century German Philosophy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000),
116. Heidegger tells us from the start that Da-sein is being-in-the-world, but we are never directly
in the world; we are always thrown into a particular context that informs the way that we relate to
the world. Heidegger calls this situation a Lichtung (Clearing). This is an open space within which
we can encounter objects. 'Things show up in the light of our understanding of being.' Hubert
Dreyfus, Being-in-the-World: A Commentary on Heidegger’s Being and Time (Cambridge, MA:
The MIT Press, 1991), 163.
163
On the Necessity and Priority of the Question of Being
In his Categories, Aristotle divided Being into a primary category of

‘substance’ (ousia), natural ‘things’ that existed in their own right, and other
entities as attributes of substances (quality, quantity, relation, etc.). According to
Aristotle then, what it meant ‘to be’ was to either be a substance or to be an
attribute of a substance. Importantly, Aristotle was a metaphysical realist: he
regarded these categories as distinctions that inhered in the nature of things, ‘they
are read off nature and are not schemas read into or imposed upon nature by us.’9
This characterisation of Being as substance, or as an attribute of a substance,
persisted throughout the Western ontological tradition. Heidegger refers to this
traditional reliance on a substance or ground as the enduring principle of reality as
constituting a 'metaphysics of presence,' and his innovation is to problematise the
view that reality must be understood in terms of substance at all.10
This approach to the theorisation of reality was central to both Heidegger's

doctoral thesis and his qualifying dissertation (his Habilitationsschrift), both of
which challenged the ‘substance’ ontology that permeated Aristotle’s theory of the
categories and its acceptance within the ontological tradition. For instance,
Heidegger’s Habilitationsschrift demonstrated that in Duns Scotus’s treatment of
the categories, ‘the conditions and means by which the subject takes hold of, or
interprets, its objects, which Scotus had called the “conditions of subjectivity,”
attain paramount importance.’ 11 This led Heidegger to challenge Aristotelian
metaphysical realism by questioning the consequences of reflection and theorizing
on reality; in short, ‘the categories of “all that is” become the categories of our
understanding of Being: the categories become the “elements and means of the
interpretation of the meaning of what is experienced.”’12 Crucially though, the idea
that categories of ‘what is’ are categories of the interpreter’s understanding of

9. Dorothea Frede, “The Question of Being: Heidegger’s Project,” in The Cambridge Companion to
Heidegger, ed. Charles Guignon (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 45. emphasis
added
10. Ibid.
(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2007), 35.
12. Ibid.
164
Being led Heidegger to conclude that reality is in fact framed by the subject’s
understanding.13 This leads to his attempt in Being and Time to find a way to
access a pre-theoretical attitude toward the world and reality.14
Heidegger’s engagement with Scotus led to his related argument that the
objectifying attitude of the subject towards the object originates in the theoretical
attitude itself.15 He thus wanted to inquire as to a method for ontology that would
avoid the imposition of subjective categories onto reality the way that modes of
theoretical thinking did.16 In short, for Heidegger, theoretical activity served to
‘un-live’ human experience and objectify existence.17 Although Heidegger was not
against theory he wanted to mitigate the inevitably subjectivist bias of the
theoretical orientation by grounding it in an holistic conception of human existence
as Da-sein; as being-in-the-world, with ‘care’ (Sorge) as the meaning of that
existence, and temporality as the transcendental horizon of any interpretation of
Being.18
Fundamental Ontology
An exercise in what Heidegger calls ‘fundamental ontology,’ Being and Time

is an attempt to provide such a ground. Whereas ontology has traditionally been
concerned with the ‘ontic’ – the inquiry as to what exists focussing on properties
of entities, their ‘whatness’ – fundamental ontology inquires as to the meaning of
being of that entity that encounters entities as objects. Fundamental ontology
therefore represents a step back from engaging in rational representations of reality
– which Heidegger considers to be either metaphysics or ontology grounded in
metaphysics – to an analysis of the fundamental structures of our experience of
existence. Such an understanding must provide the foundation from which any

13. Ibid.
14. Ibid.
15. As we shall see in Chapter 6 this is an insight shared by Hegel.
16. Ibid., 35-36.
17. Ibid., 36.
18. Dorothea Frede, “The Question of Being: Heidegger’s Project,” 50-51. See also Odysseos's
discussion: Louiza Odysseos, The Subject of Coexistence, 32-36.
165
subsequent interpretations of Being proceed, since after the loss of any

transcendent authority, the ‘death of God,’ this pre-theoretical guide is the best that
we now have.
Investigating the ‘truth of Being’ is thus a phenomenological task. It is only

through the experience of existence, a phenomenology of Da-sein, that the
meaning of Being in general can be interpreted. While ontology, the meaning of
Being, is the object of philosophy, phenomenology is its procedure;
‘phenomenology of Da-sein is hermeneutics [...] the work of interpretation.’19 In
the wake of the ‘death’ of God, a phenomenology of Da-sein’s experience of
existence is the only reliable path to interpret the meaning of Being:
‘[p]henomenology is the science of the being of beings-ontology.’20
In the terms of the overall argument presented here then, what Heidegger is
offering us in Being and Time is an account of the human being that goes deeper
than the dualist reliance on a foundational subject. This account has profound
implications for the emancipatory project of CIRT since it fundamentally alters the
way that we understand the nature of the relations between human beings and other
entities in world politics; this includes social objects such as states and the
international system, but most importantly, the nature of our relations with other
human beings.
Being and Time
Being and Time is divided into three sections: the Introduction, Division One,
and Division Two, each in turn divided into chapters. The Introduction establishes
the priority and necessity of the question of Being by rehearsing the argument
against metaphysical realism outlined above. As Heidegger puts it: ‘we always
conduct our activities in an understanding of Being,’ where Being is ‘that which

19. Martin Heidegger, Being and Time, 68.
20. Ibid., 61.
166
determines entities as entities.’ 21 In social science parlance, Heidegger is

identifying the ontological presuppositions of inquiry, which relate to the judgment
of the prior necessity of a worldview informing any engagement with the world,
foreshadowing what Gadamer identifies as the hermeneutic circle.22 In a different
register, the idea of our world-relation speaks to the situatedness of knowledge,
since even basic concepts do not give an unbiased representation of the world, but
are themselves grounded in, and involved in the recreation of particular worlds:
Basic concepts determine the way in which we get an understanding beforehand of the
area of subject-matter underlying all the objects a science takes as its theme, and all
positive investigation is guided by this understanding. Only after the area itself has been
explored beforehand in a corresponding manner do these concepts become genuinely
demonstrated and “grounded.” But since every area is itself obtained from the domain of
entities themselves, this preliminary research, from which the basic concepts are drawn,
signifies nothing else but an interpretation of those entities with regard to their basic state
of Being.23
Consequently, the question of Being aims at ‘ascertaining the a priori

conditions both of the possibility of the sciences,’ but also ‘for the possibility of
those ontologies themselves which are prior to the ontical sciences and which
provide their foundations.’24 Heidegger continues: [b]asically, all ontology, no
matter how rich and firmly compacted a system of categories it has at its disposal,
remains blind and perverted from its ownmost aim, if it has not first adequately
clarified the meaning of Being, and conceived this clarification as its fundamental
task.’25 This is the essence of Michel’s critique of critical realism: that critical
realists unjustifiably assume scientific inquiry to be the highest mode of human
activity.26
Moving onto Division One, Heidegger provides a ‘preparatory fundamental

of Dasein,’ where he offers an existential analysis of the elements of the
experience of human existence such as it is essentially ‘Being-in-the-world.’ Here

21. Ibid., 25.
22. See Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method (London: Continuum, 2004), 268-306. For
Heidegger's discussion of the hermeneutical circle: Martin Heidegger, Being and Time, 362-63.
23. Ibid., 30.
24. Ibid., 31.
25. Ibid.
26. Torsten Michel, “In Heidegger’s Shadow.”
167
he identifies structures that inform the human experience of existence and that
constitute the structure of Dasein; these include ‘worldliness,’ ‘being-with,’ and
‘care.’ Division Two then offers a general interpretation of ‘the meaning of Being,’
which Heidegger identifies as ‘temporality:’ temporality is posited as the horizon
of any interpretation of existence. The final part of Division Two then returns to
the ontological structures identified in Division One in order to demonstrate their
existential-temporal nature. We will now proceed to discuss Divisions One and
Two in greater depth.
Being and Time: Division One
Worldhood (BT:91-149)
In the Introduction to Being and Time Heidegger writes that ‘Dasein’s

understanding of Being pertains with equal primordiality both to an understanding
of something like a “world,” and to the understanding of the Being of those entities
which become accessible within the world.’27 While there are four different uses of
the term ‘world,’ in this sense, as Da-sein’s ‘worldhood,’ the world is understood
as the familiar horizon within which we move confidently in our everyday
existence and within which entities are encountered as entities.28 It is not just a
collection of the countable or the uncountable, familiar or unfamiliar things that
become present to us, and neither is it merely the imagined framework added by
our representation to the sum of these things. Rather, it is the composite whole of
our significant relationships with other entities, and within which meaning is
conferred upon those entities. The world is something that is generated and
projected by human Da-sein, it draws us in and shapes us, and we recreate these
worlds in our projects and projected possibilities. Worlds, however, are not created
by ‘subjects,’ since we cannot stand above, below, or to the side of them as
subjects, whether as an ‘I’ or as a ‘We.’

28. On these four uses see Ibid., 93.
168
Being-with (BT:149-169)
Turning to an analysis of who Da-sein is in its everydayness, there-being

(Da-sein) is always already being-with (Mitsein). Being-with and Dasein-with
(Mitsein & Mitdasein) are fundamental existential structures of Da-sein that are
‘equiprimordial with Being-in-the-world.’29 As Heidegger writes, ‘[t]he world of
Dasein is a with-world. Being-in is Being-with Others.’30 As we shall see, this
structure of Da-sein does not relate to the co-presence of individual subjects, but is
a basic state in which Da-sein gets co-determined by its relations with others.31
Care (BT:225-270)
The third existential structure of Da-sein is ‘care’ (Sorge). Care discloses the
concrete constitution of Da-sein’s existence and is itself constituted by three
elements: Da-sein’s facticity or thrownness, falling, and projection. These loosely
correspond to an individual’s past, present, and future, and presage the later
determination of time as the horizon of any interpretation of Being. Care thus
represents the ‘structural whole’ of Da-sein, which is to say that concernful
relations with the world represent the state of being of Da-sein:
Dasein’s Being is care. It comprises in itself facticity (thrownness), existence (projection),

and falling. As being, Dasein is something that has been thrown; it has been brought into
its “there,” but not of its own accord. As being, it has taken the definite form of a
potentiality-for-Being which has heard itself and has devoted itself to itself, but not as
itself. As existent, it never comes back behind its thrownness in such a way that it might
first release this “that-it-is-and-has-to-be” from its Being-its-Self and lead it into the
‘there.’32
Because it is primordially constituted by care, any Da-sein is always already

ahead of itself: ‘[a]s being, it has in every case already projected itself upon
definite possibilities of its existence; and in such existentiell projections it has, in a

29. Ibid., 149.
30. Ibid., 155.
31. Ibid., 153.
32. Ibid., 329-30.
169
pre-ontological manner, also projected something like existence and Being.’ 33

Basically, thrownness is inescapable, and as selves we cannot go behind our
thrownness in order to direct our relations with other entities from the ground up.
Disputing the Subject
All three existential structures of Da-sein thus present a challenge to the

supposition of a foundational subject. In Chapter III, Heidegger stresses the
importance of gaining proper access to the phenomenon of Da-sein’s world-hood,
and contrasts this view with that of Descartes, for whom the only genuine access to
the world (as res extensa) lies in knowing the world, such as the knowledge we
achieve in mathematics and physics. Heidegger’s complaint against Descartes is
that he ignores the ontological difference by supposing that we always encounter
entities as things ‘present-at-hand,’ as substances.34 Heidegger’s objection is that
Descartes thereby projects an interpretation of Being as ‘substantiality’ onto
entities:
[T]he Being of the “world” is, as it were, dictated to it in terms of a definite idea of Being
which lies veiled in the concept of substantiality, and in terms of the idea of a knowledge
by which such entities are cognized. The kind of Being which belongs to entities within-
the-world is something which they themselves might have been permitted to present; but
Descartes does not let them do so. Instead he prescribes for the world its real Being, as it
were, on the basis on an idea of Being whose source has not been unveiled and which has
not been demonstrated in its own right – an idea in which Being is equated with constant
presence-at-hand.35
Heidegger’s contrasting view is that we do not encounter entities as if they

were context-independent-present-at-hand-primitives, neutrally transmitted to us as
raw sense data – such as a ‘pure’ experience of the colour blue – to which meaning
would have to then be added, but that our encounters with entities is a kind of

33. Ibid., 363. Heidegger distinguishes between "existential" determinations and "existentiell"
determinations. Existential determinations relate to the general structure of an entity's existence, to
its being, while existentiell determinations relate to the particular existence of any given entity. So,
the ability of human beings to act in different ways to shape their own being is an existential
determination of human beings, whereas a person's decision to place more importance on being a
good parent than a career-person is an existentiell determination.
34. Ibid., 128-29.
35. Ibid.
170
encounter with things that are always already ready-to-hand, and which therefore
come laden with context-dependent significance. Perhaps his best statement of this
distinction comes later in Being and Time:
What we “first” hear is never noises or complexes of sounds, but the creaking wagon, the
motor-cycle. We hear the column on the march, the north wind, the woodpecker tapping,
the fire crackling [...] It requires a very artificial and complicated frame of mind to “hear”
a “pure noise.” The fact that motor-cycles and wagons are what we proximally hear is the
phenomenal evidence that in every case Dasein, as Being-in-the-world, already dwells
alongside what is ready-to-hand within-the-world; it certainly does not dwell proximally
alongside “sensations;” nor would it first have to give shape to the swirl of sensations to
provide a springboard from which the subject leaps off and finally arrives at a “world.”
Dasein, as essentially understanding, is proximally alongside what is understood.36
The difference then, is that rather than starting with pure present-at-hand
‘substances’ that appear simply as they are ‘in-themselves,’ Da-sein’s worldhood
means that it has always already conferred meaning upon the entities that it
encounters. Trying to adopt a more objective perspective on those entities involves
attempting to strip away the layers of meaning that we project upon them; a task
that can perhaps never be fully achieved.37 This projection of meaning is not
confined to things or tools, it will happen in our encounter with other persons too.
Mitsein / Intersubjectivity
In The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity Habermas criticises Heidegger

for remaining basically ‘caught up in the problems that subject-centred philosophy
(in the form of Husserlian phenomenology) had bequeathed to him.’38 Habermas
demonstrates here a profound misunderstanding of the importance of being-with
(Mitsein) as an existential structure of Da-sein. As Dallmayr has shown, terms such
as ‘co-being’ and ‘being-with’ in Being and Time ‘are used precisely to forestall
the impression of a mere conjunction or juxtaposition of individual subjects (an

36. Ibid., 207.
37. This is what happens during our constructions of cognitive objects. In the end though, cognitive
objects are never simply reflections of the mind-independent real but are more or less adequate
constructions of mind-independent entities.
38. See Jürgen Habermas, The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity: Twelve Lectures
(Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1990), 136-139,148-152.
171
impression still conveyed in such formulas as “intersubjectivity” or

39
“intersubjectively achieved agreement”).’ Indeed, Heidegger’s identification of
the existential structure of Mitsein represents a deeper ontological recognition of
the essential nature of human sociality, a sociality from which Habermas’s concept
of inter-subjectivity abstracts and subsequently objectifies by representing it as a
relation between subjects. Heidegger’s insistence that Da-sein (there-being) is
always already Mitsein (being-with) means that we cannot suppose that
subjectivity is antecedent to our relations (past, present and future) with others, and
that inter-personal relations cannot simply consist in establishing connections
between Ego and Alter as if these relations were a bridge between autarchic
subjects. Rather, he demonstrates that something much deeper – our very selfhood
– is at stake.
The Ek-sistent Individual
Lastly, rather than presenting the human being as a subject, Heidegger has
something altogether different in mind; namely, man as ‘ek-sistent’. The structural
totality of ‘care’ (Sorge) as Da-sein’s essential state of being reflects the view that
Da-sein has been ‘thrown;’ it has been brought into existence, but not of its own
accord. Importantly, Da-sein cannot come back behind its thrownness to have
power over its being from the ground up, so our understanding of existence is only
possible on the basis of our thrownness, a basis that is beyond our power or
control. Nonetheless, we understand ourselves in terms of possibilities and
continually project ourselves into different possible futures; Da-sein is then
nothing else but a constant becoming, right up to the point of death, when it ceases
to exist. Da-sein is that being that is ‘between’ birth and death; existence is
definitive for Da-sein, which exists as possibility rather than as ground.
This argument – that ‘existence’ is definitive of human existence – is

influential in the development of Sartre’s existentialism, as reflected by his claim

39. Fred R. Dallmayr, The Other Heidegger (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1995), 60.
172
that ‘existence precedes essence.’40 We should not confuse Sartre’s claim with
Heidegger’s, however. The difference between the two is most pronounced in
Heidegger’s response to Sartre’s claim that ‘existentialism is a humanism’ in his
Letter on Humanism, where Heidegger clarifies what is meant by his claim that
existence is definitive for Da-sein. This is not a question of existential priority
between existence and essence, since this would perpetuate the metaphysical
tradition that Heidegger is trying to overcome. Rather, the key lies in the
relationship between man and Being. Da-sein’s existence is thus distinguished not
by some essence, something that precedes, but by its ‘ek-sistence,’ a neologism
that is intended to distinguish his own view that existence is definitive of human
being from Sartre’s, and is meant to signify that man ‘stands out’ into the ‘truth of
Being.’
In Being and Time ‘ecstatic’ temporality (from the Greek ekstasis) signifies
the way that human being stands out the various moments of the temporality of
care, being ‘thrown’ out of a past and ‘projecting’ towards a future by way of the
present.41 Ek-sistence is both the ground of the possibility of reason (ratio) but also
the ‘essence’ of man, in that it relates to the human way ‘to be.’42 ‘As ek-sisting,
man sustains Da-sein in that he takes the Da, the clearing of Being, into “care.” But
Da-sein itself occurs essentially as “thrown.” It unfolds essentially in the throw of
Being as the fateful sending.’43 Distinguishing this view of man from those within
the metaphysical tradition, Heidegger writes:
The ecstatic essence of man consists in ek-sistence, which is different from the
metaphysically conceived essentia. Medieval philosophy conceives the latter as actualitas.
Kant represents existentia as actuality in the sense of the objectivity of experience. Hegel
defines existentia as the self-knowing Idea of absolute subjectivity. Nietzsche grasps
essentia as the eternal recurrence of the same.44

40. Jean-Paul Sartre, Existentialism is a Humanism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007).
41. Martin Heidegger, “Letter on Humanism,” in Martin Heidegger: Basic Writings, ed. David F.
Krell (New York: Harper Collins, 1993), 204. cf. Martin Heidegger, Being and Time, 54.
42. Martin Heidegger, “Letter on Humanism,” 204.
43. Ibid., 230-31. In Being and Time Heidegger writes: 'And how is Dasein this thrown basis? Only
in that it projects itself upon possibilities into which it has been thrown. The Self, which as such has
to lay the basis for itself, can never get that basis into its power; and yet, as existing, it must take
over Being-a-basis.' Martin Heidegger, Being and Time, 330.
44. Martin Heidegger, “Letter on Humanism,” 229.
173
Proceeding to distinguish his view of the nature of man’s existence as ek-

sistence from Sartrean existentialism, he writes ‘Ek-sistence, thought in terms of
ecstasis, does not coincide with existentia in either form or content. In terms of
content ek-sistence means standing out into the truth of Being. Existentia
(existence) means in contrast actualitas, actuality as opposed to mere possibility as
Idea.’ 45 According to Heidegger then, even Sartre’s existentialist claim that
‘existence precedes essence’ thus mistakenly affirms a metaphysical actuality, a
substance that inheres in man. Heidegger resists a metaphysical definition of
humanity because this fails to recognise that our ‘essence,’ or more accurately,
what is principally unique about man, is that we relate to something that is not
ourselves – to Being. Ek-sistence for Heidegger means that we are given over to
Being, we interpret the world and give it meaning, meaning that we project out
onto the entities that we encounter.
Man’s proper relationship to the world is therefore not a relationship of

subject to object. We are not the creator and manipulator of entities, the primordial
source of all meaning and value in the world; yet neither are we simply making
sense of a world with which we have had no involvement in creating. Human
beings are both interpreters and creators of worlds that we are involved in, but
which nonetheless lie beyond us. As ek-sistent, man is neither vassal nor lord over
entities, rather, ‘man is the shepherd of Being.’46 Our proper relationship to the
world then is not primarily a relation of knowing subject to known object, and our
relations to each other are not primarily relations between subjects, since ‘[a]ll
ontical experience of entities – both circumspective calculation of the ready-to-
hand, and positive scientific cognition of the present-at-hand – is based upon
projections of the Being of the corresponding entities.’47
A commitment to foundational subjectivity is therefore considered to be a

‘fugitive’ way of understanding the self.48 ‘When saying “I,” Dasein surely has in

45. Ibid., 230.
46. Ibid., 234.
48. Ibid., 368.
174
view the entity which, in every case, it is itself. The everyday interpretation of the
Self, however, has a tendency to understand itself in terms of the “world” with
which it is concerned.’49 Understanding social relations as intersubjective relations
presupposes then a shared interpretation of Being, and hypostatises the process by
which Being itself is co-disclosed with others. ‘Both talking and hearing are based
upon understanding. And understanding arises neither through talking at length nor
through busily hearing something “all around.” Only he who already understands
can listen.’50 According to Heidegger then, Da-sein’s proper role is not to establish
the conditions of subjectivity but to ‘let Being be;’ to allow others to present
themselves in their uniqueness, not simply as ethical subjects engaging in dialogue.
Our political projects should aspire to allow the ‘here’, the ‘da’ of our Da-sein,
what Heidegger calls ‘the clearing’ to be a place where Being can be disclosed, can
come to presence.
Being and Time: Division Two
While the existential analytic of the experience of human existence (Da-sein)

in Division One established ‘care,’ concernful relations with the world, (Sorge) as
the basic state of Da-sein’s being-in-the-world, the meaning of Being as a whole
itself was not offered.51 Division Two sees Heidegger bring the question of Da-
sein’s being-in-the-world into an authentic relationship with time, where
temporality is posited as the transcendental horizon of Da-sein’s concernful
dealings with the world. In his Letter on Humanism Heidegger describes
concernful relations with the world, ‘care,’ in the following way:
Most poignantly experienced in the phenomenon of anxiety – which is not fear of anything
at hand but awareness of my being-in-the-world as such – “care” describes the sundry
ways I get involved in the issue of my birth, life, and death, whether by my projects,
inclinations, insights, or illusions. “Care” is the all-inclusive name for my concern for
other people, preoccupations with things, and awareness of my proper Being. It expresses

49. Ibid.
50. Ibid., 208.
51. Ibid., 273-74.
175
the movement of my life out of a past, into a future, through the present. In section 65 the
ontological meaning of the Being of care proves to be temporality.52
Because Da-sein exists as possibility, ‘care’ is brought into a relation with

temporality; since existence is definitive for Dasein’s being, its essence is in part
constituted by potentiality-for-being, for: ‘as long as Dasein exists, it must in each
case, as such a potentiality, not yet be something.’53 An entity that is defined as
existence, then, cannot possibly grasp the whole as an entity. This hermeneutical
situation makes us ‘question whether “having” the whole entity is attainable at all,
and whether a primordial ontological interpretation of Dasein will not founder on
the kind of Being which belongs to the very entity we have taken as our theme.’54
Consequently the meaning of Dasein as a whole, or Being in general, may thus be
limited to an interpretation of the meaning of entities in general.
Temporality as the Meaning of Being
Since the meaning of Being as a whole is dependent upon entities in general,

temporality is posited as the ‘upon which’ that any interpretation of Being is
dependent: temporality is ‘the primordial ontological basis for Dasein’s
existentiality.’55 Identifying temporality as ‘the meaning of Being in general’ is not
the most transparent of moves, so a brief explanation is in order.
Heidegger understands meaning as ‘that wherein the understandability of

something maintains itself – even that of something which does not come into view
explicitly and thematically. “Meaning” signifies the “upon-which” of a primary
projection in terms of which something can be conceived in its possibility as that
which it is.’56 Thus positing temporality as the ‘ontological meaning of care’ is not
to say that temporality is expressed or signified by Being, nor is it to say that
temporality is the end or purpose of existence. Rather, it is to identify temporality

52. Martin Heidegger, “Letter on Humanism,” 223n.
54. Ibid.
55. Ibid., 277.
56. Ibid., 370-71.
176
as the ‘upon which’ of any projection of Being. Temporality is the basis of our
concern with the world; our understanding of the world is both temporal and
temporary.
‘Temporality’ is a translation of the German Zeitlichkeit, which Lewis

prefers to translate as ‘temporariness’ or ‘temporaeity,’ basically signifying that
Being as a whole is founded on a being that only has a temporary span. 57
Understanding Being as temporality or temporariness means that human existence
is understood as founded upon the presence of human beings who are finite, and
who thus only ever have a partial relation to the whole of Being. There are two key
implications of this move: the first for the human mode of being in the world, the
second for metaphysics and the project of fundamental ontology; both contribute to
a more primordial conception of human freedom than that associated with the
exercise of subjectivity.
Authenticity, Resoluteness, Solicitude
Any given Da-sein’s understanding of itself is considered to be authentic

when it is based on an understanding of its own being as being-in-the-world; when
it proceeds from the recognition that the existential structures of worldhood, being-
with, and care, condition the nature of the self’s existence.58 The ontological basis
for such an authenticity is Da-sein’s realisation that its being-in-the-world is a
being-towards-death; when the issue of our own mortality is faced head on.59
Da-sein’s realisation that death is its ownmost, non-relational and

unsurpassed – certain yet indefinite – possibility, leaves it standing in an
anticipatory relation to the future. This brings with it the realisation that its
existence is not just a series of perpetual ‘presents,’ and thereby compels the
structures of care – thrownness, falling, and projection – into an authentic relation

57. Michael Lewis, Heidegger and the Place of Ethics (London: Continuum, 2005), 15.
59. Ibid., 310-11.
177
with time. The structures of concernful relations with the world explored in
Division One are thus ultimately subjected to finitude (Endlichkeit).
The indefiniteness of one’s own potentiality-for-Being, even when this potentiality has
become certain in a resolution, is first made wholly manifest in Being-towards-death.
Anticipation brings Dasein face to face with a possibility which is constantly certain but
which at any moment remains indefinite as to when that possibility will become an
impossibility. Anticipation makes it manifest that this entity has been thrown into the
indefiniteness of its “limit-Situation;” when resolved upon the latter, Dasein gains its
authentic potentiality-for-Being-a-whole. The indefiniteness of death is primordially
disclosed in anxiety. But this primordial anxiety strives to exact resoluteness of itself. It
moves out of the way everything which conceals the fact that Dasein is abandoned to
itself. The “nothing” with which anxiety brings us face to face, unveils the nullity by
which Dasein, in its very basis, is defined; and this basis itself is as thrownness into
death.60
In short, confronting our own mortality leads us to realise that ultimately we are
responsible for our own self-actualisation, which frees us from our absorption in
the present, our lostness in ‘the they’ (das Man).61 This freedom is ‘resoluteness’
(Entschlossenheit).
Resoluteness
Kompridis is clear that he considers the translation of Entschlossenheit as

‘resoluteness’ to be ‘deeply flawed and very misleading,’ and claims that
resoluteness should not be misunderstood as a species of decisionism, but as
essentially a mode of disclosure: ‘Entschlossenheit is not synonymous with
decision, or decisiveness, or a manly readiness to take action; it is synonymous
with Erschlossenheit, with disclosure, or disclosedness. “Unclosing” or
“unclosedness” would serve as a much more accurate and felicitous translation.’62
This view is reinforced by Heidegger’s later clarification that ‘[t]he resoluteness

60. Ibid., 356.
61. Ibid., 311.
62. Nikolas Kompridis, Critique and Disclosure: Critical Theory Between Past and Future,
51n11,58.
178
intended in Being and Time is not the deliberate action of a subject but the opening
up of human being, out of its captivity in beings, to the openness of Being.’63
Resoluteness is authentic being-in-the-world because it leads Da-sein to take

care of things, of other beings, and of its own mode of being. Realising that our
time on the earth is limited and will not come again frees us through an
anticipatory resolve towards the future, a resolve to make the most of our time.
[A]nticipation reveals to Dasein its lostness in the they-self, and brings it face to face with
the possibility of being itself, primarily unsupported by concernful solicitude, but of being
itself, rather, in an impassioned freedom towards death – a freedom which has been
released from the Illusions of the “they,” and which is factical, certain of itself, and
anxious.64
Resoluteness is therefore key to Da-sein’s authentic being-in-the-world, and

involves the transcendence of Da-sein’s ‘falling’ (Verfallen) into the everyday
concerns of the present by taking over Da-sein’s own past and projecting it into the
future.
Importantly, resoluteness is always the resoluteness of some factical Da-sein;

it is not simply the picking out of some possibility that has been recommended, but
amounts to ‘the disclosive projection and determination of what is factically
possible at the time.’65 Da-sein frees itself through resoluteness, which is a mode of
human freedom because it depends on Dasein’s potentiality-for-Being being
indefinite: resoluteness is, therefore, both dependent upon and expressive of human
freedom.
For Heidegger then, it is resoluteness (Entschlossenheit) that constitutes the

authentic mode of human being in the world, as authentic potentiality-for-being. It
is authentic because it simultaneously recognises the existential structures that
condition the possibility of Da-sein, and is not the simple freedom of the individual
thought as subject:

63. Martin Heidegger, “The Origin of the Work of Art,” in Martin Heidegger: Basic Writings, ed.
David F. Krell. (New York: Harper Collins, 1993), 192.
65. Ibid., 345.
179
Resoluteness, as authentic Being-one’s-Self, does not detach Dasein from its world, nor
does it isolate it so that it becomes a free-floating “I.” And how should it, when
resoluteness as authentic disclosedness, is authentically nothing else than Being-in-the-
world? Resoluteness brings the Self right into its current concernful Being-alongside what
is ready-to-hand, and pushes it into solicitous Being with Others.66
In contrast to the simple ethical or practical self-determination of the

individual thought as subject, freedom for Heidegger must relate to some
concretely existing, factical human being. Resoluteness is therefore Heidegger’s
way of expressing our authentic freedom for self-determination.67
Solicitude
A common criticism of Heidegger is that he paid too little attention to the

ethical aspects of being-in-the-world. Although he certainly paid far too little
attention to the ethical relation between self and other, he does not ignore it,
because it is central to his notion of solicitude (Fürsorge).68 As we saw above,
‘resoluteness brings the Self into its current concernful Being-alongside what is
ready-to-hand, and pushes it into solicitous Being with Others.’69 Solicitous being-
with-others is when we comport ourselves towards others in the manner of ‘caring
for;’ the character of this relation with others is very different from the character of
our relations with entities that are present-at-hand (things) and ready-to-hand
(tools), since it is other people that are encountered. Concern is thus a mode of
being-with.70
Solicitude (Fürsorge) itself is a neutral concept, and there are different types
of solicitous relations with others, ranging from the negative (indifference) to the
positive (‘active’). It is the mode of indifference that characterises everyday being-
with-one-another, and this mode of indifference often gets misinterpreted as the

66. Ibid., 344.
67. Nikolas Kompridis, Critique and Disclosure: Critical Theory Between Past and Future, 49.
68. Ibid.
69. Martin Heidegger, Being and Time, 344. emphasis added.
70. Ibid., 157.
180
mere co-presence of multiple individual subjects.71 Positive solicitous relations

with others can themselves be either inauthentic – ‘taking care of’ others
possibilities for them – or ‘authentic,’ where one actively works to free up the other
for their own possibilities. Heidegger offers us two extreme examples:
[Positive solicitude] can, as it were, take away “care” from the Other and put itself in its
position of concern: it can leap in for him. This kind of solicitude takes over for the other
that with which he is to concern himself. The Other is thus thrown out of his own position;
he steps back so that afterwards, when the matter has been attended to, he can either take it
over as something finished and at his disposal, or disburden himself of it completely. In
such solicitude the Other can become one who is dominated and dependent, even if this
domination is a tacit one and remains hidden from him. This kind of solicitude, which
leaps in and takes away “care,” is to a large extent determinative for Being with one
another, and pertains for the most part to our concern with the ready-to-hand. In contrast to
this there is also the possibility of a kind of solicitude which does not so much leap in for
the other as leap ahead of him (ihm vorausspringt) in his existentiell potentiality-for-
Being, not in order to take away his “care” but rather to give it back to him authentically as
such for the first time. This kind of solicitude pertains essentially to authentic care – that
is, to the existence of the Other, not as a “what” with which he is concerned; it helps the
other to become transparent to himself in his care and to become free for it.72
As Kompridis has noted, Heidegger’s account of positive solicitude in this

passage comes very close to Hegel’s understanding of freedom in the master-slave
dialectic in the Phenomenology. Though the problem with Heidegger’s account,
contra Hegel, is that he thinks that resoluteness must precede solicitous being-with
others.73 And so, while Heidegger offers us both a more convincing account of the
relation between freedom and dependence than can be offered through a reliance
on the subject, as well an account of relations with others as solicitous being-with
that serves as a nascent but fruitful alternative to relations of inter-subjectivity, he
falls short when it comes to a concrete analysis of inter-personal relations.
Essentially, Heidegger fails to demonstrate that both freedom and self-
intelligibility are ineluctably acquired in relation to others under conditions of
cooperative interaction. Had he been a better student of Hegel’s, Heidegger might
perhaps have avoided this mistake, since in this regard at least, Hegel’s

71. Ibid., 158.
72. Ibid., 158-59.
73. 'In the light of the "for-the-sake-of-which" of one's self-chosen potentiality-for-Being, resolute
Dasein frees itself for its world. Dasein's resoluteness towards itself is what first makes it possible
to let the Others who are with it 'be' in their ownmost potentiality-for-Being, and to co-disclose this
potentiality in the solicitude which leaps forward and liberates ... Only by authentically Being-their-
Selves in resoluteness can people authentically be with one another.' Ibid., 344.
181
‘intersubjective’ account of freedom and subjectivity is much more convincing,

more consistent with and more favourable to, Heidegger’s account of positive
solicitude.74 We shall return to these claims in Part 3.
Perspectival Presentation of the Whole: Overcoming

Metaphysics.
The second important implication of Heidegger’s analysis of the experience

of human existence relates not primarily to characteristically free and ethical action
of the individual person, as do resoluteness and solicitude, but to the scope and
nature of the ethical and political claims that persons might make. While claims to
ethical or epistemological objectivity, such as those sought after by Habermas and
Linklater’s (epistemological) identification of the human being as post-
conventional discourse agent, or the (ethical) attempt to transcend ethical
particularity by reaching agreement on objective moral principles, require the
presence of a knowing subject (epistemological or ethical) to underwrite such
claims, Heidegger’s identification of temporality as the ‘meaning of Being’ leads
us to regard these ethical or epistemological claims as essentially political and
perspectival. The present section thus returns to a consideration of Heidegger’s
discussion in Division Two of Being and Time of the nature of the possibility of
grasping the meaning of Being as a whole.
Before we discuss what might be considered to be the broader political

implications of Heidegger’s fundamental ontology, we must first remind ourselves
what it is that he is responding to. We will recall that for Heidegger, since it has
forgotten the ontological difference between entities and the being of entities, the
history of philosophy has obscured the question of Being; and, since our
understanding of reality is not simply read off reality but is at least partially
imposed upon it, the question of Being is a fundamental one. In short, on the basis

74. Nikolas Kompridis, Critique and Disclosure: Critical Theory Between Past and Future,
53,54,56.
182
of our prior experience, we project out interpretations of existence onto entities

themselves; we give things meaning. The problem, as Heidegger sees it, is that we
have misinterpreted the nature of this exercise. In part due to an overestimation of
our rational faculties, we have come to think that our constructions of the mind-
independent real are reflections of reality as it is independent of our knowledge of
it.
Heidegger’s complaint against the history of Western philosophy is that, by

engaging in essentially representational forms of thinking, it has tried to
understand the nature of human existence as a whole by identifying properties or
traits that make beings beings ‘as such.’ Various attempts have been made to
represent that which is essential to humans, and to thereby understand the nature of
our existence in general. What this neglects is that such attempts to understand
reality always involve the projection of Da-sein’s own understanding of the being
of entities, an understanding that is grounded in Da-sein’s own concernful relations
with the world, and a prior interpretation of Being. The problem then is that, while
Da-sein inevitably understands entities in the light of its own interpretation of
Being, the Western philosophical tradition has had a tendency to treat this
understanding to be a reflection of reality rather than simply a perspective on it. In
the form of his ‘fundamental ontology,’ Heidegger’s contribution is to force a step
back from these perspectives on the world by providing ontological depth to these
interpretations, interpretations that he considers to be metaphysical.
Dualism and Metaphysics
Putting it in terms of the broader argument of the thesis, Heidegger’s famous

call for an ‘overcoming of metaphysics’ is essentially a call for us to eschew social
inquiry that proceeds from dualist premises, since it calls for us to realise that our
constructions of the mind-independent real are in fact perspectives on reality that
are influenced by our ‘world-hood,’ as opposed to being transparent reflections of
reality as it ‘really is’. To consider them reflections of reality forgets the
183
ontological difference between entities and their being. Calling for such inquiry to
be grounded in fundamental ontology, on non-dualist premises, would contribute
to the recovery of the question of Being because it would involve the recognition
that any reliance on ethical subjectivity (as in the case of moral universality) or
claim to epistemological objectivity (to have access to a mind-independent object)
is itself dependent upon an interpretation of Being that is essentially contestable –
such as a philosophical history of human freedom (Linklater), or the
overestimation of science as a human potentiality (critical realists). It has been an
unwarranted faith in the nature of metaphysics that has led us to disregard the
ontological difference, and to forget that these are essentially contestable
perspectives on the world. This faith in metaphysics has been allied with a form of
representational thinking and relies upon a mind-world dualism.
Deriving from the title of Aristotle’s Metaphysics, the term ‘metaphysics,’

Heidegger explains, derives from the Greek (ta) metá (ta) physiká (τὰ µετὰ τὰ
φυσικὰ) – literally the (works) after the physical (works) – and is later interpreted
as the inquiry into that which goes beyond beings as such, in order that beings may
be grasped in their essence, allowing their existence as a whole to be grasped.75
As traditionally understood, metaphysics means knowledge of supersensible beings, i.e.

knowledge of those beings which lie out beyond that which is experientially accessible.
Traditional metaphysics [...] defines these supersensible beings under the three headings
"soul," "world," "God." Soul understood in respect of what especially concerns man, i.e.
its simplicity, indestructibility and immortality. World as the totality of present nature, and
God as the ground and author of all beings. Soul [...] is the object of psychology, world
(totality of nature...) is the object of cosmology, God [...] is the object of theology.
[...]
Metaphysical questions concerning soul, world and God seek to define the essence of these
and not just their empirically contingent characteristics. However, for traditional
metaphysics, non-empirical knowledge is understood as rational knowledge, i.e.
knowledge from pure reason alone: "Pure thought proceeds from concepts alone,
independently of experience. Understood in this sense, the three above-mentioned
disciplines together make up genuine metaphysics: rational psychology, rational
cosmology, rational theology."76
Metaphysics, on this account, relates to those claims or assumptions relating

to the nature of human beings or of the world, and of the existence or non-

75. Martin Heidegger, The Essence of Human Freedom: An Introduction to Philosophy (London:
Continuum, 2002), 106.
76. Ibid., 141.
184
existence of a deity as the author or 'prime-mover' of that which we encounter.

Metaphysical claims and assumptions are ones that go beyond that which is
immediately accessible to human experience, claims that purportedly allow us to
make claims about 'the whole' i.e., universal claims about the essence of man or of
the universe. Since it has traditionally been the exercise of our rationality that has
been seen to allow us to grasp the essence of something, metaphysical 'knowledge'
has traditionally been achieved though the exercise of reason.
Beings 'as Such' and Beings as a Whole
Metaphysics has traditionally involved inquiry into the essential nature of

beings: what is the essential nature of beings as beings, and what is the essential
nature of beings as a whole. 'What are human beings?' is an example of the first,
while Leibniz's famous question 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' is
an example of the second. When answering the first question, we tend to abstract
from our own particular experiences in order to generalise and make claims about
what we consider to be common to all beings. When proving answers to the
second, we have often sought to ground the existence of these beings (taken as a
whole) in the existence of a larger being, which has often been a deity such as the
Christian God. In 'Western' societies at least, the two responses have mutually
reinforced each other but the problem, as heralded by Nietzsche's proclamation in
The Gay Science (1882) of the death of God – 'God is dead, God shall remain dead'
– is that those metaphysical claims can no longer be considered to be reliable.77
The 'death of God' is a problem for our understanding of what human beings
are because European thought had essentially relied upon God as an anchor for
everything else. God was there to explain why the universe made sense, he was the
answer to the endless question: but why? ‘Why do we exist?’ Because God created
us. ‘But why should we trust our reason?’ Because God is rational and God came
first. As Yannaras explains, the historical self-consciousness of Europe had

77. Freidrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 120.
185
presupposed God as both 'a conceptual "first cause" of cosmology and as the
axiomatic "principle" of categorical morality.'78
Even as early as the ninth-century Carolingian "Renaissance," but especially with the
radical distortion of Aristotelian epistemology by scholasticism, European metaphysics has
been built upon by the presupposition of God's existence, while progressively excluding
his presence from the world. God is either identified with the conceptual notion of an
impersonal and abstract "first cause" of the universe (causa prima), or of an absolute
"authority" in ethical (principium auctoritatis). In both cases the existence of God is a
conceptual necessity, secured by demonstrative argument, but unrelated to historical
experience and the existential condition of human beings.79
Nietzsche's proclamation is thus interpreted by Heidegger as 'the prophetic

acknowledgement of an already accomplished event, the inevitable climax of a
long historical process in European metaphysics.' 80 Growing scepticism and
disbelief in the nineteenth century meant that God could no longer play the anchor
function, and the transcendent grounds for universal truth or ultimate value had
thus been withdrawn. 81 Although marking the end of Western metaphysics,
Nietzsche does not move beyond it; consequently, he is for Heidegger the last
metaphysician in whom the oblivion of Being is complete.82 As Smith explains, by
defining Being as Will, 'Nietzsche is the final and most radical spokesperson for
[the] one-sided elevation of human subjectivity.'83
For Heidegger, metaphysics is only overcome by thinking the truth of Being:

by recognising that any interpretation of the being of beings will occur in the light
of an interpretation of Being, which is itself conditioned by the transcendental
horizon of temporality. To be clear, this is not then a rejection of metaphysics.84

78. Christos Yannaras, On the Absence and Unknowability of God: Heidegger and the Areopagite
(London: T&T Clark, 2005), 40.
79. Ibid., 22.
80. Ibid., 21.
81. For a discussion of the causes of this growing scepticism and disbelief see Andrew Norman
Wilson, God’s Funeral: The Decline of Faith in Western Civilisation (London: W.W. Norton,
1999).
82. Martin Heidegger, Nietzsche, trans. David Farrell Krell, vol. One: The Will to Power as Art
(London: Routledge, 1981), 204-06; Martin Heidegger, Nietzsche, trans. David Farrell Krell, vol.
Two: The Eternal Recurrence of the Same (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1991), 199-203.
83. Gregory Bruce Smith, Nietzsche, Heidegger, and the Transition to Postmodernity (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1995), 229.
84. This distinguishes Heidegger from Rorty. See Richard Rorty, Contingency, Irony, and
Solidarity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989). especially 46-121
186
Man will inevitably still speculate as to the essence of man, the origins of the
universe, or the purpose of human existence; in Heidegger's words '[a]s long as
man remains the animal rationale he is also the animal metaphysicum. As long as
man understands himself as the rational animal, metaphysics belongs, as Kant said,
to the nature of man.'85 We will still project meaning, and we will still engage in
rational 'ontic' analysis of the entities that we encounter: causal analysis, for
instance, or similar epistemological analyses that suppose a subject facing an
object or objects; similarly, rational ethical analysis that supposes relations
between subjects. However, with the withdrawal of any transcendent authority, the
'death' of God, we can no longer consider these exercises to be reflections of a
mind-independent real and must recognise that they can only ever be perspectives
on it. Heidegger is, therefore, simply arguing that these 'reflections' of reality must
now be grounded in a pre-theoretical experience of reality: this is the task of Being
and Time, to ground such theoretical endeavours and thereby prepare for such an
overcoming of metaphysics.
The Perspectival Presentation of the Whole
It is the identification of temporality (Zeitlichkeit) as the meaning of Being in

general in Division Two of Being and Time that aims to initiate such an
overcoming of metaphysics. We saw that at the end of Division One Heidegger
suggested that the hermeneutical nature of our relation to Being meant that we had
to question whether 'having' the whole was attainable at all, and whether our
interpretation of Being in general would founder on the kind of existence that is
accessible to human beings.86 This was because the meaning of Being in general
rests upon interpretations of Being by entities (human beings) that exist as
potentiality rather than ground, and so human beings cannot possibly grasp the
whole in its entirety.

85. Martin Heidegger, Introduction to ‘What is Metaphysics’, trans. Walter Kaufmann, Pathmarks
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 279.
187
Since the whole can never be fully illuminated, human intelligibility will
always be partial or horizonal as it depends on sites within the whole (of beings) to
act as orienting centres. The whole then can never be fully illuminated because we
can never escape our own situation within the whole, nor our own mortality. It is
therefore our finitude, our mortality, that characterises our relationship to Being:
both because our confrontation with our own mortality compels us into a state of
anticipatory resoluteness through which we participate in the disclosure and co-
disclosure of Being with others, and because our finitude means that our
intelligibility of Being as a whole is horizonal and temporal. This is what is meant
by Heidegger's claim that temporality (Zeitlichkeit) is the 'upon which' that any
interpretation of Being is based; 'temporariness' or 'temporaeity' is the
transcendental horizon of any understanding of Being.87
As Lewis puts it, the response to one's own birth and death introduces a 'site
of singularity into beings as a whole.'88 This singularity is not identical with Being
as a whole but is a precondition of its disclosure. In Heidegger’s words:
As surely as we can never comprehend absolutely the whole of beings in themselves we

certainly do find ourselves stationed in the midst of beings that are revealed somehow as a
whole. In the end an essential distinction prevails between comprehending the whole of
beings in themselves and finding oneself in the midst of beings as a whole. The former is
impossible in principle. The latter happens all the time in our existence.89
This distinction is central. Although we will continue to project meanings on the

whole - we will always conjecture what it is that makes human beings human
beings, and whether there is any ultimate ground for human or cosmic existence -
the consequence of our hermeneutic relation to Being, because our understanding
is always inevitably conditioned, partial, and horizonal, is that we can never
consider those projections to have captured the objective essence of human beings
or of human or cosmic existence. This is occluded by our position within beings as
a whole: metaphysics is structurally incapable of providing an objective ground
(for political action, for instance).

87. Ibid., 370-71.
88. Michael Lewis, Heidegger and the Place of Ethics, (London: Continuum, 2005), 15.
89. Martin Heidegger, “What is Metaphysics?,” in Martin Heidegger: Basic Writings, ed. David F.
Krell. (New York: Harper Collins, 1993), 99.
188
Since human beings are finite, mortal creatures, our partial, horizonal,
interpretations of Being themselves are subject to a temporal horizon that we
cannot transcend. Universal statements about what makes a human being a human
being are constitutively unable to transcend our own perspectival relation to Being
because, as Heidegger puts it, if one is to take a position one must already have a
place to stand.
Any enunciated statement requires a place from which to enunciate. Given that the
statement [i.e., a metaphysical statement] attempts to determine beings as a whole and
without exception, it is constitutively unable to take account of its own placement within
this whole, its historical situatedness or "thrownness," the very givenness of the whole,
which constitutes an exception to its determination of this whole by providing something
which cannot be understood from within this "position." Metaphysics as a whole cannot
understand the inherence to the whole of perspectival presentation, otherwise it would fall
apart.90
‘Overcoming’ Metaphysics
Although initially quite confusing, Heidegger's claim that temporality is the

meaning of Being is therefore a hugely significant move, since it seeks nothing less
than the 'overcoming' of the whole Western philosophical tradition by bringing the
question of Being into a more authentic relation with time. The problem with this
tradition, according to Heidegger, is that it has consistently eluded confronting the
proper relationship between Being and time because it has consistently understood
Being in terms of enduring presence. That is, this tradition has sought to identify
some ground, subject, or essence that can serve as the foundation of reliable
knowledge and action in the world – examples include the cogito in Descartes, the
thinking substance that grounds reliable knowledge of the world, or the responsible
individual person in Kant, the presence and accountability of which grounds our
ethical relations to other humans. Identifying temporality, or 'temporariness' as the
meaning of Being is Heidegger's attempt to exert a metaphysical paradigm shift
from a modality of Being understood as something constantly present (spirit,

90. Michael Lewis, Heidegger and the Place of Ethics, 6-7
189
matter, substance) to recognise that the meaning of Being in general must be in a

constant state of flux.
The problem with the history of Western philosophy, for Heidegger then, is
that it has tried to understand beings as a whole by identifying properties or traits
that make beings beings 'as such'. Various attempts have been made by writers to
represent that which is most basic to humans thus allowing us to grasp the whole in
its essence. What this neglects is that these attempts to grasp the whole involve
projecting an understanding of the being of the entities that are to be grasped, an
understanding that is inevitably grounded in Dasein's own concernful relations
with the world, which are limited in scope and grounded in time. Such an
identification of properties that are distinctive to entities is always done on the
basis of some prior understanding of human existence: it is always done in the light
of Being.
Heidegger's call for an 'overcoming of metaphysics,' amounts to the call to

ground any claim that goes beyond that which can be experienced – such as claims
about 'beings as such' (such as beings as ethical subjects) or beings as a whole – in
fundamental ontology. This is essentially an attempt to establish perspectivality or
doxa as originary to beings as a whole. Doxa, from the Greek (dokeō) 'I suppose'
relates to common belief. For Pierre Bourdieu, a sociologist heavily influenced by
Heidegger, doxa is a species of 'practical faith' tacitly required by any given field, a
constructed vision of 'reality' so naturalised that it appears to be the only vision of
reality; it is the unquestioned habitus that persons consider to be the one and only
'truth' about the nature of existence. 'Doxa is the relationship of immediate
adherence that is established in practice between a habitus and the field to which it
is attuned, the pre-verbal taking-for-granted of the world that flows from practical
sense.'91 Doxa exists as 'a quasi-perfect correspondence between the objective
order and the subjective principles of organisation [...] (in which) the natural and
social world appears as self-evident. Doxa is the unsaid in the field of cultural

91. Pierre Bourdieu, The Logic of Practice (Cambridge: Polity, 1990), 68.
190
possibilities, making it seem as if there are not multiple, but only a single
possibility.'92
Heidegger's Anti-Foundationalism
The upshot is that the perspectival presentation of the whole is incompatible

with the search for a neutral, objective foundation for political action; this is how
Heidegger can be situated in the foundationalist/anti-foundationalist debate. We
saw that in Transformation Linklater took issue with Rorty's anti-foundationalism,
and defended the Kantian and Habermasian foundationalist commitment to a
rational morality with universal significance. 93 Part of the motivation for
Linklater's defence of universalism is his view that 'sometimes the strongest
defence a culture can give for recognising the rights of outsiders involves nothing
other than an appeal to common humanity.'94 Linklater's mistake here is to conflate
the ontological difference, in this case, between humanity and the being of human
beings. His mistake is to interpret cross-cultural compassion and solicitous being-
with others as a justification for the universal responsibility to engage in dialogue,
which is itself consequent of his commitment to the foundational ethical subject. In
the same way that Heidegger criticises Descartes for projecting an interpretation of
Being as 'substantiality' onto entities, Linklater's defence of universalism projects
an idea of Being as ethical subjectivity onto those outside of the particular
community. Importantly though Heidegger's argument leads to neither
foundationalism nor anti-foundationalism.
Heidegger refers to foundations (such as Linklater's commitment to ethical

subjectivity) as a 'ground,' a substance or subject that, as Heidegger puts it 'is that
from which beings as such are what they are in their becoming, perishing, and

92. Pierre Bourdieu, Outline of a Theory of Practice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1977), 164.
Post-Westphalian Era (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1998), 76.
94. Ibid., 78.
191
persisting as something that can be known, handled, and worked upon.'95 The
ground is that which is considered to be 'the ontic causation of the actual, the
transcendental making possible of the objectivity of objects.' 96 It has been
interpreted as 'the dialectical mediation of the movement of absolute spirit [Hegel]
and of the historical process of production [Marx], and the will to power positing
values. [Nietzsche]'97
The mistake continually made in Western philosophy is to think about the

ground as something that can be represented and essentialised, as something
identifiable above or behind phenomena like the human being (such as a thinking
substance) rather than recognising that what comes to presence, what appears to us
in its immediacy, is but one determination of Being. Heidegger's alternative
'groundless ground' for thinking about human sociality rests on the ontological
difference: it is on the basis of the ontological difference that entities come to
presence in the light of prior interpretations of Being. In each case what is brought
to presence is brought to presence in its own way and it is from this non-foundation
that other foundations – such as a political or ethical subject – can be projected
onto onthers and thereby come to presence. As will be shown later, the condition
of this presencing – that which allows beings to variously come to presence – is
freedom.
Conclusions: From a Dualist to Non-Dualist Approach to

Emancipatory Politics.
Our aim in Part 2 is to contribute to the task of developing a more

universalistic ontology for global politics and ethics, one that does not expect 'the
other' to assimilate and/or not violating 'the other' through logo- and egocentric
epistemologies. More specifically, the aim is to contribute to the emancipatory
project of CIRT by deepening the understanding of ontology – of existence, human

95. Martin Heidegger, Being and Time, 432. emphasis added.
96. Ibid.
97. Ibid.
192
existence, and the nature of human beings – upon which it relies.98 This chapter
has sought to initiate such a task. One of its central claims is that Heidegger's
fundamental ontology presents a profound challenge to the metaphysical dualism
that characterises Linklater's emancipatory cosmopolitanism: a dualism comprised
of a foundational ontological commitment to ethical subjectivity, and a
foundational epistemological commitment to the individual (conceived as ethical
subject) as mind-independent cognitive object.
Heidegger's existential analytic of Da-sein provides compelling reasons why

the human being should be regarded primarily as neither subject nor object. In
Heidegger's words:
Ontologically, Dasein is in principle different from everything that is present-at-hand or

Real. Its "subsistence" is not based on the substantiality of a substance but on the "Self-
subsistence" of the existing Self, whose Being has been conceived as care. The
phenomenon of the Self - a phenomenon which is included in care - needs to be defined
existentially in a way which is primordial and authentic.99
Heidegger's existential definition of the self involved the identification of three

existential structures that condition any existing human being: worldhood, being-
with, and care. All three challenge the notion that we can usefully be thought as
self-directing ethical subjects, or even epistemological subjects facing mind-
independent cognitive objects.
We saw that, because of Da-sein's worldhood, any encounter with other

entities, including human beings, would not simply be an encounter with a mind-
independent object as it is in itself, but that this encounter will inevitably involve
the projection of subjective meaning onto that entity. The way that entity appears
to the self is, therefore, not an entirely reliable basis for us to generalise from.
Heidegger's subsequent identification of Mitsein as a primordial existential
structure of human existence – the recognition that ‘there-being’ (Dasein) is
always ‘being-with’ (Mitsein) – offered us a glimpse of the ontological

(Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010), 246.
193
insufficiency of thinking about sociality on the basis of inter-subjective relations,

since this involves abstracting from and subsequently objectifying the existential
condition of being-with: reducing it to relations between subjects, rather than co-
constitutive relations between 'Da-seins.'
Finally we saw that combination of the 'care' structure – man's thrownness,

falling, and projection – which loosely correspond to an individual's past, present,
and future, as well as the relationship between man and Being, lent further support
to the view that man is not a foundational subject, since what is unique about us is
not to be found in some 'essence;' even if, as for Sartre, that essence lies in our
'existence.' Rather, we saw that it lies instead in man's unique relationship to Being,
a relation that is grounded in time; a relationship for which Heidegger coins a
neologism, identifying man as 'ek-sistent,' signifying his 'ecstatic temporality' and
his 'standing out' in the 'truth of Being.'
Division One of Being and Time, as discussed in the first part of this chapter,
thus poses a profound challenge to the view of the individual as subject: a view
that underwrites the understanding of emancipation as the process whereby ethical
subjectivity can be exercised (as implicit in Linklater's account), but also the
moves in more recent critical theory that locate the emancipatory project in
relations of intersubjectivity (such as in Honneth and Brincat). The question
remains then as to what moves must the emancipatory project make from here.
Indications of how we might proceed were given in the second half of the chapter,
which followed Heidegger's discussion of how the existential structures of human
existence might be brought into an authentic relationship with time in Division
Two. Here we saw that Da-sein was 'freed' from its lostness in 'the they' (das Man)
through the recognition of its own finitude, which forces us into an anticipatory
resoluteness towards the future and into solicitous being-with others.
Since it related to the 'freeing up' of the future possibilities of any concretely
existing human beings, we suggested that Heidegger's notion of resoluteness
offered a more convincing account of the relationship between freedom and
194
dependence than did an association of freedom with the autonomy of a self-

directing subject. We shall recall that resoluteness (Entschlossenheit) is not
synonymous with decisiveness or a manly readiness to take action, but is better
thought as an unclosing, or unclosedness towards the future that sees us pushed
into solicitous being-with-others. Since solicitude (Fürsorge) involves concernful
relations with others, which in its authentic and active mode can mean working to
free up the other for their own possibilities, we saw that the notions of resoluteness
and solicitude contributed to an account of relations with other persons as
solicitous being-with that served as a nascent but fruitful alternative to relations of
intersubjectivity.
However, following Kompridis we claimed that the weaknesses of

Heidegger's account lay in his insistence that Da-sein's resoluteness must precede
solicitous being with others, which was indicative of a broader problem: that
Heidegger falls short when it comes to demonstrating that both freedom and self-
intelligibility are ineluctably acquired through conditions of cooperative
interaction; a weakness that might have been avoided had he been a better student
of Hegel, whose interpersonal account of freedom and 'subjectivity,' we shall come
to see, is both more consistent with and more favourable to Heidegger's account of
positive solicitude.
Lastly, we discussed the broader implications of Heidegger's fundamental

ontology for the nature of political and ethical universality. Early in the chapter we
saw that, since Da-sein always encounters entities 'in the light of Being,' the
question of Being in general must be brought to the fore. Towards the end of the
chapter, since the meaning of Being in general is dependent on its interpretation by
beings that are finite, we had to conclude that bringing meaning of Being as a
whole into view is not possible. Consequently, temporality (Zeitlichkeit), or
'temporariness' was posited as meaning of Being in general. This meant that
metaphysical (universal) claims, claims that rely on our reason to go beyond that
which we can experience, have to be grounded in fundamental ontology.
195
This involves recognising that our interpretations of reality are conditioned

by Da-sein's own existential structures, and must therefore be brought into an
authentic relation with time – i.e., involving the realisation that they are essentially
perspectival claims that project interpretations on the whole. We also saw that any
universalist claims about human beings in general would be considered to be
metaphysical if they were not grounded in fundamental ontology. This would
include an interpretation of the 'whatness' of human beings that regarded post-
conventional reasoning as the most advanced stage of human development and the
highest expression of human freedom, but also other epistemological claims about
the mind-independent real.
Heidegger's argument that any claims about the nature of human existence
that aspire to apply to human beings in general – such as the ones relied upon by
Linklater in his defence of universality – must then be grounded in an analysis of
the experience of human existence if they are not to be considered metaphysical (or
grounded in metaphysics), is cogent. This is why we claim that Linklater submits
to a form of metaphysical dualism, even though he would likely dispute it.
Moreover, since it is based on an analysis of human existence that should be
familiar to all human beings regardless of political or ethical differences,
Heidegger's existential analytic of Da-sein should be considered to be a significant
contribution to a universalistic philosophical ontology for world politics and ethics,
since it provides us a more universalistic ontological foundation than does ethical
subjectivity.
In essence then, we should interpret Heidegger's call for an 'overcoming' of

metaphysics to be initiating a move away from social inquiry that proceeds from
dualist premises. Not only does this involve eschewing the view that scientific
claims are reflections of the world rather than perspectives on it, but it also
involves forgoing a reliance on ethical subjectivity as an ‘objective’ way of
mediating political differences. It does not, however, require of us that we give up
on an emancipatory cosmopolitanism. Nonetheless, given that the individual
cannot be thought primarily as a present entity (a subject), it does have important
196
implications for the way that we understand human freedom – and hence also for
an ethical and emancipatory politics. Indeed, Heidegger's fundamental ontology
harbingers a shift in thinking about what politics and ethics themselves in fact are.
Consequently, before we proceed to develop the interpersonal aspect of
resoluteness and solicitude with the aid of Hegel in Part 3, the next chapter will
engage in a regional ontology of the person, freedom, ethics and politics, that
proceeds from Heidegger's fundamental ontology.
197
Chapter 5.
Ek-sistence, Freedom, and an Ethical and
Emancipatory Politics
Introduction
We saw in the last chapter that Heidegger's alternative 'groundless ground'

for thinking about human sociality rests upon what he calls the 'ontological
difference,' and that his fundamental ontology contributes depth to the project of
developing an emancipatory cosmopolitanism by providing us with a more
universalistic ontological foundation for critical international theory – applying not
simply to human beings qua political subjects (Rawls/Frost) or qua ethical subjects
(Linklater) but to human beings qua human beings.
For Heidegger, we learnt, what is most distinctive about 'man' is his ek-
sistence: he is the being that interprets Being. Since our own understanding of the
nature of an entity's existence always occurs in the light of a broader interpretation
of Being in general (an interpretation that is necessarily partial, horizonal, and
temporal), in contrast to Linklater's approach to critical theory, a recognition of the
ontological difference impels us to resist the (characteristically dualist) tendency to
treat our own interpretation of the being of human beings as an 'objective'
foundation for an ethical or emancipatory politics, and prompts us to base an
emancipatory cosmopolitanism on engaged being-with others instead. Thus for
Heidegger, what it means to be a free human being is to engage in resolute
solicitous being-with others.
PART 2/Ch5. Ek-sistence, Freedom, and an Ethical and Emancipatory Politics

The chapter closed with the suggestion that not only does Heidegger's
fundamental ontology have important implications for the way that we understand
human freedom, and hence also for any emancipatory cosmopolitanism, but that it
also it harbingers a shift in our understanding of what politics and ethics actually
are. We pick up on this point in this chapter by discussing four related areas that
are affected by Heidegger's fundamental ontology, all of which entail significant
implications for the development of an emancipatory cosmopolitanism.
We will recall from the last chapter that the existential analytic of human
existence provided in Division One of Being and Time posed a robust challenge to
the idea that the individual could be thought as subject. Proceeding from this
critique, we will draw on the work of Frederick Olafson who has applied
Heidegger's general ontology of Being (existence in general) to the philosophy of
mind and developed a regional ontology of the human being. Offering an
alternative to a foundational commitment to ethical subjectivity, Olafson proposes
that we conceive human beings as essentially 'world-relating creatures,' whose
world-relation is the proximal fact their existence, a constitutive perspectivality
that individuals are unable to transcend by adopting a position of subjectivity. We
then proceed to discuss three further central implications of Heidegger's general
ontology of Being and Olafson's regional ontology of the person; these relate to our
understandings of human freedom, politics, and ethics.
Through a discussion of Heidegger’s Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics

we come to see that Kant's conception of freedom as autonomy (which undergirds
Linklater's emancipatory cosmopolitanism) must itself be grounded in freedom as
existential condition. A central aim of Heidegger's, we will recall, is to effect an
'overcoming of metaphysics,' which would involve coming to see doxa or
perspectivality as original to beings as a whole. Returning to this proposal, we
characterise politics as the activity of projecting meaning onto the whole: as
attempts to create a common world out of a plurality. In regards what we claim are
the ethical implications of Heidegger's more universalistic ontology, since Being is
always being-with (Da-sein is always already Mit-sein), we follow Nancy's
199

identification of the self as a singularity and argue that this means that ethics can
no longer be primarily about ethical principles (since these are necessarily
underwritten by an ethical subject) but amounts to an open and receptive relation to
the other as singularity rather than subject.
Humans as World-Relating Creatures.
The Turn to Ontology in Political Theory.
Heidegger's general ontology of Being has had both a direct and indirect
influence on contemporary political thought. Some of that influence has been
surveyed by Stephen K. White in his book Sustaining Affirmation, which engages
the work of George Kateb, Charles Taylor, Judith Butler and William Connolly,
and illuminates the crucial role that Heidegger's thought has played in the what he
refers to as the 'weak ontological turn' in political theory.1 'Weak ontology' is
understood by White as a field that entwines ontological reflection with political
affirmation, a theoretical turn that went hand in hand with a shift in the meaning of
ontology in analytic philosophy and philosophy of science that occurred in the
twentieth century; a shift from understanding ontology as relating to the existence
of entities presupposed by our scientific theories and towards a 'growing propensity
to interrogate more carefully those "entities" presupposed by our typical ways of
seeing and doing in the modern world.'2
The prime target of this challenge has been the assumption that we may
treat human beings as independent and autonomous, ontologically prior to their
relations. For this reason it has tended to be political theories that, even implicitly,
work from such assumptions that have been singled out for criticism. Most

1. Stephen K. White, Sustaining Affirmation: The Strengths of Weak Ontology in Political Theory
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000).
2. Ibid., 4.
200

prominent of these are the autonomous individual agent in liberalism and the
ideally autonomous collective agent in Marxism. As White explains:
At issue is the assertive, disengaged self who generates distance from its background
(tradition, embodiment) and foreground (external nature, other subjects) in the name of an
accelerating mastery of them. This Teflon subject has had a leading role on the modern
stage. Such subjectivity has been affirmed primarily at the individual level in Western
democracies, although within Marxism it had a career at the collective level as well. In
both cases, the relevant entity is envisioned as empowering itself through natural and
social obstacles; it dreams ultimately of frictionless motion. This modern ontology of the
Teflon subject has, of course, not usually been thematized in quite such stark terms. But
the lack of explicit thematization has been at least partially a measure of modernity's self-
confidence. It is precisely the waning of this self-confidence that engenders such a
widespread recourse to ontological reflection. Accordingly, the current turn might now be
seen as an attempt to think ourselves, and being in general, in ways that depart from the
dominant - but now more problematic - ontological investments of modernity.3
White notes that Heidegger's existential analysis of the human being and the
historical/temporal dimension of ontological reflection that he initiated is crucial to
this turn.4 While Heidegger's influence on recent French philosophy is particularly
noticeable, this is only one of several strands of thought that participate in the
ontological turn:
One finds similar countermodern, ontological themes in various locations across the
contemporary intellectual landscape: in communitarianism, in political theory influenced
by theology, in feminism, in post-Marxism, and even in some versions of liberalism itself
[...] In each of these initiatives, ontological concerns emerge in the form of deep
reconceptualizations of human being in relation to its world. More specifically, human
being is presented as in some way "stickier" than in prevailing modern conceptualizations.5
By 'stickier' what is meant is that these approaches exhibit a resistance to the

'disengaged self,' to an autonomous, antecedent subjectivity:
[w]eak ontologies do not proceed by categorical positing of, say, human nature or telos
[...] Rather what they offer are figurations of human being in terms of certain existential
realties, most notably language, mortality or finitude, natality, and the articulation of
"sources of the self." These figurations are accounts of what it is to be a certain sort of
creature.6

3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid., 5. On Heidegger's influence on French philosophy see Tom Rockmore, Heidegger and
French Philosophy: Humanism, Antihumanism and Being (London: Routledge, 1995).
6. Stephen K. White, Sustaining Affirmation: The Strengths of Weak Ontology in Political Theory,
9.
201

Engaged Agents
Charles Taylor and Frederick Olafson dig deeper into the philosophical roots
of this scepticism in political theory with reference to the philosophy of mind. In a
short essay titled Engaged Agency and Background in Heidegger, Taylor presents
dualist and mechanist perspectives on the mind as two different ways that a
disengaged perspective has been 'ontologised.'7 These accounts of consciousness
involve a view of the human being similar to that of the Teflon subject since they
purport to discover reality out there, as it 'really is,' by freeing us from the
perspective of embodied existence.8 Inaugurated by Descartes, dualist perspectives
see human beings as essentially minds located in bodies, while mechanistic
perspectives, drawing on Hobbes, understand thinking as 'an event realized in a
body, mechanistically understood.'9
Both these perspectives are underwritten by a rationalist epistemological

model: the belief that reason is the only reliable path to knowledge. For Taylor,
Heidegger helps us to pry ourselves loose from modern rationalism by making us
appreciate the role of the background in human activity. Although Linklater
famously says that 'reason has a history,' that it has an historical, developmental
core, neither he nor Habermas depart from the rationalist commitment to the
individual thought as subject; a commitment that supposedly allows us to
overcome these background conditions and transcend the particularity of context
through the exercise of moral reason.10

7. Charles Taylor, “Engaged Agency and Background in Heidegger,” in The Cambridge
Companion to Heidegger, ed. Charles B. Guignon (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006).
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid., 323.
10. 'Reason has a history; it develops a determinate and progressive content from its expressions in
various forms of social life.' Andrew Linklater, Men and Citizens in the Theory of International
Relations, 2nd ed. (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 1990), 160. Arguing that Linklater's subject
attempts to transcend embodied existence is not the same as arguing that he ignores the material
conditions of the exercise of ethical subjectivity; due to his sympathies for Marx, the latter claim
would clearly be wrong.
202

Frederik Olafson's What is a Human Being: a Heideggerian View makes
similar arguments regarding the importance of deeper ontological reflection to the
ones surveyed by White and the non-rationalist approach to the philosophy of mind
that is sketched by Taylor, but his argument is far more extensive.11 For Olafson,
as for Heidegger, the question of Being is the central question of philosophy. He
illustrates this with the claim that the three questions that defined the domain of
philosophy for Immanuel Kant - 'What can I know?' 'What ought I to do?' and
‘What may I hope?’ – are aspects of the more general question, ‘What is man?’12
Rather than distinguishing between weak and strong ontology, as White

does, Olafson remains truer to Heidegger in distinguishing between 'regional' and
general approaches to the study of Being. Inquiring as to the nature of the human
being rather than into Being as such is an exercise in regional ontology, as opposed
to general ontology. 'Regional' ontology is a Husserlian term that shares with
general ontology the study of being qua being. However, regional ontology is
concerned with addressing entities of a certain kind: understanding what is
distinctive about a human being would thus belong to regional ontology.13 By
contrast, general ontology is concerned not with the being of any particular entity,
but with the concept of Being as such.14
It will be recalled that for Heidegger all general claims about what human
beings are, must be brought into an authentic relationship with time and grounded
in fundamental ontology if they are not to be considered metaphysical. Although
Linklater does not explicitly identify what he takes the essence of the human being
to be, we saw that emancipation appears in his work as the gradual negation of that
which negates ethical subjectivity, and that his defence of universalism further
indicates a foundational commitment to ethical subjectivity, since this mode of

11. Frederick A. Olafson, What is a Human Being? A Heideggerian View (Cambridge: Cambridge
12. Ibid., 1.
13. Ibid., 10-11.
14. Ibid., 12. Heidegger's existential analytic of Da-sein is an exercise in the regional ontology of
human experience, from which he seeks to draw conclusions regarding a general ontology of Being.
The problem, as Heidegger sees it, is that metaphysics has been preoccupied with regional
ontology, and has ignored general ontology. His overcoming of metaphysics is therefore intended to
ground regional ontology in general ontology.
203

being is projected upon the other and all other others in his conception of
university as the universal responsibility to engage in dialogue concerning shared
principles of coexistence. Since this ethical subject is what persists in his CIRT,
and is the foundation or the ground by which he justifies his universalism, from a
Heideggerian perspective this is a metaphysical commitment that must therefore be
recognised as a 'perspectival' claim regarding the essential being of human beings,
and thus subordinate to resolute solicitous being-with others.
Although we caught glimpses of its inadequacy in our discussion of the

existential structures of human existence explored in Division One of Being and
Time, we did not focus on the shortcomings of understanding the human being as
subject. Rather than proceed here with a full-scale criticism of Linklater's reliance
on the ethical subject, we will focus instead on engaging in a philosophical
ontology of the person that can provide a more adequate and universalistic basis
for an emancipatory cosmopolitanism. For this task we will draw on Frederik
Olafson's argument that we are not subjects, but essentially world-relating
creatures; that what is common to all human beings is not their free will, nor their
ethical subjectivity, but their world-relation: their habituation and participation in
the creation of meaningful worlds.
World-Relating Creatures15
Olafson avoids the problems associated with Linklater's reliance on the

subject by taking orientation from Heidegger's general ontology of Being in order
to inquire as to the nature of the human being. Like Taylor, Olafson presents an
alternative understanding of the human being to those views represented by
materialist or dualist philosophies of mind. He understands humans not as
composites of body and mind but as unitary entities that 'have a world.' Basing his
argument on a distinctive and Heideggerian way of conceiving 'mental' life, he

15. It is worth noting that there is an overlapping concern here with Walzer's claim that 'we are (all
of us) culture-producing creatures' Michael Walzer, Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and
Equality (New York: Basic Books, 1983), 314.
204

makes the case for a radical particularist understanding of human subjectivity,
suggesting that human beings should be understood as entities to which things are
present; since there are many human beings, there are many entities to which
things are present. Humans must then be understood as 'particulars,' as 'loci of
presence:' a position that readily lends itself to pluralisation.16
As particulars, human beings are individuated by 'the varying patterns of the

presence and absence of entities that are in the first instance a function of spatial
location and orientation.'17 In this view, '[e]ach subject would delimit a part of the
same world that would typically overlap with those delimited by others but would
never coincide perfectly with them,' a thought that reflects what he calls the
'perspectival variation' of subjects: individuated entities that have a locus in the
space of the world, a space which 'broadly coincides with the body I call mine.'18
Polarity and Agency
Proceeding from an understanding of human beings as entities to which

things are present, Olafson elaborates an account of human beings as 'ek-sistents'
whose mode of being is 'ek-sistence,' Heideggerian neologisms that reflect the
passive and active sides of human existence. Olafson's account of ek-sistence is
constituted by two interrelated concepts: agency and polarity; where polarity can
be further distinguished into feeling and desire. These elements reflect
characteristic aspects of the entity that humans are. When understanding human
beings as entities to which other entities are present, polarity is the 'ordering of the
field of presence of a given individual human being in terms of pairings of actual
and possible states of affairs.'19 The passive side of polarity is 'feeling,' which

16. Frederick A. Olafson, What is a Human Being? A Heideggerian View, 133,141.
17. Ibid., 139.
18. Ibid.
19. Ibid., 166-67.
205

expresses the 'way things are with us,' in the sense that we are always 'subject to a
situation that in some way affects our interests.'20
Nevertheless, we are also active beings, and even if it is beyond our power to
effect a course of action, 'the situations in which we find ourselves are typically
ones that we do not merely suffer or enjoy, but [are ones] that we want to
terminate, modify, or maintain.' 21 Desire is the human response to these life
situations, acting as the intermediary between feeling and action. In this way desire
orients us towards the future by disclosing possible and particular futures to each
of us in a primordial way.22
'Polarity' then represents the field of presence of any given human being,
broadly corresponding to their spatial location and orientation. The counterpart to
which is agency, the human ability to intervene in the world to modify or terminate
actual or possible states of affairs. Not only do we ek-sist in the sense that entities
are present to us, but we also have the capacity to intervene in the world to make it
different from what it might have otherwise been.23 Indeed, as the counterpart to
presence, action is 'the fullest expression of ek-sistence.'24
This agency, however, is not the possession of the individual thought as

subject. We will recall that authentic freedom, for Heidegger, is not the deliberate
action of a subject, but is thought as the 'resoluteness' (Entschlossenheit) of some
concretely existing human being, which involves 'the disclosive projection and
determination of what is factically possible at the time.'25 Polarity and agency are
thus deeply implicated in each other; exercising agency, which is itself contingent
upon capability or power, involves intervening in the world – but this intervention
is dependent upon polarity (feeling and desire) as the condition and the motivation

20. Ibid., 178.
21. Ibid.
22. Ibid., 186.
23. Ibid., 187.
24. Ibid.
25. Martin Heidegger, Being and Time, trans. John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson (Oxford:
Wiley-Blackwell, 1962), 345.
206

for any meaningful action.26 Meaningful action, as we will recall, does not relate
simply to the autonomous self-direction of the subject, but is concernful Being-
alongside what is ready-to-hand: engagement in solicitous being with others.27
World/Worlds
On Heidegger's/Olafson's account then, the human being 'is individuated in

one way by the location in space and time of that body and in another by the way
the world is present to it.' 28 This individuation means that each and every
individual human being has 'a world' which influences the way they relate to 'the
world.' This means to signify 'the web of meanings and references' through which
any individual orients itself, and 'constitutes any fundamental understanding of the
self and its immediate context.'29 While 'the world' is involved in the constitution
of the worlds of individual human beings, and individuals' worlds will traverse
each other's and have much in common, these worlds can only ever remain
approximations of the world. Since an individual's world can never be wholly
identical with the world, individual worlds are inescapably partial; it is this world-
relation, rather than any inherent or achieved subjectivity, that is both constitutive
of individual human beings and represents the proximal fact of our existence.
Given that there are over seven billion human bodies in the world, and
proceeding from the claim that humans have worlds that largely coincide with the
location in space and time of their bodies, the way individuals make sense of the
world will vary greatly depending upon the variation in time and space of each
individual body. While individual worlds will overlap with others, resulting in a
high degree of congruence between worlds in certain circumstances, thus retaining
a commitment to the salience of particular communities and joint ventures such as

26. Frederick A. Olafson, What is a Human Being? A Heideggerian View, 166-67.
28. Frederick A. Olafson, What is a Human Being? A Heideggerian View, 246.
Alternatives 27 (2002), 387.
207

states when thinking about the sources of individual agency, these worlds will
never coincide perfectly.
When talking of 'communities' one assumes that the entities within that
community at least on some level share a singular world, whether this is a nation
(Wales) a state (Britain) a supra-national community (the European Union) or even
a community of humankind (a universal dialogic community, or global recognitive
sphere). There is a prima facie case for elevating any given community to a
position of prominence in light of shared political objectives by encouraging the
disparate worlds of individuated human beings to coalesce around something that
they share in common (such as culture, language, state, or species) in order to
facilitate cooperation in some joint venture (such as the preservation of a national
or religious culture, to enjoy the benefits of citizenship, or to work towards
cosmopolitan goals such as combating climate change).
A Non-cognitivist Account of Agency
Whereas thinking of the human being as a 'composite of body and mind'

serves to accentuate a cognitivist or rationalist approach between self and world,
since 'mind' functions as the privileged signifier, Olafson's unitary conception of
human being as ek-sistent recovers the importance of feeling and desire in an
account of human agency. This non-cognitivist approach to agency also chastens
attempts to emphasise one particular affiliation over others. While the elevation of
one particular affiliation, such as national identity of common humanity, over
others can certainly contribute to an emancipatory politics, there is nothing natural
or necessary about any of these communities.30 By reducing persons to what they
share in common, and a community to a simple aggregate of similar entities, the
elevation of any of such subjectivity amounts to a 'levelling' of human existence;

30. For a compelling account of the emancipatory role of the state in addressing global inequality
see Michael Walzer, Politics and Passion: Toward a More Egalitarian Liberalism (New Haven:
Yale University Press, 2006), 131-41.
208

since what is most distinctive about man, his singular 'ek-sistence' is subordinated
to some shared subjectivity.31
It seems, therefore, there might exist a trade-off between claims to political

or ethical subjectivity, their potentially galvanising and emancipatory effects, and
what makes us characteristically human: our ek-sistence. The essential tension
between subjectivity and ek-sistence lies in the fact that freedom is not simply the
possession of any of these entities, individual or collective, thought as subjects, but
must be something more; the condition of the establishment of any such
subjectivity, for instance.
The Essence of Human Freedom: Heidegger's Ontological

Reading of Kant
In Chapter 2 we saw that Linklater's Men and Citizens engaged in a

dialectical treatment of Kantian rationalism and Hegelian historicism, which
supported his philosophical history of the development of human freedom that was
then used as a yardstick with which to judge actual historical arrangements of
international society. We then saw that in Transformation, Linklater's
emancipatory cosmopolitanism was reconceived along communicative lines, where
Habermas's normative ideal of the universal communication community replaced
the philosophical history of human freedom as the standard of social criticism.
While Hegel's insights were seen to be his contribution to the historical
development of human freedom, and Marx's lay in the commitment to the
transformation of the economic and social conditions that undermine the
conditions of human freedom, it is Kant – and in particular the Kantian ethical
subject – that remains the central and guiding light of Linklater's understanding of

31. There is a range of different, perhaps competing, subjectivities that persons can adopt, the
relative importance of which varies between persons. For instance, a Welsh speaker is a subject of
the Welsh language, and a British citizen is a subject of the British state. The two are not
incompatible, but if the policies of the British state do not do enough to help preserve the Welsh
language, we should not be surprised if the assertion of a more particularist subjectivity becomes
more forceful.
209

freedom; it is an historically developing ethical subject with significant debts to
Kant's original formulation undergirds Linklater's CIRT.
While Habermas modifies Kohlberg's account of post-conventional morality

by situating it within the dialogic framework of discourse ethics, thereby making
ethical ratiocination a collective activity rather than an individual one, the
commitment to the Kantian ethical subject as both the ground of universal
principles and the loci of ethical praxis remains. More broadly, we also saw how
Linklater's understanding of emancipation – as an historical process of the gradual
self-realisation of the ethical subject, whereby that which negates ethical
subjectivity is itself negated – bears striking similarities with the argumentative
structure of Kant's Perpetual Peace: both remain fundamentally committed to the
ideal of a universal moral community in which humanity might be united 'as co-
legislators in a universal kingdom of ends.'32
Freedom and ethical subjectivity thus go hand in hand in Linklater's approach

to CIRT. However, we concluded Part 1 by claiming that Linklater's foundational
commitment to the ethical subject indicated not just a limited philosophical
ontology, but also a thin understanding of human freedom. Honneth and Brincat
reminded us that freedom was not just the possession of the subject, but was
located in intersubjective relations, and the emancipatory project of critical theory
was thereby relocated 'within the experiences of the "dominated" themselves rather
than in civilising processes taking place "above them."'33 However, we saw that
Honneth and Brincat themselves remained reliant on the kaleidoscope of the
Kantian subject and so we demurred on their commitment to intersubjective
recognition as the path to emancipation.
Indications of Linklater’s shortcomings in this regard were given through

Foucault's discussion of the process of moral self-formation whereby the person

Post-Westphalian Era (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1998), 84.
2011), 312,314-315.
210

becomes an ethical subject, and in Foucault’s acknowledgement that freedom is not
the possession of the ethical subject but is the premise of moral conduct through
which one transforms oneself into an ethical subject. It is in this light that
Odysseos's claim that Linklater confuses freedom with the conditions of possibility
of a certain kind of subjectivity rings true.34 The following section responds to
these discussions with the aim of contributing greater depth to an understanding of
human freedom necessary for any emancipatory cosmopolitanism, one that moves
away from a principal association of freedom with subjectivity or intersubjectivity.
Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics.
Despite his discussion of resoluteness challenging the Kantian

identification of freedom as the possession of an antecedent subjectivity, and
briefly discussing Kantian subjectivity in Being and Time, it is not until The
Essence of Human Freedom that Heidegger engages in a more thorough evaluation
of Kant's conception of freedom and practical reason, explicitly defending his own
conception of freedom in the process.35 Based on lectures given in Freiburg in the
summer of 1930, three years after the publication of Being and Time, the central
idea here is to reverse Kant's idea that humans are free because they have freedom,
to argue that it is rather freedom that 'has' man; in other words, to make us come to
regard freedom as a condition of our existence as 'world-relating' creatures as
opposed to a property of individuals. Rather than being the possession of an
individual thought as subject, freedom becomes the condition of being able to
determine individuals as subjects in the first place.
Freedom is therefore understood not as a 'thing' or a property, but as an

experience or occurrence through which the human being can appropriate his own
being, such as in solicitous being-with others; freedom is thought as release or

(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2007), xxx.
35. Heidegger's discussion Kantian subjectivity can be found in Martin Heidegger, Being and Time,
366-67.
211

deliverance to existence rather than autonomous self-control and mastery over
things in the world. This argument is important in two respects. Firstly it does not
involve contestable metaphysical presuppositions regarding what the human being
is, since 'the human' is not associated with some essential substance or property.
Secondly, it offers an understanding of freedom that respects the limitations and
constraints of human perspectivalism as presented in an understanding humans as
world-relating creatures.
In part a study in the ground of Kantian freedom, by conceiving freedom as

the 'absolute self-activity' of the 'power of self-determination' of human beings qua
human beings – as against the Christian theological tradition, in which Paul,
Luther, and Augustine had conceived freedom as independence from God – The
Essence of Human Freedom credits Kant with being the person who brings the
problem of freedom 'for the first time into a radical connection with the
fundamental problems of metaphysics.'36
Heidegger demonstrates that there are two aspects to Kantian freedom,

'practical' freedom and 'cosmological' freedom; both of which are grounded in a
metaphysics of presence and hence persist in following the leading question of
philosophy ('what are beings?'). Both understandings are thus susceptible to the
arguments made regarding the forgetting of the ontological difference and the
elusion of an authentic relation between an understanding of Being and time.
Essentially, Heidegger's critique is that Kant's determination of freedom as

the autonomy of the ethical subject, coupled with his failure to inquire as to the
proper relationship between being and time, means that Kant is unable to recognise
that his determination of freedom as the autonomy of the ethical subject is only one
of several possible determinations of the being of human beings. Voicing a concern
echoed fourteen years later in Horkheimer and Adorno's Dialectic of
Enlightenment, the shared objection is to a form of levelling manifest in the

Continuum, 2002), 15-16.
212

Enlightenment commitment to freedom and equality that leads directly (or
dialectically, in the case of Horkheimer and Adorno) to its opposite.37
The Two Paths to Freedom: Spontaneity, Autonomy & Practical Freedom
Heidegger begins by explaining that the idea of freedom that normally

comes to the fore in any discussion of freedom is freedom understood as
autonomy. Autonomy itself is principally understood in the negative form, as a
form of freedom-from: a denial of dependence upon something else.38 Negative
freedom becomes fully defined by what it is that man is free from, which has been
experienced and problematised in two essential directions: independence from
nature, and independence from God. The former involving the claim that human
action is not primarily caused by natural processes, while the second involving the
view that humans have free will and that their action is not predetermined by
God.39
Accompanying negative freedom is positive freedom, which refers to the

'toward-which' or the being 'free for;' for Kant, practical freedom, the freedom of
the ethical subject, is the positive freedom to be a self-determining, responsible
person. However, this practical freedom is presented by Kant as a negative
freedom, as a form of independence, and specifically 'the independence of the will
of coercion by sensuous impulses.'40 Practical freedom for Kant then refers to the
independence of the will: the human ability to be self-legislating and autonomous,
and it is as a specific characteristic of man as a rational being that attains actuality
in the concrete willing of the pure ought.

37. Theodor W. Adorno, and Max Horkheimer, Dialectic of Enlightenment (London: Verso, 1986).
This common concern is likely due to the shared influence of Nietzsche on Heidegger, Horkheimer
and Adorno.
38. Martin Heidegger, The Essence of Human Freedom, 4.
39. Ibid., 5.
40. Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, trans. Allen W. Wood and Paul Guyer (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1998), A534,B562.
213

In short, the essence of human freedom is for Kant 'the condition of the
possibility of the factuality of pure practical reason.'41 Kantian freedom therefore
establishes the individual as essentially independent from his world.
There are two paths to Kantian freedom, cosmological and practical – both
intersecting in the individual thought as subject. Referring to a 'free act' as an
'originary action,' freedom is determined in terms of cause and effect, and is
thereby posed as a problem of causality in Kant's third antinomy.42 For Kant, all
experience is subject to the law of causality, the law that 'everything that happens,
that is, begins, to be, presupposes something upon which it follows according to a
rule.'43 As Kant explains: 'the causality of the cause of that which happens or
comes into being must itself have come into being, and [...] in accordance with the
principle of understanding it must in its turn require a cause.'44 In the natural world,
the world of phenomena, nothing is the cause of itself: every cause of a cause itself
follows from a prior cause.
Implicit in the concept of mechanical causality, however, is the notion of a

first cause, an uncaused causal power (i.e., transcendental freedom), since the law
of causality would be self-contradictory if there were not another kind of causality
that also effected phenomena in the world. 45 This logical claim that natural
causality must itself be grounded in something that is unconditional is what
constitutes the antinomy between causality and freedom in speculative reason; an
antinomy that Kant resolves in the first Critique by positing a sharp distinction
between the phenomenal world of appearances and the noumenal world of 'things
in themselves.'
In the third antinomy this takes the form of the proposition of the necessity
of an uncaused cause (transcendental freedom), an absolute spontaneity of cause,

42. Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, A544,B572.
43. Ibid., A189,B232.
44. Ibid., A532,B560.
45. This is the role that God plays in a mechanistic paradigm of nature: as the abstract 'first cause'
(causa prima) of the universe.
214

which of itself originates a series of phenomena which then proceed according to
natural laws. This distinction means that freedom and causality are no longer
mutually exclusive, since the concept of cause presupposes two kinds of causality,
where the causality of freedom does not contradict the laws of nature because it
lies outside of the realm of experience. The phenomenal-noumenal distinction thus
resolves the contradiction between freedom and mechanistic laws of nature:
transcendental freedom is cosmological freedom.
Metaphysical Freedom as the Ground of Practical Autonomy
The problem though is that we cannot experience this transcendental

freedom: it is something that we can never prove or know. Cosmological freedom
is therefore an object of intelligibility rather than sensibility, and has to be deduced
through the exercise of reason. Kant argues in the second Critique however that we
must still presuppose cosmological freedom – to act as if the transcendental thesis
were true – since to conclude that human beings cannot be an uncaused cause
would undermine our ability to consider ourselves (and therefore act as)
responsible agents. Despite the epistemic possibility that we might well be
deluded, for Kant there is a practical necessity of acting as if we had cosmological
freedom, because otherwise we simply could not act.46
This variance reflects the divergent concerns of Kant's two Critiques: while
pure reason aims at truth, practical reason tells us what we must do. This is why
the first Critique cognises freedom in a purely negative way, as the pure possibility
of freedom as an independence from, while the second Critique thinks about
actually existing freedom, where freedom is regarded as the ability to will an
action for ourselves; and for that willing to be driven by reason alone, since reason
provides motivation for the will that transcends natural causality. It is, therefore,

46. In a metaphysics lecture Kant is quoted as saying: 'Freedom is practically necessary – man must
therefore act according to an idea of freedom, otherwise he cannot act. That does not, however,
prove freedom in the theoretical sense.' Henry E. Allison, Idealism and Freedom: Essays on Kant’s
Theoretical and Practical Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 133-34.
215

ethical action driven by reason alone that allows us to consider the person to be
engaging in an original effecting. In short, freedom is, according to Kant 'a non-
empirical (intelligible) kind of causality'; a 'causality of reason' that practical
reason gives reality to.47
Freedom as a Problem of Metaphysics: Cosmology, Causality & Human

Responsibility.
We saw in the last chapter that Heidegger argues that any encounter with
entities occurs 'in the light of Being'; Kant's account of freedom and ethical
subjectivity is an effective illustration of this.48 Kant, a committed Newtonian,
sought to apply Newton's insights in physics to metaphysics, a philosophical
discipline that, in promising to give us knowledge of entities existing beyond
experience, he regarded as a fledgling science. Newtonian physics had provided a
mechanical explanation of nature as governed by causally determining natural
laws; understanding freedom as non-empirical (intelligible) kind of causality
allows Kant to find a place for human freedom in a Newtonian universe by
reconciling the mechanical necessity of nature with the view of humans as beings
endowed with a distinctive kind of causality.49 Kant's encounter with human beings
thus occurs in the light of a mechanistic paradigm of nature; his positing of
freedom as a transcendental idea is at root an attempt to make sense of the unity of
nature given a commitment to a mechanistic understanding of the world. Hence, it
is only within a certain conditioned interpretation of Being that freedom becomes a
problem for Kant.
It is in the light of this understanding of Being in general (the mechanistic

paradigm of nature) that allows Kant to postulate that ethical subjectivity resides in

48. We will recall from the previous chapter that Da-sein is always 'thrown' into a particular context
that informs the nature of our relation to the world, and that Heidegger calls this situation a
Lichtung (Clearing): an open space within which we can encounter objects. 'Things show up in the
light of our understanding of being.' Hubert Dreyfus, Being-in-the-World: A Commentary on
Heidegger’s Being and Time (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1991), 163.
216

the individual. This notion then later finds practical expression in his second
Critique and in the Groundwork, before being expressed politically in his essays
Perpetual Peace and Idea for a Universal History. Kant's conception of ethical
subjectivity is thus a corollary to his understanding of freedom as transcendental
idea (cosmological freedom); both of which are metaphysical because they cannot
be validated by experience. Although the two are not the same – autonomy is the
self-legislation of a rational being according to its individual will, and absolute
spontaneity is the self-origination of a state – it is only on the basis of absolute
spontaneity that practical autonomy is possible. Practical autonomy is a kind of
absolute spontaneity, the latter delimiting the essence of the former:
The self-determination of action as self-legislation is a self-origination of a state in the

specific domain of the human activity of a rational being. Were there no absolute
spontaneity, there would be no autonomy. The possibility of autonomy is grounded in
spontaneity, and practical freedom is grounded in transcendental freedom.50
Hence what initially seems to be an unproblematic, even instinctual way of

thinking human freedom, becomes far more complicated since it leads us to ask
what it is that enables practical autonomy, and, what absolute spontaneity even
means. Kant's commitment to individual autonomy thus forces us to confront a
broader problematic, the problem of causality in general.
Presence, Responsibility, and the Leading Question
The practical freedom associated with ethical subjectivity is not just about
rational activity, but also involves being responsible for our actions. While the
traditional definition of man as homo animale rationale recognises only two
elements: man as the animal endowed with reason, since an animal can be rational
without possessing the ability to act on behalf of itself, for Kant the humanity of
man must consist in more than this: '[r]eason could be purely theoretical, such that
man's actions were guided by reason, but with his impulses stemming entirely from

50. Ibid., 18.
217

sensibility, i.e., from his animality.'51 Consequently it is not simply rationality or
animality, but also personality that must be distinctive of man for Kant: our ability
to rise above our animal nature and be held accountable for our actions as persons.
In short, man is not just a rational being, but also an accountable being: '[t]he
essence of person, the personality, consists in self-responsibility.'52
The idea that we are responsible beings that can be held accountable for our
actions is crucial for a Kantian conception of freedom, since it is this experience of
individual responsibility or accountability that provides substance to the idea that
we are free. Such a view of freedom has become widely accepted, at least in
modern, liberal, societies. If we murder someone, we expect to be held accountable
for that crime. Similarly, when someone engages in supererogatory action we hold
that person in esteem. Kant's understanding of freedom is therefore crucial to our
modern self-understandings, without it we would have neither legal nor moral
personality; both of which are central to the functioning of our modern societies.
The problem however is that Kant treats this kind of freedom as something that
persists historically and trans-culturally: he treats this form of ethical subjectivity
as foundational.53
Heidegger's objection is that Kant treats this form of subjectivity as a form

of perpetual presence, where the self is characterised not qua self but as 'the
selfsameness and steadiness of something that is always present-at-hand. To define
the "I" ontologically as "subject" means to regard it as something always present-
at-hand.'54 From Heidegger's perspective then, by allowing the question of the
essence of human freedom to finish with the positing of freedom as the self-
legislation of practical reason, Kant persists in asking the leading question of
philosophy (‘what are beings?’) since beings are the beings that are free.

51. Ibid., 180.
52. Ibid.
53. Linklater's dialectical treatment of Kant's rationalism and Hegel's historicism in Men and
Citizens is a significant move away from this form of foundationalism, yet reconstructing ethical
subjectivity as an historical achievement does not fully extricate himself from this commitment.
54. Ibid., 367.
218

Despite resonating profoundly with a modern sensibility then, by
understanding freedom simply as the practical autonomy of a present being, of an
individual conceived as self-directing substance, Kant's understanding of freedom
betrays an essentially limited conception of the human being (as existent entity).
This is because it fails to engage with the being of that entity, with the nature of the
kind of existence that pertains to human beings; a form of existence that Heidegger
identifies as our 'ek-sistentiality' – the fact that we are the beings that interpret
Being. As a result, Kant's treatment of freedom and human existence is
ontologically shallow.
We shall recall from the last chapter that Heidegger rejects metaphysical
realism, arguing instead that our understanding of reality is not simply read off the
mind-independent real, but is at least partially imposed upon it; that, on the basis of
our prior experience we project out interpretations of existence onto entities
themselves: we give things meaning. Moreover, that Heidegger's complaint against
the Western philosophical tradition is that it has misinterpreted the nature of this
exercise: that, in part due to an overestimation of our rational faculties, we have
come to think that our constructions of the mind-independent real are in fact
reflections of reality as it is independent of our knowledge of it.
Consequently, the reason why Kant's conception of human freedom and

existence are so shallow is that he considers his metaphysics to be a fledgling
science, and therefore that his account of human beings as rational, autonomous,
persons, is a reflection of what human beings actually are, rather than an
interpretation of the being of human beings that operates in the light of a
mechanistic paradigm of nature; one that projects meaning onto human beings, and
which can therefore be subject to evaluation according to its effects: effects
including reification that will be explored in the next chapter. It is for this reason –
because he ignores the priority and the necessity of the question of Being – that
Heidegger concludes that Kant's treatment of freedom as a problem of causality
219

'lacks the metaphysical ground for the problem of freedom.'55 This leads him to
consider if it is, in fact, the reverse that is true.
Freedom as a Problem of Causality, or Causality as a Problem of Freedom?
While Kant presents the problem of freedom as a problem of causality,

Heidegger questions whether it makes more sense to consider the problem of
causality to be itself grounded in freedom. The suggestion is that we should
consider freedom to be a condition rather than a property; that freedom might
rather first be the condition of the possibility of interpreting the being of human
beings as ethical subjects. Or, to put it differently, whether freedom is in fact the
condition of our (historical and social) construction of a world in which human
beings are deemed to be entities that possess the power of 'absolute self-activity' or
'self-determination.' This amounts to positing freedom as the condition of any
understanding of the being of beings, the condition of our 'world-hood,' or of what
Heidegger calls the 'manifestness of the being of beings.'
The letting-be encountered of beings, comportment to beings in each and every mode of
manifestness, is only possible where freedom exists. Freedom is the condition of the
possibility of the manifestness of the being of beings, of the understanding of being.56
Consequently, Heidegger leads us to a discussion of the relationship

between the question of Being and freedom. While the question of Being has been
the leading question of philosophy, the fundamental problem of philosophy is that
concerning the essence of freedom. 57 Heidegger suggests that it is only by
regarding the question of Being as rooted in the question concerning the essence of
human freedom that we can recognise the proper ontological dimension of
freedom. 'The essence of freedom only comes into view if we seek it as the ground
of the possibility of Dasein, as something prior even to being and time.'58 Rather
than seeing freedom as freedom-from and freedom-to, he suggests then that 'we

55. Ibid., 134.
56. Ibid., 205.
57. Ibid.
58. Ibid., 93.
220

must effect a complete repositioning of freedom, so that what now emerges is that
the problem of freedom is not built into the leading and fundamental problems of
philosophy, but, on the contrary, the leading question of metaphysics is grounded
in the question concerning the essence of freedom.'59 Freedom then is no longer
conceived primarily in terms of a property of man, but it becomes 'superordinate
and governing in relation to the whole.'60
Although it is the ground that our existence as meaningful creatures rests

upon, freedom cannot strictly be considered to be a foundation, as freedom must by
definition remain indeterminate. Consequently, freedom is posited as the Abgrund,
the abyss that the ontological difference rests upon. Freedom is the 'groundless'
ground of the ontological difference, the condition of any interpretation of Being
and of the perspectival presentation of the whole. We will recall that in Being and
Time Dasein 'is in existing, the ground of its ability to be.'61 Dasein is thrown into
existence, and since it is thrown, Dasein is not itself subject, but projects 'itself
onto possibilities into which it has been thrown [...] It has been released from the
ground, not by itself but to itself, so as to be the ground.' 62 Freedom is the
condition of man's ek-sistence. As Inwood explains:
Dasein does not lay the ground or basis: it does not choose its entry into the world or the
range of possibilities that initially confront it. But it assumes these possibilities as its own
and makes them a spring-board for its subsequent trajectory. Its ability to do this depends
on its "ecstatic temporality:" "Even if concern remains restricted to the urgency of every-
day needs, Dasein is never a pure making present; it springs from a retention that awaits,
and exists in a world on the ground of this retention or as itself this "ground."'63
With freedom as the abyssal root of both Being and time, freedom is more
primordial than man, and so man can only be the administrator and not the owner
of freedom: 'he can only let-be the freedom which is accorded to him.'64 As the
administrator of freedom, man is the site where beings in the whole become
revealed, i.e., he is that particular being through which beings as such announce

59. Ibid.
60. Ibid.
62. Ibid.
63. Ibid., 356 cf. 436. Michael Inwood, A Heidegger Dictionary (Oxford: Blackwell, 1999), 83.
221

themselves.'65 Hence, man is not just one being amongst other beings but he is the
being through which the being of beings - thus beings in the whole - are revealed.
He is that being that interprets Being.
An Emancipatory Humanism?
Heidegger's complaint against existentialist, Marxist and Christian

humanisms in his Letter on Humanism is that they overlook the fact that this is
what constitutes man's uniqueness. The common humanist concern is that man
become free for his humanity and finds his worth in it. While they differ on what
they conceive 'freedom' and the 'nature' of man to be, along with the path to the
realization of these conceptions, various humanisms are aligned in the sense that
according to each, the 'humanitas of homo humanus is determined with regard to
an already established interpretation of nature, history, world, and the ground of
the world, that is, of beings as a whole.'66
Each of these humanisms thus projects an interpretation of beings without

questioning the truth of Being; they engage in regional ontology without grounding
that ontology in general ontology, which would lead to a recognition that such
interpretations of Being are partial and temporal and thus subordinate to the
ontological difference. It is man's ek-sistence, his world-relation, that constitutes

65. Ibid., 94.
66. ‘[I]f one understands humanism in general as a concern that man become free for his humanity
and find his worth in it, then humanism differs according to one's conception of the "freedom" and
"nature" of man. So too are there various paths toward the realization of such conceptions. The
humanism of Marx does not need to return to antiquity any more than the humanism which Sartre
conceives existentialism to be. In this broad sense Christianity is also a humanism, in that according
to its teaching everything depends on man's salvation (salus aeterna); the history of man appears in
the context of the history of redemption. However different these forms of humanism may be in
purpose and in principle, in the mode and means of their respective realizations, and in the form of
their teaching, they nonetheless all agree in this, that the humanitas of homo humanus is determined
with regard to an already established interpretation of nature, history, world, and the ground of the
world, that is, of beings as a whole. Every humanism is either grounded in metaphysics or is itself
made to be the ground of one. Every determination of the essence of man already presupposes an
interpretation of beings without asking about the truth of Being, whether knowingly or not, is
metaphysical.’ Martin Heidegger, “Letter on Humanism,” in Martin Heidegger: Basic Writings, ed.
David F. Krell (New York: Harper Collins, 1993), 225-26.
222

man's existential uniqueness for Heidegger: the way that man 'stands out' in the
various moments of the temporality of care, being 'thrown' out of a past and
'projecting' himself toward a future by way of the present.67
Thought in terms of ek-sistence, "world" is in a certain sense precisely "the beyond" within
existence and for it. Man is never first and foremost man on the hither side of the world, as
a "subject," whether this is taken as "I" or "We." Neither is he ever simply a mere subject
which always simultaneously is related to objects, so that his essence lies in the subject-
object relation. Rather, before all this, man in his essence is ek-sistent into the openness of
Being, into the open region that clears the "between" within which a "relation" of subject
to object can "be."'68
Therefore, despite our previous recognition that responsibility and

accountability resonate so profoundly with our modern sensibility, freedom cannot
principally consist in our subjectivity as it does for Kant, Habermas and Linklater.
Rather, freedom must first be understood as engaged immersion in the world, on
the basis of which freedom as ethical subjectivity can then be projected upon
beings as a whole.
Freedom is not merely what common sense is content to let pass under this name: the
caprice, turning up occasionally in our choosing, of inclining in this or that direction.
Freedom is not mere absence of constraint with respect to what we can or cannot do. Nor
is it on the other hand mere readiness for what is required and necessary (and so somehow
a being). Prior to all this ("negative" and "positive" freedom), freedom is engagement in
the disclosedness of beings as such. Disclosedness itself is conserved in ek-sistent
engagement, through which the openness of the open region, i.e., the "there," "Da," is what
it is.'69
As the groundless ground of our existence, the Abgrund upon which the
ontological difference rests, freedom is not simply the self-direction of
individuated entities, and neither is it caprice or absence of restraint.70 Before it is
any of these, freedom is the existential condition of world-disclosure, and then a

67. Ibid., 228.
68. Ibid., 252.
69. Martin Heidegger, “On the Essence of Truth,” in Martin Heidegger: Basic Writings, ed. David
F. Krell. (New York: Harper Collins, 1993), 126.
70. As Louis Blond explains: 'The "non-essence" that constitutes being and nothingness, as they are
not "things," is described as an abyss that functions as a "non-grounding ground" which gives the
freedom of possibilities (or rather existence) to beings. Freedom is not like an unchanging essence;
freedom provides the space for possibilities. The abyssal ground (Ab-grund) is the boundless
quality that is the counterpart of ground.' Louis P. Blond, Heidegger and Nietzsche: Overcoming
Metaphysics (London: Continuum, 2010), 78. For Heidegger's own (lengthier) explanation of
freedom as 'groundless ground' see Martin Heidegger, “The Anaximander Fragment,” Arion 1, no. 4
(1973): 576-626.
223

state of being – a resolute, solicitous being-with others, where others are engaged
as others. This involves, in Heidegger's words, 'letting beings be,' allowing others
to appear as they are rather than on the basis of some preconceived notion of
subjectivity that is projected onto them. It is in this solicitous engagement that
Being is mutually co-disclosed with others, a mutual co-disclosure that is
hampered by the projection of a substantive interpretation of what human beings
are; such as by representing others as subjects, the strategy relied upon by
Linklater's defence of universalism.
As a result, emancipation cannot simply be seen as the progressive self-

actualisation of an ethical subject and the establishment of the political and social
conditions whereby individuals can exercise this subjectivity. The emancipatory
project of CIRT cannot, from this perspective, simply involve the extension of
community by removing barriers to universal discursive reasoning
(Habermas/Linklater), and neither can it be about the establishment of a universal
intersubjective recognitive sphere (Honneth/Brincat). Although an emancipatory
politics can still lead to these conclusions, to be considered emancipatory these
political projects must arise as a consequence of solicitous being-with others.
An Ethical & Emancipatory Politics
So far we have engaged in a regional ontology of the person, where human

beings are presented as essentially world-relating creatures rather than subjects,
and have contributed to a shift in understanding freedom from being a property of
an individual thought of as subject to the existential condition of world-disclosure.
The current section will discuss further implications of these arguments for an
ethical and emancipatory politics.
Politics, from the Greek politika (Πολιτικά) was considered by Aristotle to

concern the affairs of the city, the polis (πόλις), and is commonly conceived as the
art and science of forming, directing, and administrating political units such as the
224

state. Such a practice often involves the invocation of a shared identity as the
common ground for social cohesion or collective action. To claim that something
is 'un-American,' for instance, indicates this in the negative. Sometimes such social
cohesion is established through the identification of threats to the polity, both
internal or external, but it can also be effected through national celebrations, such
as Australia Day, the Queen's Diamond Jubilee, or more sombre occasions such as
Armistice Day.71
The celebration of such an imagined community, the invocation of a shared

identity, or the remembrance of collective sacrifice, as well as efforts to influence
the formation of public opinion, can be read as paradigmatically political activities
since they involve attempts to establish or re-establish a political project,
achievement, or shared vulnerability that can be regarded as common to all
members of the community: these are processes of collective world formation.
While an individual’s world-relation is interpretive and particular, politics should
be regarded as the process by which a common world is created from a plurality of
individual worlds. This involves the projection of meaning onto all members of the
community, a process that is essentially contestable, and is contested within the
polis. Politics may then be said to involve the perpetual contestation of meaning
and its institutionalisation, and such an activity may be motivated by interests of
power or influence, financial gain, or emancipation. It is the latter that we shall be
concerned with here.
The Political Implications of our World-relation
While we argued that understanding human beings as essentially world-

relating creatures represented a more universalistic way of thinking the human

71. On foreign policy and collective identity formation see David Campbell, Writing Security:
United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity (Manchester: Manchester University Press,
1998).; Michael J. Shapiro, Violent Cartographies: Mapping Cultures of War (Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press, 1997).; Iver B. Neumann, “Self and Other in International
Relations,” European Journal of International Relations 2, no. 2 (1996): 139-74; Iver B. Neumann,
Uses of the Other: “the East” in European Identity Formation (Manchester: Manchester University
Press, 1999).
225

being as subject, we will recall that Heidegger identifies Mitsein (being-with) as a
fundamental existential structure of human existence, a basic state within which
human existence is 'co-determined by its relations with others.’72 While Olafson
develops Heidegger's idea that we are essentially ek-sistents by addressing our
thrownness and potentiality-for-being, he does not explore the notion of being-
with.73 This is a significant limitation, especially for thinking about an ethical and
emancipatory approach to world politics, because it means that he cannot examine
how one ek-sistent stands to another. Olafson recognizes this shortcoming and
suggests in his conclusion that his understanding of human being in terms of
presence and ek-sistence 'needs to be amplified by an account of the ways in which
the essential plurality of human being and the kind of community to which it gives
rise would be at the centre of the discussion.'74
Beyond this limitation of being unable to think through the implications of

his argument for the relations between ek-sistents, Olafson's account of the human
being does not consider the role of others in the constitution of the self. If we are to
enlist his account of humans as world-relating creatures then, we need to reinforce
it by expanding it in the light of the proper recognition of the significance of the
ethical and political nature of man's existence. There are two tasks here: the ethical
and the political. The ethical task is to think of the ways in which single particulars
ought to stand in relation to each other, while the political task, or the task for an
ethical politics, is to consider what sort of political goals, or forms of organisation,
we should set ourselves as targets. Since both emphasise Chapter 4 of Being and
Time, where being is always being-with, the coexistential ontological accounts of
Louiza Odysseos's analysis of coexistence in International Relations and Jean-Luc
Nancy's Being Singular Plural will guide the discussion towards this end. Both
Odysseos and Nancy lead us further away from a reliance on subjectivity and
towards an understanding of human existence that is necessarily relational/co-
existential.

73. Not until three years later, at least. See Frederick A. Olafson, Heidegger and the Ground of
Ethics: A Study of Mitsein (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).
74. Frederick A. Olafson, What is a Human Being? A Heideggerian View, 255.
226

Coexistence
We briefly encountered Odysseos's work in Chapter 3 in our discussion of

the move from inter-subjectivity to relational individuality in CIRT, where we saw
that self is not best thought as subject – since it is not essentially distinct from the
experiences that constitute it, but is deeply implicated in its relation to them. We
saw that Odysseos's key contribution was to challenge the subjectivist ontology of
IR by demonstrating that subjectivity is coexistential from the start. To put it
differently, this is a move from an atomistic conception of individuality to a
relational one. Odysseos's primary engagement, we saw, is with the concept of
coexistence, and that she is emphatic that coexistence (between individual human
beings or states for example) should not be understood simply as the co-presence
of individual units, as it has traditionally been assumed to be by IR, because:
[O]thers are not encountered in the world as a "plurality" of subjects that, thanks to their
incarnation, arise as "person-things-present-at-hand" among other "things." The logic of
composition, with its conception of others as subjects and of their coexistence as the
coming together of self-sufficient subjects, is directly refuted by Heidegger. His
reformulation of the "with" beyond composition "unworks" the nonrelational character
assumed of the modern subject. The world of Dasein is a with-world [Mitwelt]. Being-in is
Being-with Others. Their Being in-themselves within-the-world is Dasein-with
[Mitdasein]. "With," then, shapes the very Being of Dasein as a worldly entity and cannot
be understood as signifying copresence.75
Since the nature of a human being's existence (Da-sein) is irrevocably bound

to the character of their 'being-with' (Mitsein), Odysseos wants to replace the 'logic
of composition' with a 'logic of comparition' animated by a coexistential
sensibility, where comparition is understood as appearing to and with the other.
Her notion of a logic of comparition therefore disavows a 'politics of self-
sufficiency' and the perception that mechanist concepts, such as interest, are
required in order to be related to the other.76 Rather, according to her coexistential

396. A concept of shared interest can be seen as important to a social contractarian approach to the
227

ontology that draws from both Heidegger and Nancy, the individuality of a state or
a human being is radically dependent on the broader plurality within which it
arises. Odysseos’s hope is that the recognition of this existential condition might
'arrest a return to subject-driven politics,' serve as an 'ethical imperative
commanding respect for others's, and secure 'the open-endedness (a-teleology) of
political life.'77
Being Singular Plural
We noted in the last chapter that one of the shortcomings of Heidegger's

notion of solicitous being-with was that, despite his prior insistence that Da-sein is
always being-with, Heidegger falls short when it comes to an analysis of the
interpersonal conditions of selfhood. There is also a danger that our discussion of
humans as world-relating creatures might be misinterpreted as leading to or lapsing
into a form of solipsism. Nancy's development of Heidegger's notion of being-with
guards against these possible misunderstandings.
In The Inoperative Community and in Being Singular Plural Nancy draws

upon Heidegger's insight that there is no understanding of Being that is not always
already being-with, in order to develop a coexistential ontology. While Emmanuel
Levinas distances himself from the 'mit' of Mitsein by shifting emphasis from
'being with' to 'being in front of,' which allows him to downgrade Heidegger's
ontology of Being and being-with and claim that ethics is first philosophy, Nancy's
aim is to redo first philosophy – i.e., ontology – by giving the 'singular plural' of
Being as its foundation.78
While he focuses on the 'mit' of Mitsein, Nancy's position remains

underwritten by a Heideggerian understanding of the human being as Da-sein,

state, and the perception that states must share a common interest in order for them to cooperate –
as in projects of collective security, for instance.
77. Ibid.
78. Jean-Luc Nancy, Being Singular Plural (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2001), xv.
228

where humans are understood as the beings that have access to Being. In
Heideggerian thought it is through 'the event' that Da-sein is opened to Being:
Being is revealed to beings through personal experience that is characteristically
singular and unique. It is due to the facticity of human existence that human
experience is singular as opposed to general, and it is this singularity of human
experience that leads to the fact that our experience of Being is necessarily
multiple and differential.79 The singularity our experience necessarily implies the
multiplicity of Being because 'if the articulation of Being is always singular, Being
cannot be One, and it cannot be thought simply as gathering or collecting. And if
that to which Dasein opens is always already articulated [...] then Being must be
thought as differential or relational.80
Despite this insistence that Being cannot be One, there remains what Nancy
calls the 'political space,' the site of community, which is based upon the
differential structure of human existence. This political space is the place of human
sociality and is crucial to the nature of human existence, since it is that fact that we
experience our political existence as a question that differentiates us from other
animals. This 'political space' is also the place where we experience freedom;
freedom is experienced when thought is exposed to the 'fact of Being' the fact 'that
there are beings (and not nothing, Heidegger adds).'81
Echoing Heidegger's insistence on the necessity of an overcoming of

metaphysics by claiming that there is no meaning of the world beyond being-in-
the-world: singularly plural and plurally singular, Nancy's coexistential ontology
starts with an understanding of the world where 'being-with' refers to what he calls
'the singular multiplicity of origins,' where 'the plurality of beings is at the
foundation of Being.'82 By this is meant that, in light of Heidegger's critique of
metaphysics, we must proceed from the assumption that we only have access to
ourselves and to the world; that meaning is created rather than discovered, and is

79. Jean-Luc Nancy, The Inoperative Community (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press,
1991), xiii.
80. Ibid.
81. Ibid.
82. Jean-Luc Nancy, Being Singular Plural, 12.
229

created by each and every one of us in our relations with others. Given its
emphasis on the importance of human sociality, Nancy's coexistential ontology
emphasises relationality over subjectivity, prioritising neither the individual nor the
community – because to focus on either the general or the particular would detract
from the coexistential nature of our sociality. Consequently, Nancy claims, just as
community is 'inoperative,' the individual is 'nonviable':
Some see in its invention and in the culture, if not in the cult built around the individual,
Europe's incontrovertible merit of having shown the world the sole path to emancipation
from tyranny, and the norm by which to measure all our collective or communitarian
undertakings. But the individual is merely the residue of the experience of the dissolution
of community. By its nature - as its name indicates, it is the atom, the indivisible - the
individual reveals that it is the abstract result of a decomposition. It is another, and
symmetrical, figure of immanence: the absolutely detached for-itself, taken as origin and
as certainty.83
The significance of this for liberalism or Marxism is clear. Where liberalism

understands freedom as the protection of a sphere of rights that allows individuals
to act according to their inclinations, Marxism judges social systems according to
the extent that they alienate man from his natural being, or to the degree to which
they foster the autonomous action of individuals freed from the dictates of material
scarcity or insecurity. What is common to both is a view of the subject that is not
detached from society – indeed in Marxism man's social relations are key to his
'natural being' – but where the individual subject can nonetheless be seen in some
way as primordial, as antecedent to its community.
The Singular Multiplicity of Origins
Despite his talk of beings as 'origins' indicating that his position is affiliated
with a commitment to the aseity of the self, Nancy understands the self in a way
that does not involve treating it as essentially distinct from the experiences that
constitute it, but as deeply implicated in its relation to them.84 The self, according

83. Jean-Luc Nancy, The Inoperative Community, 3.
84. 'Aseity,' 'from-himself-ness,' deriving from the latin a (from) and se (self) is the property of a
being that exists in and of itself. It is traditionally used in Christian theology to affirm a qualitative
230

to Nancy, 'takes place as itself and/or as the other,' it's aseity 'anterior to the
distinction between a consciousness and its world. Before phenomenological
intentionality and the constitution of the ego, but also before thinglike consistency
as such,' there is for Nancy 'a co-originarity accorded to the with.'85 Nancy's
account of being singular plural is therefore not an account of human social
relations that anticipates the realisation of some primordial essence, but one which
shifts concern away from both the individual and the community to singularity and
the plural formation of singular worlds.
Nancy explains that 'singularity never has the nature or the structure of
individuality. Singularity never takes place at the level of atoms, those identifiable
if not identical entities; rather it takes place at the level of the clinamen, which is
unidentifiable.'86 Any given (individual, singular) world is formed 'in exposure to
others and thus is a relational world (or constituted in and through the relations that
are its (co)existential building blocks).'87 Crucially then, worlds are singular and
plural rather than general and universal as they are distinctively experienced and
formed by individuals in their social relations; they are, therefore, divisible and
constitutively exposed to other worlds, with which they intersect and overlap.
Hence:
The unity of a world is not one: it is made of a diversity, and even disparity and opposition
[...] The unity of a world is nothing other than its diversity, and this, in turn, is a diversity
of worlds. A world is a multiplicity of worlds; the world is a multiplicity of worlds, and its
unity is the mutual sharing and exposition of all its worlds - within this world.88
For Nancy then, as for Heidegger and for Odysseos, the proximal fact of
human existence is coexistence: the coexistence of singularities, individuated
selves that are co-originary or relational from the start and which are constituted
through their relations towards singular and multiple worlds. Significantly though,

difference between God and the creatures that he made. Nancy's use of the concept is meant to
indicate that we can rely on no transcendent source of meaning, and that we must now consider
aseity to inhere in individual human beings themselves.
85. Jean-Luc Nancy, Being Singular Plural, 40-41.
86. Jean-Luc Nancy, The Inoperative Community, 6-7.
87. Martin Coward, “Jean-Luc Nancy,” in Critical Theorists and International Relations, ed. Jenny
Edkins and Nick Vaughan-Williams (London: Routledge, 2009), 259.
88. Jean-Luc Nancy, Being Singular Plural, 185.
231

as with Odysseos, coexistence does not refer to the relations between preformed
subjects – it 'holds itself just as far from juxtaposition as it does from integration.'89
Coexistence does not supplement existence, and it cannot be subtracted out of
existence: existence is coexistence. 90 By stressing that coexistence is neither
integration nor juxtaposition Nancy distances himself from Hobbesian realism that
perceives the other as threatening and seeks to secure the self, just as he does from
the Kantian and Marxian goal of uniting a community of humankind.
Co-existentiality & the Impossibility of a Community of Subjects
In contrast to this commitment to a foundational singularity, and in a vein

reminiscent of Heidegger's Letter on Humanism, Nancy writes that 'it is precisely
the immanence of man to man, or it is man, taken absolutely, considered as the
immanent being par excellence, that constitutes the stumbling block to a thinking
of community.'91 In other words, so long as we conceive community in terms of a
community of subjects, we will never experience authentic community, since such
a community would founder on the identification of what constitutes the essence of
man.
Ironically then, since he is attempting to establish a universal moral

community, according to Nancy's way of thinking, it is precisely Linklater's
strategy of projecting an ethical subject in his defence of universality that
establishes the impossibility of an authentic community with the other. By
defending a dialogic approach to ethical universality and hence universal moral
inclusion where individuals (thought as subjects) encounter, or at least expect to
encounter, other individuals qua ethical subjects, Linklater precludes the
possibility of a genuine encounter with other persons. Since, as Nancy writes:

89. Ibid., 187.
90. Ibid.
91. Jean-Luc Nancy, The Inoperative Community, 3.
232

What cannot appear is both the other and communication. For the other of a
communication becomes the object of a subject - even and perhaps especially as
"suppressed object or concept" as in the Hegelian relation between consciousnesses [...]
This other is no longer an other, but an object of a subject's representation (or, in a more
complicated way, the representative object of another subject for the subject's
representation). Communication and the alterity that is its condition can, in principle, have
only an instrumental and not an ontological role and status in a thinking that views the
subject as the negative but specular identity of an object, that is, as an exteriority without
alterity. The subject cannot be outside itself: this is even what ultimately defines it - that its
outside and all its "alienations" or "extraneousness" should in the end be suppressed and
sublated in it. It is altogether different with the being of communication. The being-
communicating (and not the subject-representing), or if one wants to risk saying it,
communication as the predicament of being, as "transcendental," is above all being-
outside-itself.92
Discourse ethics, therefore, inescapably reduces the other to a mere

representation, meaning that communicative consensus can lead to neither an
authentic community, nor to mutual understanding. This problem is not confined to
discourse ethics, but is common to a politics of subjectivity more generally, since
persons are reduced to subjects or objects. A politics of universal principles or
norms, for instance, means that a politics of generality is structurally unable to pay
heed to the singularity of being, effacing it and undermining human freedom. An
exercise in universalist ethical reasoning is therefore an exercise in world making;
it requires an underlying commitment to a shared subjectivity, and is therefore an
essentially political exercise.
Relations to Singularity
What is being heralded here is a fundamental discontinuity between politics

and ethics. The origins of which, as we shall see in Chapter 8, go back at least to
Hegel's positing of an inequality between the logics of love and law in his Spirit of
Christianity essay, an inequality that finds mature expression in the
Phenomenology of Spirit and the Philosophy of Right as the division between
Moralität and Sittlichkeit, between a rule governed morality and the immanent
experience of ethical life. More on this later. The root cause of this divergence,
however, lies in the rejection of the dualist commitment to a foundational subject.

92. Ibid., 24.
233

If we remain committed to a foundational subject, ethics is simply the body

of rules that follow from taking such a subject as a ground. If the subject is not
regarded as foundational, the rules and principles that necessarily rely upon a given
subject as a ground cannot be seen as anything more than contingently binding;
contingent upon the adoption of such a common subjectivity. Our rejection of a
foundational subject is not a rejection of rules or principles, however, but it does
involve the view that an ethical relation is not exhausted by relations between
subjects.
This is where Nancy's concept of singularity comes into its own, since it
captures the ontological fullness of a person in a way that a commitment to
subjectivity cannot. We saw above that Nancy first talks about the singularity of
Being in The Inoperative Community, but his use of the term in relation to the
individual is stated more clearly in Being Singular Plural. Simultaneously rejecting
a Rorty-esque pragmatism and defending against the familiar criticism levelled
against continental philosophy as leading to relativism or nihilism, Nancy asserts:
There is a common measure, which is not some one unique standard applied to everyone
and everything. It is the commensurability of incommensurable singularities, the equality
of all the origins-of-the-world, which, as origins, are strictly unexchangable.93
As we saw in Chapter 3, the concept is also explored by Derrida, in Spectres

of Marx, Nietzsche and the Machine and later in his Politics of Friendship, where
singularity signifies the transcendent alterity of the other, 'heterogenous and
singular, hence resistant to the very generality of the law.' 94 Echoing Hegel's
discussion of the divergent orders of love and law, Derrida sheds light on the
relationship between subjectivity and singularity in his discussion of the 'aporetic'
structure of democracy:

93. Jean-Luc Nancy, Being Singular Plural, 75. emphasis added. We will recall from Chapter 3 that
Nick Vaughan-Williams has deployed Nancy's argument in relation to various cosmopolitan
discourses in IR. See Nick Vaughan-Williams, “Beyond a Cosmopolitan Ideal: The Politics of
Singularity.” International Politics 44 (2007): 107-24.
94. Jacques Derrida, “Nietzsche and the Machine: An Interview With Jacques Derrida By Richard
Beardsworth,” Journal of Nietzsche Studies 7 (1994): 7-66; Jacques Derrida, Specters of Marx: The
State of the Debt, the Work of Mourning, and the New International (London: Routledge, 1994);
Jacques Derrida, The Politics of Friendship, trans. George Collins (London: Verso, 2005), 277.
234

With this becoming-political, and with all the schemata that we will recognize therein [...]
the question of democracy thus opens, the question of the citizen or the subject as a
countable singularity. And that of a "universal fraternity." There is no democracy without
respect for irreducible singularity or alterity, but there is no democracy without the
"community of friends" (koína ta philōn), without the calculation of majorities, without
identifiable, stabilizable, representable subjects, all equal. These two laws are irreducible
to one another. Tragically irreconcilable and forever wounding [...] political desire is
forever borne by the disjunction of these two laws. It also bears the chance and the future
of a democracy whose ruin it constantly threatens but whose life, however, it sustains.95
What is common to Hegel, Nancy, Derrida, and Heidegger, is a rejection of

foundational subjectivity that goes hand in hand with their scepticism towards the
essentially ambivalent achievements of reflective rationality.96
Singularity
Although Heidegger does not spend much time discussing the ethical
implications of his existential analytic of Da-sein, representing other Da-seins as
singularities is entirely congruent with his philosophical ontology. The term
'singularity' originates in physics, designating the point of discontinuity in
phenomena such as black holes: that which is, and must remain, beyond the field
of vision. As we saw, an authentic relation between self and world involves letting
entities appear as they are, resisting our tendency to project our regional
interpretations of Being onto beings as a whole. The implication is that a genuinely
ethical relation to the other would resist our tendency to project an interpretation of
what the human subject is or should be, but would be a relation to that which must
essentially exceed our own representations of them – a relationship that does not
reduce the other simply to a particular case of the human species, but treats them as
a singular, irreplaceable being: as a unique ek-sistent Da-sein.
It is for this reason that, in a move echoing Hegel's emphasis of the

importance of ethical life over morality, Heidegger distinguishes between ethics

95. Ibid., 22.
96. We could also add Adorno and Horkheimer to this list.
235

and its Greek root ēthos. Whereas ethical norms and principles presuppose an
underlying ethical subject, as demonstrated by Cochran's analysis of the
foundational commitments implied in Frost and Linklater's approach to normative
theory, ‘ethos’ refers to an abode or dwelling place, the 'open region in which man
dwells.'97 Since Heidegger regards human dwelling to be authentic when it is
responsive to the ontological difference, the ethical cannot simply be about
theoretically constructed norms, principles, or practices, but must relate to our
concrete way of being in the world. It is in this way that Heidegger can be said to
be 'against ethics.'98 In the writings of those influenced by Heidegger, ethos is
preferred to ethics since the rules and principles of the latter are generally
incompatible with Da-sein. 99 Connolly, for instance, uses it to 'emphasize
continually that the orientation he seeks is vivified more by a spirit or sensibility
than by any set rules of conduct,' while Odysseos distinguishes ethos from the
nomos of moral principles and universal ethics to understand it as 'an attitude and
mode of relating to others.'100
Conclusions: Towards a Politics of Singularity
Proceeding from a discussion of Heidegger's general ontology of Being in the

preceding chapter, where we suggested that subjectivity is an ontologically

97. Molly Cochran, Normative Theory in International Relations: A Pragmatic Approach
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999). Martin Heidegger, “Letter on Humanism,” 256.
98. John D. Caputo, Against Ethics: Contributions to a Poetics of Obligation With Constant
Reference to Deconstruction (Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2005).
99. See, for instance William Connolly, “Suffering, Justice, and the Politics of Becoming,” in
Moral Spaces: Rethinking Ethics and World Politics, ed. D. Campbell, and M.J. Shapiro
(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1999). David Campbell, “The Deterritorialisation of
Responsibility: Levinas, Derrida, and Ethics After the End of Philosophy,” in Moral Spaces:
Rethinking Ethics and World Politics, ed. D. Campbell, and M.J. Shapiro (Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota Press, 1999); David Campbell and Michael J. Shapiro, “Introduction: From Ethical
Theory to Ethical Relation,” in Moral Spaces: Rethinking Ethics and World Politics, ed. David
Campbell and Michael J. Shapiro (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1999). Angus
Brook, The Early Heidegger and Ethics: The Notion of Ethos in Martin Heidegger’s Early Career
(Saarbrücken: VDM, 2009); William Connolly, The Ethos of Pluralization (Minneapolis:
University of Minnisota Press, 1995); William McNeill, The Time of Life: Heidegger and Ethos
(New York: SUNY Press, 2006).
100. Stephen K. White, Sustaining Affirmation: The Strengths of Weak Ontology in Political
Theory, 116. Louiza Odysseos, “Dangerous Ontologies: The Ethos of Survival and Ethical
Theorizing in International Relations,” Review of International Studies 28 (2002), 404.
236

deficient way of thinking the human being, this chapter has explored the
implications of this general ontology for a regional ontology of the person, and
suggested that we understand human beings as essentially world-relating creatures
instead of ethical subjects.
Universality and Particularity
As a non-subjectivist way of conceiving the individual, thinking about

humans in terms of their having 'a world' that is distinct from 'the world' offers a
novel concatenation of the relationship between universality, particularity and
individuality. As such, it offers an alternative understanding of the being of the
human being to that relied upon by Linklater, for whom man's particular existence
as a citizen of a political community is interrupted by more primordial moral
claims upon him as an individual (thought as ethical subject): as a subject to the
universal obligations of morality. Further, not only does this non-subjectivist
account of the individual provide an alternative to Linklater’s foundational reliance
on man’s ‘bifurcated subjectivity’, it also offers a way beyond the competing
subjectivist assertions about universal and particular identities often made in the
cosmopolitan / communitarian debate.
While communitarian thinking tends towards exclusivity and the problematic

assumption of the shared presence of a particular community (such as the state) to
all those subject to it, cosmopolitan thought often relies on more inclusive
reasoning that is often divorced from people's social experiences, gives a poor
account of motivation, and is regularly charged with being insufficiently attentive
to difference and particularity. In contrast, the idea of humans as essentially world-
relating creatures leads to the view that it is our world-relation that is universal,
while as entities/beings to which worlds are present, the nature of our world
relation is necessarily plural and individuated. Conceiving human beings as
essentially world-relating creatures also provides a more nuanced way of
accounting for the differential salience of a variety of associations or identities,
237

along with their relative importance in the constitution of any given individual's
personality. It thus represents a more nuanced way of understanding the
multifaceted, often conflicting influence of human cultures, identities and human
agency in world politics, and offers a particularist response to the cosmopolitan
trope that increasing interconnectedness between people as a result of processes of
globalisation undermines the exclusive nature of particularist positions, and thus
necessitates a cosmopolitan response that often involves the problematic
invocation of a universal human community.
Freedom
The second part of the chapter followed Heidegger's ontological reading of

Kant. Here we saw that the association of freedom with subjectivity that resonates
profoundly with a modern, liberal sensibility – and which characterises Linklater's
emancipatory cosmopolitanism and his approach to CIRT – must be considered to
be one of many possible determinations of the being of human beings. This also
required that we understand freedom not as a property of man, but primarily as the
condition of any interpretation of the being of beings – the presupposition of any
and all of our understandings of beings. In short, that we could not associate
freedom with a foundational subject. Consequently we suggested that
emancipation cannot first consist in the self-realisation of the ethical subject, or in
the establishment of the conditions of subjectivity, and that the extension of
community cannot simply be thought as the removal of barriers to discursive
reasoning, and neither can it simply be about the establishment of the
intersubjective recognitive sphere. Rather, we concluded that, if international
political action is to be considered emancipatory, it must be predicated on resolute
solicitous being-with others.
We then explored Odysseos and Nancy's contributions to the idea of

coexistence, where, drawing on Heidegger's identification of Mitsein as a
fundamental existential structure of human existence, subjectivity and singularity
238

are presented as being deeply constituted by a relationality that is antecedent to any
subjectivity. The result is that a politics of generality, such as a politics based on
ethical principles, or universal rules of conduct, must exist in an essential tension
with the nature of man as an ek-sisting, world-relating creature. Moreover, Nancy
demonstrated that any attempt to establish community on the realisation of some
inherent essence or subjectivity, such as common political identity or ethical
subjectivity, was essentially bound to fail. This, we saw, heralded a fundamental
discontinuity between ethics and politics; the cause of which can be identified as
the rejection of the foundational commitment to the ethical subject.
Towards a Politics of Singularity
As a result, ethics becomes disassociated with universal principles that

attempt to reconcile or manage human differences, and becomes primarily a
relation to singularity. In light of cosmopolitan claims about universal principles or
norms, what is interesting about this account is that ethics is understood as a mode
of dwelling marked by a particular kind of relation to our own existence and to the
existence of others rather than one wedded to a consensual approach to rules of
conduct. Consequently, from this perspective, an ethical politics must be one that is
predicated on openness to the other, rather than a politics based upon ethical
principles. In contrast to subjectivist approaches to freedom (Marxist, late-
Frankfurt School, liberal) where emancipation amounts to increasing the
possibility of the subjective freedom of individual human beings, by taking
departures from Heidegger's thought, freedom has to be understood in terms of an
openness and practical engagement with others as others: an openness to be
characterised by a decentred receptivity and an 'intensification of one's cognitive
and affective capabilities.'101 Emancipation, therefore, cannot simply consist in the
establishment of the political conditions conducive to the exercise of subjectivity,

239

but must first involve freeing up the possibility of human existence as being-with
others.
In short, if we eschew a foundational commitment to the ethical subject, an

ethical or emancipatory politics can only be understood as such so long as it is
predicated upon an understanding of politics as an interaction of singular and
overlapping worlds, and on a recognition and defence of the singularities upon
which it is based; a politics of subjectivity is structurally unable to do this. The
notion of a politics of singularity, therefore, must be seen as central to the
development of an emancipatory cosmopolitanism. Given the singularity of our
own world, and the imperative to recognise and defend other worlds, two questions
follow. The ethical question of how single particulars should stand in relation to
each other, and the political question (or more accurately the task of an ethical
politics) of how we should structure our social relations on the basis of the
singular/plural character of Being. We will address these questions next, in Part 3.
Conclusions to Part 2
We concluded Part 1 by claiming that the weakness of Linklater's

emancipatory cosmopolitanism, and hence his approach to CIRT, was that it was
predicated on a philosophically shallow understanding of human existence and a
limited understanding of human freedom; it was these shortcomings that permit his
(essentially problematic) foundational commitment to the subject. The aim of Part
2 has been to contribute to the development of a more universalistic ontological
foundation for contemporary politics and ethics with a view to developing a more
philosophically and praxeologically adequate emancipatory cosmopolitanism; one
that might supplant Linklater's reliance on Habermas's normative ideal of a
universal discourse community as the philosophical and normative aspect of the
tripartite structure of critical theory.
240

In Chapter 1 we explored some of the problems associated with approaches
to international theory that relied on dualistic premises, such as a commitment to
foundational subjectivity or an intransitive object. Echoing the strategy employed
by Hegel's phenomenological constructivism – where the split between subject and
object does not occur between mind and world, but occurs within consciousness,
where the cognitive object is constructed from conscious phenomena in an ongoing
historical process – we suggested (against Cochran's pragmatist anti-
foundationalism) that, conceived as a cognitive object, through a philosophical
ontology of the being of human beings we could construct a more universalistic
ontological foundation for a critical approach to international theory.
By demonstrating that subjectivity is a property that we project onto human

beings and that human beings are better thought as singularities, Part 2 has laid the
foundations for this more universalistic philosophical ontology of the human being
for a critical approach to international theory. Heidegger's ontological difference
has helped us to see that the being of entities is not intrinsic to that object, but is
dependent upon context specific meanings that are projected onto it by human
beings that encounter such entities as objects. Just as Heidegger criticises
Descartes for projecting an interpretation of Being as 'substantiality' onto entities,
Linklater's defence of universalism projects an idea of the existence of human
beings as ethical subjects onto those entities outside the political community. We
also learnt that Heidegger considers the objectification of reality to result from the
theoretical attitude itself; that theory served to 'un-live' human experience and
objectify existence. 102 This is the core of the Heideggerian objection to the
commitment to intersubjectivity in the critical theory of Habermas or Honneth,
because intersubjectivity involves abstracting from and then objectifying human
sociality as relations between subjects rather than relations between always-
already-related-(co)existences.
If the being of entities, such as human beings, is not intrinsic to an entity but
dependent upon meaning projected upon it by human beings themselves, then it

241

stands to reason that a core concern of any emancipatory cosmopolitanism must be
to effect changes in the way that we encounter other human beings. Heidegger's
notion of resolute solicitude provides such an orientation; the notion of resolute,
solicitous being-with others holds great potential for the future of critical theory, as
Kompridis has already argued. It offers us a more convincing account of the
relation between freedom and dependence than one predicated on the subject, one
that serves as a nascent but fruitful alternative to relations of inter-subjectivity.
That said, we saw that Heidegger insists that resoluteness must precede solicitous
being with others, and he thereby fails to demonstrate that both freedom and self-
hood are ineluctably acquired in relation to others under conditions of cooperative
interaction. We also noted that had Heidegger been a better student of Hegel's, he
might have avoided this mistake; in this regard, Hegel's 'intersubjective' account of
freedom and subjectivity is both much more convincing, and both more consistent
with and more favourable to, Heidegger's account of positive solicitude. For this
reason, it is to Hegel's compelling contributions to an emancipatory
cosmopolitanism that we now turn.
242

Part 3.
Life, Love, and Emancipation
243

Introduction to Part 3
In light of the arguments developed in Parts 1 and 2, Part 3 draws on Hegel

with the aim of contributing to the development of a more adequate philosophical
defence of a critical approach to world politics. With this aim in mind, Chapter 6
engages in a discussion of the development of the subject-object relation from
Kant to Hegel. Here we foreground the implications of what might initially be
understood as purely epistemological arguments for our mode of being in the
world, and since these implications concern modes of being, we often refer to them
as 'ontological implications'. Through this discussion we substantiate the claim
made in Chapter 2 that dualist approaches to international political action
perpetuate a 'politics of subjectivity,' and we outline some of the implications of
this: these implications lend further credence to the claim made tentatively in
Chapter 2 that we might be constitutively unable to build an ethical and
emancipatory politics from dualist premises.
Following a more detailed discussion of Hegel's constructivist approach to

knowledge in Chapter 6, we also develop our earlier claim that we might be able to
overcome the anti-foundational/foundational divide in normative theory by
recognising that our claims about the human being are claims about the human
being qua constructed cognitive object rather than about the human being qua
mind-independent entity. Chapter 7 then initiates a shift in focus to the ethical and
emancipatory implications of our argument, picking up on our earlier discussion of
Heidegger's conception of authentic human freedom as leading us into resolute,
solicitous being-with, augmenting the necessarily inter-personal aspect of this
argument that remains under-theorised by Heidegger.
We do this through a discussion of the role of love in Hegel's thought. Pre-

empting the possibility of misunderstanding Hegel's conception of love as overly
sentimental, romantic, or idealistic, we demonstrate in Chapter 6 that it should
instead be conceived as a proto-phenomenological relation between self and world,
where the limitations of theoretical activity are overcome through an attunement to
244

a practical relation to reality by a mature personality. Chapter 7 develops this
claim, arguing that the experience of love can lead to a form of self-consciousness
whereby we recognise that we are not actually subjects, but that our individuality –
our sense of self and our individual autonomy – are ineluctably acquired through
participation in society, which leaves us fundamentally dependent on others for our
own 'subjectivity.' We then claim that properly ethical and emancipatory relations
with others require an attunement to the social conditions of our own self-hood,
and that we act accordingly.
Chapter 8 then sharpens our focus on the ethical and emancipatory aspects of
our argument. We discover that Kant casts a long shadow over contemporary
conceptions of the relationship between love and morality, since his insistence that
love must be subordinate to a rational morality if it is not to be considered
'pathological,' has several influential contemporaries. We explicitly reject this
view, siding instead with Hegel's view that the converse is true: that rational
morality not subordinate to loving relations must be considered pathological. We
discuss Hegel's essay The Spirit of Christianity and Its Fate, which is formative in
the development of his notion of Sittlichkeit (ethical life), wherein he heralds a
fundamental discontinuity between the logics of love and law. These two separate
logics inform Hegel's conceptions of ethical life (Sittlichkeit) and morality
(Moralität) respectively, and they underlie a fundamental inequality between
ethical life and moral laws – a discontinuity that is reflected in more recent
'poststructuralist' approaches to the 'ethical relation,' of which Nancy's critique of
discourse ethics (discussed in Chapter 5) is an example.
We learn that for Hegel these two logics are mutually implicated; yet, as a
result of their dualist commitments to a foundational ethical subject, both
Habermas and Linklater dubiously affirm the sovereignty of ethical law
(Moralität) over ethical life (Sittlichkeit). This, we see, reflects a misunderstanding
of the nature of ethical life and its superordinate relation to ethical law. In contrast,
a central argument developed over the course of Part 3 is that it is our participation
in ethical life – engaging in conscientious activity proceeding from the knowledge
245

of love – that represents the fullest appropriation of our own freedom, and can lead
to properly ethical relations between self and other. We conclude by suggesting
that an ethical and emancipatory cosmopolitanism must then be proximally
concerned with the cultivation of a more cosmopolitan international ethical life, an
argument that we outline and defend in the conclusion.
246
Chapter 6.
Understanding Through Love, Not Vivisection:
Reification, De-Reification, and Deification
Introduction
Through a discussion of development of the subject-object relation from

Kant to Hegel, this chapter explores the nature of Hegel's completion of the critical
project that is initiated by Kant. We are particularly interested in Hegel's reworking
of Kant's conception of 'subjectivity' into 'self-conscious subjectivity,' his departure
from a foundational commitment to subjectivity, and his disassociation of
subjectivity from individuality. In light of these moves, we argue that Hegel poses
a robust challenge to the dualist commitment to a foundational split between
subject and object occurring between mind and world.
The achievement of 'self-conscious subjectivity,' we learn, involves coming

to see that the subject-object split is not foundational, but derivative, occurring
within consciousness rather than between mind and world, and is overcome
through a post-theoretical, phenomenological relation to reality, which Hegel
discusses with reference to the experience of 'love.' The 'love' relationship, we
argue, is not overly sentimental, but amounts to an openness of self to other: a
receptive attunement to practical experience by a mature personality cognisant of
the limitations of reflective rationality. The latter serving to un-live human
experience and objectify the entities of experience, entities that include other
human beings.
PART 3/Ch6. Understanding Through Love, Not Vivisection

We argue that mis-recognising the nature of 'self-conscious subjectivity' as a
Kantian form of subjectivity leads to deleterious implications for our mode of
being in the world – including diremption, reification, and de-reification. These are
all consequent of a commitment to a foundational subjectivity, where the self
(conceived as subject) stands in a transcendent and assimilatory relation to the
objects of its experience. Our discussion here is concerned primarily with the
philosophical (ontological and epistemological) aspect of this argument, and we
explore the ethical and emancipatory implications of these arguments in the two
subsequent chapters.
On Hegel and Dualism
Before proceeding it is worth clarifying the use of our terms 'dualism' and
'monism' in relation to Hegel. For Hegel, as for Schelling and Spinoza, there is one
substance, the 'absolute.'1 The absolute is that which is presupposed as the 'ground'
that underlies all the differentiated spheres of life. This is Hegel's metaphysical
(ontological) monism. Human consciousness develops out of these underlying
relations of life, and the mind-independent real 'appears' to consciousness:
appearances (phenomena) that consciousness splits into subject and object. This
split between subject and object is the condition of knowledge of the mind-
independent real, but for Hegel it occurs within consciousness rather than between
mind and world. Consequently, since mind and world are not independent, Hegel's
approach to epistemology is also monistic.
Nonetheless, since there remains a duality between mind/world and mind-

independent real, and between the subject and object that is split within
consciousness, there remains a place for dualism in Hegel's thought. Indeed, for
Hegel, dualism is the condition both of our knowledge of the world and of
'subjective' freedom. That said, since this dualism is derivative, not foundational,
the subject does not persist and the object is not intransitive; both depend on our

1. It is only Schelling and Hegel that refer to this substance as the absolute, however.
248

cognitive frameworks (on the activity of mind, Geist) and develop historically
through the interaction of human beings. For this reason dualism is seen as an
essentially limited and one-sided way of conceiving the relationship between self
and world. Consequently, despite their achievements, for Hegel object-oriented
forms of consciousness, and related conceptions of the self as subject, must
ultimately be overcome.
Hegel attempts to effect such an overcoming through the achievement of

'self-conscious subjectivity,' which entails recognising the essential limitations of
reflective rationality and the epistemic attitude, and orienting ourselves
accordingly: by cultivating a post-theoretical, receptive relation to reality, for
instance. Such a relation is essentially a relation of finite to infinite; it is a relation
between that which is conditioned by our knowledge of it to that which lies beyond
consciousness and which cannot, ultimately, be known: relations to ourselves, to
life, to 'God,' and to other beings in their full singularity. This attempt to overcome
dualism is crucial to understanding Hegel, yet is often suppressed by rationalist or
'demythologised' interpretations of his thought.
Kant & Hegel
In Part 1 we saw how both Linklater's conception of emancipation and his

defence of universalism indicated a foundational commitment to the ethical
subject. Linklater's dialectical reading of rationalism and historicism in Men and
Citizens led to an historically developing ethical subject providing the grounds for
the critique of actually existing arrangements in international society, while his
cosmopolitanism was reconceived along discursive lines in Transformation, where
the emancipatory project came to be seen as the removal of the constraints on
universal dialogue about principles of coexistence in international society.
Common to both was the underlying commitment to a Kantian ethical subject and
the concurrent commitment to the critique of social and political conditions that
249

stand as obstacles to the realisation of a Kantian ideal of a universal moral
community.
In Chapter 5 we then saw that Kant's conception of freedom was an effective

illustration of Heidegger's claim that any encounter with entities occurs 'in the light
of Being,' since Kant, a committed Newtonian, sought to provide a place for
human freedom within a mechanistic paradigm of nature; that his positing of
freedom as a transcendental idea is at root an attempt to make sense of the unity of
nature given a commitment to a mechanistic understanding of the world, where the
mechanical necessity of nature was reconciled with the view of human beings as
beings that are endowed with a distinctive kind of causality.2 Heidegger's move to
posit freedom as the Abgrund of the ontological difference as opposed to a
property of the individual conceived as subject is, in short, a move that gives
existential depth to Kant's conception of freedom; one motivated by a fuller
consideration of the nature of human existence. A similar, but ultimately more
persuasive move is made by Hegel, yet his thought is often misunderstood, and he
is commonly dismissed as a metaphysician of the Absolute; not least by
Heidegger.3
Hegel's Completion of the Critical Project
That Hegel was Kant's most powerful critic is commonly known, and his
reaction to Kant is roughly significant as Aristotle's critique of Plato.4 However,
there is an unfortunate tendency to overemphasise the difference between Kant and

Continuum, 2002), 177.
3. See Martin Heidegger, Being and Time, trans. John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson (Oxford:
Wiley-Blackwell, 1962), 77,239,438. Martin Heidegger, An Introduction to Metaphysics, trans.
Gregory Fried and Richard Polt (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000), 187-88. For two
illuminating discussions on this topic see R.S. Sinnerbrink, “Sein Und Geist: Heidegger’s
Confrontation With Hegel’s Phenomenology,” Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and
Social Philosophy 3, no. 2-3 (2007): 132-52. Slavoj Žižek, “Hegel Versus Heidegger,” E-Flux 32,
no. 02 (2012). The similarity between Heidegger and Hegel's approaches to freedom – freedom as
Abgrund and freedom of the Absolute – is largely due to the influence of Schelling on both in this
regard.
4. Tom Rockmore, Kant and Idealism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007), 156.
250

Hegel and, despite the title of his Phenomenology of Spirit, to ignore the fact that
Hegel is a phenomenologist.5 Hegel's critique of Kant, along with those of the
entire post-Kantian German idealist movement, is an essentially constructive
critique with the aim of working out and completing Kant's critical project. Despite
criticising Kant on nearly every page of his writings, Hegel's engagement with
Kant is not a rejection of Kantianism, but part of the development of his own
Kantianism.6 Perhaps Hegel's central point of contention with Kant lies in the
ontological status accorded to the individual human being and the nature of its
relation to the entities that it encounters. Specifically, what is contested is Kant's
view that the individual can be regarded as an ethical (moral) or epistemic
(knowing) subject: the view that the individual can be completely autonomous, or
stand in a transcendent and knowing relation to the entities that it encounters. The
first view informs Linklater's emancipatory cosmopolitanism, while the second is
reflected in the representationalist approach to knowledge that underwrites critical
realist approaches to the study of world politics.
The sine qua non of this divergence is Hegel's rejection of the mechanistic
paradigm of nature, which serves as the ontological background to Kant's
philosophy, in favour of an organicist one: this amounts to a rejection of Kant's
dualism in favour of a monistic, holistic, organicist philosophical ontology. As we
saw in Chapter 3, although Habermas, Honneth and Linklater all develop from
Kant in important ways, drawing on Hegel in significant respects in the process,
their commitment to intersubjectivity shares with Kant the equation of individuality
and subjectivity, two categories that for Hegel are very distinct. Consequently,
while affirming Hegel's historicist view that 'reason has a history' and that the
individual is deeply implicated in his historical circumstances, they read Hegel
through a kaleidoscope of the Kantian subject: reading into Hegel an individualism
that not only finds no support in his work, but which his whole project is an
attempt to overcome.7

5. Tom Rockmore, Kant and Phenomenology (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011), 212.
6. For a discussion see Tom Rockmore, Kant and Idealism, 156. and Tom Rockmore, Kant and
Phenomenology, 212-13.
7. Andy Blunden, “The Missing Mediation in Pragmatic Interpretations of Hegel,”
http://home.mira.net/~andy/works/missing-mediation.htm (accessed 29th June 2012, 2012). We
251

These kaleidoscopic readings of Hegel neutralise some of Hegel's most

powerful and interesting insights, insights that can contribute to our development
of a non-dualist, anti-foundational understanding of the human being, and a richer,
more praxis oriented understanding of freedom than that which associates freedom
with subjectivity or intersubjectivity; both of which will be engaged in the next two
chapters with the aim of contributing to a more philosophically and praxeologically
adequate emancipatory cosmopolitanism. With this aim in mind, the following
section explores the development of the subject-object relation from Kant to Hegel
before drawing out some of the implications for our approach to the problem of
knowledge and for our mode of being in the world.
In Chapter 5 we saw that Heidegger engages in an ontological reading of

Kant's epistemology in The Essence of Human Freedom.8 A similar task is engaged
here, since we provide a reading of the development of German idealism –
specifically the move from Kant's representationalist epistemology to Hegel's
completion of Kant's project in his constructivist approach to knowledge – and
draw out the 'ontological' implications of what are often simply read as
epistemological debates. By the end we will see that Hegel's completion of Kant's
epistemology demonstrates both the ontological error and epistemological
insufficiency of associating freedom and subjectivity with individual human
beings: an insufficiency that marks dualist approaches to emancipatory
cosmopolitanism.
The Subject-Object Relation from Kant to Hegel
Philosophy has long been concerned with the general problem of knowledge;
all approaches to which 'share an interest in grasping, knowing, or cognising the

will recall from Chapter 3 that Blunden accuses Honneth of reading a methodological individualism
into Hegel, and that since methodological individualism in the social sciences denies the fact that
there are social forces etc. that this is a misleading term to apply to post-Marxist thinkers.
8. Martin Heidegger, The Essence of Human Freedom.
252

cognitive object or objects, sometimes also called nature, or the world, or the real.'9
This problem was initially understood in ancient philosophy through terms such as
reality, phenomena, and appearance, while modern philosophy is distinguished by
its insight that cognitive claims depend on the subject.10 Applied to epistemology,
this insight requires of knowledge 'an identity in difference between the
epistemological subject and the epistemological object, or between epistemology
and ontology.'11
The 'Birth' of the Epistemological Subject
Truth and knowledge rest upon a correspondence between the

epistemological (knowing) subject and the cognitive (known) object; starting with
Kant there are two main approaches to the nature of the relation between knowing
subject and known object: representationalist and constructivist. The
representationalist approach maximally presupposes an 'identity' between a
representation and what is represented: for instance, between an idea in the mind
and the cognitive object that is conceived as a mind-independent thing.12 While
constructivists affirm the same standard of truth and knowledge, they hold that the
subject must in some sense 'construct' what it knows. These two approaches to
knowledge lead to different claims about the cognitive object. Representationalists
claim to uncover, discover, or reveal what is as it is, while constructivists on the
other hand make the incompatible claim that we construct, produce, or make what
we know.13 This constructivist claim to knowledge rests upon the activity of the
subject in bringing about an identity between subject and object, which
presupposes working towards an ever-closer identity between the cognitive object
and the mind-independent entity that it seeks to know. Both representationalist and

9. Tom Rockmore, Kant and Phenomenology, 3.
10. This shift to an idea of the epistemological subject is influenced by the Augustinian view of the
human subject as ethically responsible, but the transition from a religious question of individual
human responsibility that presupposes a subject to an epistemological conception of the subject
occurs much later in Montaigne and Descartes. Ibid., 10.
11. Ibid., 12.
12. Ibid., 11.
13. Ibid., 12.
253

constructivist approaches appear in Kant's critical philosophy, and Hegel
completes the constructivist approach to knowledge that Kant initiates.
Prior to Kant, the subject was regarded as essentially passive in regards to the
objects that it experiences, merely registering what impacts upon it. Starting with
Kant, and common to all post-Kantian German idealists, is the converse claim that
the subject is active in its experience of objects: that in some sense it shapes what it
knows. Insisting on the central importance of the subject in his Critique of Pure
Reason, Kant maintains that there can be no knowledge of objects without a
subject, without an 'I think' to which the object appears.14 For Kant therefore, the
subject is active in respect to the objects of experience, meaning that we never
perceive 'things in themselves,' how things are independent of our experience of
them. Rather, our perceptions of the object are dependent upon the way that our
perceptual apparatus is constituted, and this inevitably influences the givens of
experience.15
Kant's Copernican Revolution
Kant, a committed Newtonian, sought to apply Newton's insights in physics

to metaphysics. While Newtonian mechanics provided a mechanical explanation of
nature as governed by causally determining natural laws, Kant was interested in
what Newton's postulation of laws of nature standing behind observable
phenomena tells us about the perceiving subject; specifically, about the relation
between pure thought and intuition. The fable of Newton observing an apple
falling from a tree, which may or not have led to him postulating gravity as the
cause of the effect that he observed, means, for Kant, that we can infer something
about the perceiving subject. While gravity can explain why the apple fell from the
tree, the relation of causal dependency between that movement and its cause is a
relation that cannot itself be observed: the relation of causality, between cause and

14. Tom Rockmore, Before and After Hegel: A Historical Introduction to Hegel’s Thought
(Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 2003), 6-7,32-33.
15. Ibid., 6-7.
254

effect, has to be projected by the subject in order to make sense of phenomena that
are given to sensible intuition.
Kant's argument is that, while our immediate grasp of objects is an intuitive

one, we rely upon our understanding, on the exercise of pure reason, to make sense
of reality as it really is; consequently, in knowing the cognitive object, the subject's
perceptions of that object are not passively caused by that object. Rather, the
subject is active in 'working up' the objects of its experience. This is Kant's so-
called 'Copernican Turn.' Just as Copernicus inverted the traditional understanding
regarding the relation between the earth and the universe, Kant reverses the
relation between subject and object. In so doing, and in distinction to Locke, who
reduces the subject to mere physiology, and Hume, for whom the subject is 'a mere
transitory bundle of perceptions,' Kant introduces a conception of the subject as
enduring and transcendent in relation to the objects of its experience.16
By means of a transcendental deduction, Kant reasons that there must exist

categories, pure a priori concepts of the understanding that give form to the
phenomenal content of sensible intuition, which must shape our experience. These
categories are not given in experience and are not simply transmitted by sense or
intuition, but are the precondition of the cognitive subject's active synthesis of the
objects of sensible intuition.17 To say that Kant's subject is transcendent is to
identify it as the entity/being that draws the phenomena of sensible intuition
together. The transcendental subject, which Kant barbarously calls the
'transcendental unity of apperception' (TUA), is the entity/being that draws
together – it is that which creates the rules of the relations between the entities that
it perceives. On the Kantian account then, it is this transcendental subject that is
the condition of knowledge.

17. Kant's transcendental deduction (TD) postulates twelve categories of four types: categories of
quantity, quality, relation, and modality. The most familiar of these is the category of causality: an a
priori category of relation between cause and effect that allows us to make sense of the appearance
of movement in the world. According to Kant these pure concepts of the understanding are
universal, applying to objects of intuition in general. Causality, unity, plurality, and negation are all
concepts that we presuppose before we face reality. Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, trans.
Allen W. Wood and Paul Guyer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), §79.
255

From Representationalism to Constructivism
While Kant innovates with regard to the subject’s active role in its synthesis
of the cognitive object, he holds two contradictory positions regarding the nature of
this relation between the knowing subject and the cognitive object: between the
subject passively representing the object and actively constructing it. Most
dominant of the two is a representationalist approach, a metaphysical realist
position where representations of the cognitive object appear to the subject, having
their ontological cause in the mind-independent real, which leads to knowledge of
the world as it is in itself. However, Kant does also hint at a constructivist
approach to knowledge where the activity of the subject is not just confined to
synthesising the object, but is more active in constructing the cognitive object.
It is worth noting that the Kantian subject, the TUA, is not a finite human
being but is rather a subject reduced to its epistemological capacities. While this
subject is active as regards its synthetic activity, these epistemological capacities
are passive in the subject's relation to the world. This obscures the relation between
the epistemological subject and the finite human being, which leads to a split
between theoretical reason and practical reason, a split between the knowing
subject and the acting subject.18 Kant's representational account of the subject thus
opens a gulf that cannot be bridged between human understanding and human
activity.
Moreover, Kant draws a crucial distinction between the mind-independent

world, which lies beyond appearances, and the world of human experience, which
is distinguished from reality.19 As a result, both Kant's representationalist and
constructivist approaches to knowledge fail to give us knowledge of the cognitive
object as it really is: of the thing in itself. There are, therefore, two dualisms that

19. Ibid., 44.
256

Kant's transcendental deduction cannot reconcile: the duality between subject and
object, and the duality between theoretical and practical reason; between the
knowing subject and the acting subject, and the knowing subject that might not
actually know its object. It is these essential contradictions in Kant's critical
philosophy to which post-Kantian German idealism responds.
Knowledge: The Identity of Identity & Non-identity
The central problem of Kant's account of knowledge is that, by failing to

grasp the thing in itself, it is unable to reconcile the unity of subject and object.
Subject and object need to be united in order to explain the possibility of
knowledge, yet they must also be divided in order to explain the basic facts of
everyday experience.20 What we see, hear, or feel, appears independent of our will
or conscious control: there is subject-object dualism. Yet making a claim to know
something entails the necessary identity of what is represented and what is known:
an identity between subject and object.21 Kant maintained that the thing in itself
could not be known, and hence subject-object identity, the standard of truth, could
not be achieved. In Kant's wake Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel all tried to resolve
this duality, to thereby achieve what Hegel is to call an identity of identity and
non-identity.
Fichte & the Infinite 'Striving' of the Ego.
Fichte resolves Kant's dualism between subject and object by postulating a

principle of subject-object identity, which he locates in self-knowledge. In self-
knowledge the subject of knowledge (the knowing self) and the object of
knowledge (the known self) are the same, they are united, I=I. Self-knowledge thus

20. Subject and object need to be united, not in the sense of merging into one, but terms of having a
relationship of some sort, if not outright correspondence.
21. By 'identity' we do not mean that subject and object are identical, but that there must be a
degree of self-sameness between the subject and object; some correspondence between the object
and the subject’s representation of it.
257

provides Fichte the foundation for all knowledge. Fichte therefore abandons Kant's
representationalist approach to knowledge and develops Kant's constructivism in
its stead, emphasising the active role of the subject in its construction of the
cognitive object from out of the empirical content of experience.
By rejecting Kant's representationalist approach and stressing the cognitive

role of human activity, Fichte unifies theoretical and practical reason by grounding
them both in the dynamic activity of self-consciousness, an exercise in practical
reason that he calls 'striving.' According to Fichte, rather than ideas having their
ontological cause in the mind-independent real, the subject constructs the cognitive
object from its phenomenally given content; Fichte thus resolves Kant's dualism
between appearances and the mind-independent real by simply doing away with
the thing in itself.
Self-knowledge on the Fichtean account is the foundation for all knowledge

but again, as with Kant, the subject of subject-object identity is not the finite
human being, but is what Fichte calls the 'pure ego.' This pure ego is a self-
positing, unconditioned 'I' that divides itself into the finite 'I' and the not 'I,' where
the finite I represents individual human particulars and the not-I is that which
negates it. Rather than coming about through the persistence over time of the
synthetic unity of the TUA, the Fichtean subject, the 'I,' comes about purely in the
act of self-positing. Knowledge is no longer conceived as a representation of the
world in theoretical understanding that corresponds to the mind-independent real,
but comes through the inexorable march of practical reason, represented by Fichte
as the infinite striving of the ego – where self-consciousness 'strives' in its moral
actions (i.e., practical reason) to conform to its own moral law: to make the 'is'
what it ‘ought’ to be.
The Fichtean Trope
258

Essential to Fichte's account of knowledge then is a dynamic relation
between the Self (das Ich) and the Non-Self (das-Nicht-Ich), where the self at once
confronts and projects the not-self.22 Consequently, on the Fichtean account, nature
becomes an essential self-limitation on the universal 'I;' Northrope Frye provides a
beautiful image that illustrates Fichte’s representation of the dynamic between self
and other in his suggestion that the fundamental gesture of Western thought is the
transformation of the natural world into the farm. 23 Such a dynamic is thus
characterised by a process of de-reification, a process of taking something that is
thing-like, independent, and de-reifying it by withdrawing its independence so as
to bring it into accordance with the norms of reason, desire, and humanity.24 This
thought, that consciousness strives to take objective recalcitrance out of the world
and bring it into conformity with human desire, is hugely important to Marxist
thought, and there is a whole aspect of continental thought that attempts to
overcome the independence of the object by bringing it into conformity with the
norms of reason.25
However, despite offering an account of the ‘striving’ subject, the

epistemological problem of the thing in itself remains. By using self-knowledge as
an epistemological foundation Fichte is able to account for subject-object identity
in self-knowledge, but he cannot do likewise for subject-object non-identity. By
doing away with the thing in itself, the mind-independent real, Fichte reduces the
world to its construction by the subject, where objects of experience are treated as
negations of the subject and thus exist simply in order to be overcome: to be
assimilated by the subject. Reality on the Fichtean account is thus purely reducible
to its construction by the subject. By relying on a foundational subject, Fichte
inevitably overemphasises the constructive role of the subject, and cannot provide

22. Roger Cardinal, “Romantic Travel,” in Rewriting the Self: Histories From the Renaissance to
the Present, ed. Roy Porter (London: Routledge, 1997).
23. Northrop Frye, The Double Vision: Language and Meaning in Religion (Toronto: University of
Toronto Press, 1991), 22-39. J.M. Bernstein, “Phenomenology of Spirit. Lordship and Bondage,”
Lectures on Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit The New School. New York City. 8th November
(2006): http://bernsteintapes.com/lectures/Hegel/19MasterSlaveA.mp3.
24. Ibid.
25. See Tom Rockmore, Fichte, Marx, and the German Philosophical Tradition (Carbondale:
Southern Illinois University Press, 1980). J.M. Bernstein, “Phenomenology of Spirit. Lordship and
Bondage. (a).”
259

an adequate account of the object. The problem is that we want our subject-object
dualism, we want our experience of the world to be different from our experience
of ourselves, but Fichte’s account cannot provide this as he denies the object any
mind-independent reality.26 There thus remains a dualism between the knowing
subject and mind-independent real that neither Kant nor Fichte can reconcile.
Proceeding from a foundational subject, both rationalist accounts fail to give an
account of how we can know things in themselves.
It is for this reason that, in his (1799) open Letter to Fichte Jacobi charges
the transcendental idealism of both Kant and Fichte with leading us to the spectre
of sceptical nihilism. Nihilism is the inevitable conclusion of a reliance on the
foundational subject because if we can only know what we create or produce
according to the laws of our own activity, we cannot know anything beyond our
own consciousness. According to Kant we can only know appearances, not things
in themselves, and because we do not know things in themselves, Jacobi suggests
that that these representations might be representations of nothing at all.27 This
would make Kantianism a philosophy of nothingness, what we nowadays call
nihilism, since nihilism is the thought that we know nothing by knowing
appearances.28
From Dualism to Monism: Situating the Subject
The problem with both Kant and Fichte's accounts of human experience is
that they take the conscious subject as their point of departure. Responding to both,
Schelling's transcendental idealism moves away from the question of the 'I' as point
of departure, regarding consciousness not as a condition of our experience of the
world, but as a result. For Schelling, consciousness has its origins in nature, which
it transcends: this is why Schelling's idealism is referred to as a transcendental

26. Ibid.
27. 'Without the presupposition [of the 'thing in itself,'] I was unable to enter into [Kant's] system,
but with it I was unable to stay within it.' Friedrich Jacobi, David Hume Über Den Glauben, Oder
Idealismus Und Realismus. Ein Gespräch (Breslau: Gottlieb Löwe, 1787).
28. J.M. Bernstein, “Phenomenology of Spirit. Lordship and Bondage. (a).”
260

idealism as opposed to Fichte's subjective idealism. Whereas for Fichte nature was
seen as an essential limitation on the striving of practical reason, Schelling
recognises that nature has a reality in and of itself, and out of this reality, ideality,
consciousness, springs: nature begins unconsciously and results in conscious,
philosophical activity and knowledge. Subjective consciousness is grounded in,
and thus becomes the result of, the organic development of nature. Schelling
therefore also represents a broader shift away from the mechanistic paradigm of
nature, the sine qua non of Kant's account of ethical and epistemological
subjectivity, towards the Naturphilosophie central to understanding Hegel's
thought.
Of equivalent import is Schelling's introduction of the notion of the absolute,

which is posited as the ultimate ground of nature and of reality in general, later
becoming central not only to Hegel's 'absolute idealism' but also to Heidegger's
positing of freedom as the Abgrund of the ontological difference.29 It is in the
absolute, rather than in the epistemological subject, that Schelling locates the
unconditional identity of subject and object; subject and object only then become
divided within consciousness, as the condition of the knowledge of the real: the
absolute is the starting point, and subjective consciousness is the result. As an
exercise in subjective consciousness, philosophy cannot represent this absolute
because conscious thinking 'operates from the position where the "absolute
identity" of the subjective and the objective has always already been lost in the
emergence of consciousness.' 30 Schelling thus conceives the epistemological
subject to be driven by conceptually inaccessible forces and essentially limited in
what it can know: a conception of the subject that is later to influence Nietzsche
and Freud but, most importantly, Hegel.

29. See Parvis Emad, “Heidegger on Schelling’s Concept of Freedom,” Man and World 8, no. 2
(1975): 157-74. and Martin Heidegger, Schelling’s Treatise: On the Essence of Human Freedom
(Athens, OH: Ohio University Press, 1985).
30. Andrew Bowie, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Von Schelling, The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy (Winter 2010 Edition) (2010).
261

Self-Conscious Individuality: Hegel's Completion of Kant's Critical
Epistemology
Both Kant and Fichte take the subject as their point of departure; for Kant
this means that the mind-independent real cannot itself be known and that we can
only know 'appearances' or 'phenomena,' while Fichte resolves the dualism
between mind and world by simply doing away with the thing in itself. Hegel
wants to be able account for subject-object dualism, and his resolution is to argue
that the subject-object split does not occur between mind and world, but occurs
within consciousness. This entails a mind-world monism, but retains a duality
between subject/object and mind independent real; the mind-independent real is
that which lies beyond consciousness, and 'appears' at the level of consciousness.
Through a process of cognitive activity, the understanding splits what appears to
consciousness into subject and object, an ongoing historical process through which
the cognitive object is constructed from phenomena given to consciousness,
leading to the construction of increasingly adequate accounts of the mind-
independent real.
Hegel takes Jacobi's charge against Kantianism seriously, and his answer to
the spectre of sceptical nihilism is to shift from consciousness to self-
consciousness. Rather than arising from the persistence of the TUA over time, or
of the activity of the striving of the pure ego, Hegel's thought is that self-
knowledge is only possible through mutual recognition, and not through the
Cartesian view, of which Kantianism is a type, of the self-knowledge of a rational
subject. In short, without the recognition of the other, the self cannot have
knowledge of itself as a rational being. Because self-consciousness depends on
intersubjective recognition, reason is no longer confined to the activity of
individual subjective consciousness, but is exercised through intersubjective
activity, bringing both the individual and practical reason into a close relationship
with a historical community.
262

The Passage to Self-Consciousness.
One of the central moves of the Phenomenology of Spirit, a book that traces
the development of Geist, the self-conscious subject, is to provide an account of
the achievement of self-consciousness. The treatise is split into three main parts:
A) 'Consciousness'; B) 'Self-consciousness;' iii) and a final, unnamed part
comprising chapters on 'Reason,' 'Spirit,' 'Religion,' and culminating in 'Absolute
Knowing.' Part A) discusses three forms of object-oriented consciousness, sense-
certainty, perception, and the understanding. The construction of the cognitive
object, however, requires some sense of self, as subject, that is independent of the
object. As we have seen, Kant regards this sense of self as the consequence of the
persistence over time of the TUA, while Fichte thought it as something that came
over the course of subjective activity. Hegel's intervention is to insist that this self
is not foundational, and what is required for this sense of self, which is a
prerequisite of an encounter with objects, is a move from subjective consciousness
to self-consciousness.
Self-consciousness, for Hegel contra Kant and Fichte, only arises when
cognitive activity is turned in on itself. A sense of self, as an independent agent, is
not fully complete until one realises that one's self is also an object for other
subjects. Children and animals may well possess consciousness of things that are
external to them without having an awareness of themselves as an independent
consciousness aware of those things as objects. The achievement of a sense of self
is the key move played out in the passage from consciousness to self-
consciousness, a move that is explored in Hegel's famous account of the master
and slave. Self-consciousness, understanding ourselves as independent beings,
develops from consciousness's encounter with objects, but only comes about when
an object-oriented consciousness encounters another consciousness, i.e., through
human sociality. Crucially though, because the self-conscious 'subject' is
fundamentally dependent on others for its self-consciousness, the individual is no
longer regarded as a subject of the Kantian/Fichtean type, and subjectivity is
sublated into 'absolute' knowledge: an insight, or at least the implications of this
263

insight for our mode of being in the world, that is overlooked by kaleidoscopic
readings of Hegel as a theorist of intersubjectivity.
Absolute Knowledge
While philosophy, and modern philosophy especially, has aimed at absolute

knowledge, certainty beyond any doubt, as symbolised by the Cartesian idea of
epistemological apodicticitym; this is not what Hegel has in mind.
Absolute knowledge in [Hegel's] theory is not merely a later version of the Cartesian claim
to certainty; nor is it related to the Kantian idea that philosophical knowledge is absolutely
permanent and not subject to revision of any kind. On the contrary, the upshot of Hegel's
detailed and lengthy review of the different angles of vision on knowledge, or conceptual
perspectives that have historically emerged in the human search for knowledge, is that we
absolutely cannot escape from the perspectival approach to some angle of vision beyond
all perspective. For whenever we scrutinize experience, we necessarily do so from the
attitude due to our time and place. Absolute knowledge, if this reading of Hegel's theory is
correct, is, then, the consequence of thinking through the epistemological problem to the
end where we finally become aware that we cannot avoid an ever changing perspective
with respect to our experience. There is no absolute knowledge if that is interpreted to
mean knowledge beyond time and place. Rather, since claims to know are never beyond
time and place, they are, then, always and necessarily subject to revision as our experience
changes.31
The achievement of self-conscious individuality, which is a moment on the

path to knowledge, ultimately leads to an awareness of ourselves as non-knowers:
to realise that we are not essentially Kantian/Fichtean subjects. This is the
conclusion of the Phenomenology: to come to realise that we are essentially not-
subjects, that we are historical beings living in complex social worlds according to
32
communal norms. Although Heidegger is apparently uninterested in
epistemology, there are striking similarities here with the Heideggerian view of the
perspectival presentation of the whole, as discussed in Chapter 4.

31. Tom Rockmore, Before and After Hegel: A Historical Introduction to Hegel’s Thought, 102.
32. J.M. Bernstein, “Phenomenology of Spirit. Introduction,” Lectures on Hegel’s Phenomenology
of Spirit The New School. New York City. 10th October (2006):
http://bernsteintapes.com/lectures/Hegel/09PhenomenologyIntroC.mp3.
264

Hegel's Constructivism
Kant and Fichte's mistake is to take the foundational subject as their point of
departure. On both accounts this leads to a transcendental conception of the subject
where the subject exists in a hierarchical relation to the objects of its experience.
The transcendent subject is left essentially unconditioned by these experiences, and
objects are encountered in a way that presupposes their assimilation into subject-
object identity: these objects are never out of the subject's reach. Hegel takes from
Kant the essential role of the epistemological subject and he follows Fichte's
emphasis on the active and constructive role of the subject. However, he avoids
falling foul of Fichte's mistake of over-stressing the role of subjective activity by
following Schelling's argument that the subject-object split occurs within
consciousness rather than between mind and world; that the subject-object
distinction is not something prior to consciousness, but arises through conscious
activity. As a result, Hegel argues that subjectivity is derivative rather than
foundational: that the subject is immanent to the phenomenal realm, existing in a
mutually conditioning, dependent relationship with the object. Contra Kant and
Fichte, subject and object emerge through the interaction between self and world,
and neither subject or object is transcendent or unconditioned. This is what Hegel
means by the notion of subject-object unity, not that they are identical, but that
they are not independent.
While Kant analyses the preconditions of consciousness, Hegel lays no claim

to know what lies beyond consciousness.33 For this reason his argument cannot be
considered metaphysical, in the Heideggerian sense at least. For Hegel the mind-
independent real 'appears' to consciousness, which it constructs rather than
represents: a process that is generative of both subject and object. Rather than

33. Tom Rockmore, Kant and Phenomenology, 97. There is an attractive, immanent quality to
Hegel's thought. He does not engage in the kind of metaphysical projection (projection outside of
experience) that Kant, Nietzsche, and Freud make; projections that make their thought questionable.
'Kant saw metaphysics as speculation about transcendent entities, as a priori reasoning about
objects lying beyond the sphere of experience. In this sense Hegel cannot be a metaphysician at all,
and for a very simple and compelling reason: he denied the existence of the transcendent, the purely
noumenal or supernatural. If metaphysics consists in speculation about such a realm, then Hegel
would be the first to condemn it as a pseudo-science.' Frederick C. Beiser, Hegel (London:
Routledge, 2005), 55.
265

reflecting a split between mind and world, it is consciousness that splits
appearances of the mind-independent real into subject and object, and the cognitive
object is constructed in light of our conscious experience of the mind-independent
real. Although we can never fully know this realm, we can develop increasingly
adequate accounts of it. Knowledge is thus a non-objective construction of the
world that is derived from a practical relation to reality.
In contrast to the Kantian or Fichtean subject, which is treated as

foundational, Hegel's subject is derivative, emerging from its interaction with the
objects of its experience, and self-conscious subjectivity is mediated by processes
of recognition: by the intersubjective creation and validation of ourselves as certain
kinds of subjects. The important epistemological and ontological implication of
this is that we do not primarily relate to the world as knowers. Because our
knowledge of objects presupposes our knowledge of ourselves as subjects, our
encounter with the objects of our experience is fundamentally mediated by our
relations with others. We will return to this in the next chapter.
For this reason self-conscious subjectivity is itself sublated into absolute

knowledge. What this means is that, while human beings are essential components
of epistemological or ethical subjectivity, they are not its direct correlate. Subject-
object identity is located in the absolute, to which individual human beings stand
as parts to whole: we exist within epistemological and ethical communities;
individuality and subjectivity are not coextensive. This is a radical insight of
Hegel's, with important implications for our understanding of the human being and
freedom, an insight that is neutralised by kaleidoscopic readings of him as a
theorist of intersubjectivity; readings that, by establishing the individual conceived
as subject as the point of departure, threaten to perpetuate a politics of subjectivity
associated with the Kantian/Fichtean approach to the subject. We will return to this
claim shortly.
266

Hegelian Subjectivity
Rather than presuming an a priori subjectivity that precedes and underwrites

the finite human being's interactions with the world, the central insight of Hegel's
account of the master and slave is that self-consciousness arises relationally; that I
can only gain self-consciousness of my existence as a free being by being
recognised as such by the other. While the self initially manifests itself to the other
as an external object, as simply an immediate concrete existence, the ensuing
struggle for dominance between these two consciousnesses results in mutual
recognition between free beings. The struggle for recognition that is the foundation
of self-consciousness thus binds us together in relations of dependence with others,
on whose recognition we are dependent for our own 'subjectivity.' Our
'subjectivity' is interrupted by the other, and this interruption of subjectivity is the
condition of subjectivity.34 Consequently, although often read as a discourse on the
nature and possibility of freedom, before it is this, the struggle for recognition is a
struggle between our absolute dependence and our absolute independence: it is a
struggle between love and death.35
The passage to self-consciousness is not essentially a confrontation between

independent subjects, but is a process of mutual self-disclosure in which the
operation of object-oriented consciousness is disrupted by its interaction with
another consciousness. Treating each other 'as if we were' subjects is a compromise
solution, a way of mediating our absolute dependence on one another – but it is
misleading to represent this compromise as an essentially intersubjective relation
because the individuals are co-dependent, fundamentally reliant on one another for
their (relative) independence. The disarmingly simple point demonstrated by Hegel
in the passage to self-consciousness then, is that individuals are neither subjects
nor objects. This is disarmingly simple because it is all too easy to fall back into

34. Levinas, for whom the 'not me' is simply opposed to 'me,' disputes this. For Hegel however, we
need more than difference, we need interruption. J.M. Bernstein, “Phenomenology of Spirit.
Lordship and Bondage. (a).”
35. On a reading of the struggle for recognition as a discourse on the nature and possibility of
freedom see Robert B. Pippin, “What is the Question for Which Hegel’s Theory of Recognition is
the Answer?,” European Journal of Philosophy 8, no. 2 (2000): 55-172. Love is the image of our
absolute dependence, whilst death demonstrates our absolute independence.
267

the logic of subject-object thinking by treating the other independent self-
consciousness simply as a subject, as a self-enclosed and independent ground of
action, thereby eschewing the mutually codependent constitution of any given
'subjectivity'.
In addition to the dependence on other consciousnesses, self-conscious

'subjectivity' is also essentially conditioned by the other objects (entities) that it
encounters: subject and object are mutually conditioned. Hegel's 'subject' thus does
not persist – that is, stand in being – but is transformed in action. To put it bluntly,
Hegel's 'subject' is not a subject. Resonating with Heidegger's existential analytic
of Da-sein, in her classic work on the Phenomenology and its reception in France
Judith Butler explains that:
The emergent subject of Hegel's Phenomenology is an ek-static one, a subject who

constantly finds itself outside itself, and whose periodic expropriations do not lead to a
return to a former self. Indeed, the self who comes outside of itself, for whom ek-stasis is a
condition of existence, is one for whom no return to self is possible, for whom there is no
final recovery from self-loss.36
While we are often constituted as subjects – legal persons or citizens, for

instance – there is therefore a definitional difficulty in associating 'subjectivity' and
'intersubjectivity' with individual human beings in Hegel's thought, since
subjectivity properly resides in the absolute, to which individuals stand as parts to
whole. Associating 'subjectivity' with individual human beings evades the deeply
relational nature of individuality and the temporal (ek-sistential) nature of human
existence; the latter relating to the view that human individuals are not preformed
monadic entities (subjects), but are beings that exist in a perpetual state of
becoming.
It is Jean-Luc Nancy who comes the closest to capturing this ek-sistential

aspect of the Hegelian 'subject' in his Hegel: The Restlessness of the Negative.37
For Nancy the Hegelian subject 'is not recoiled into itself, but is defined

36. Judith Butler, Subjects of Desire: Hegelian Reflections in Twentieth-Century France (New
York: Columbia University Press, 1999), xv. emphasis added.
37. Jean-Luc Nancy, Hegel: The Restlessness of the Negative (Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press, 2002).
268

fundamentally as an act by which the self overcomes itself in its passage toward
and into the world. The subject disperses itself into its world, and this self-
surpassing is precisely the operation of its negativity [...] the 'disquiet' of the self is
precisely its mode of becoming its final non-substantiality in time, and its specific
expression of freedom.38
For this reason, conceiving the individual human being as a subject is both
epistemological error and ontological insufficiency: it misunderstands what the
human being is and it misrepresents our mode of being in the world. Permitting
ourselves the indulgence, it would be more appropriate to write the Hegelian
subject sous rature – as subject – since 'subject' is necessary, but insufficient.39
From a Hegelian perspective, the problem with conceiving the human being as a
subject, and relations between beings as intersubjective relations, is that it makes it
harder for us to extirpate ourselves from the mechanistic paradigm of nature
against which Hegel was reacting.
The Problem of Life: Hegel's Monistic Philosophical

Ontology

38. Judith Butler, Subjects of Desire: Hegelian Reflections in Twentieth-Century France, xii. 'The
subject is - or makes up - the experience of its being-affected as the ordeal of what dissolves its
subsistence. But again: it is not "some thing" (pain, death, the other, or joy) that undoes this
subsistence from the exterior. It is not another subsistence that divides the subject; it is substance
that divides itself - that enters into relation, or that opens itself to it, or that manifests itself. The
subject is the experience of the power of division, of ex-position or abandonment of self.' Ibid.
Nancy continues: '"Self" "is" only this: negating itself as in-itself. Self in itself is nothing, is
immediately its own nothingness. Self is only fissure and fold, return upon self, departure from self,
and coming to self. That is why the Hegelian "self" has its concept only in the multiple and infinite
syntax of these expressions: in itself, for itself, right at itself, or near itself, unto itself, outside of
itself.' Jean-Luc Nancy, Hegel: The Restlessness of the Negative, 42-43.
39. Writing the 'subject' as subject, is meant to signify that it is necessary, but insufficient. The
technique was first used by Heidegger in his letter to Ernst Junger The Question of Being, and was
later used extensively by Derrida as a way of denouncing the metaphysics or 'presence' behind the
word used. As Spivak explains in her preface to Derrida's Of Grammatology 'Since the word is
inaccurate, it is crossed out. Since the word is necessary, it remains legible.' Jacques Derrida, Of
Grammatology, trans. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press,
1998), xiv.
269

Whereas Kant and Fichte take the epistemological subject as their points of
departure, an ontological commitment informed by Kant's approbation of
Newtonian physics, Hegel follows Schelling by taking 'life' as the starting point of
his philosophy: his thought proceeding from an organic vision of the world, a view
of the universe as a single living organism. 40 The main challenge to such a
monistic holism came from the old mechanistic paradigm of nature associated with
Newton, Hobbes, and Descartes, which was elevated into the very paradigm of
rationality by Kant and Jacobi. According to the mechanistic paradigm, the natural
world can be best explained mechanically in terms of cause and effect, as it is
governed by certain fundamental laws of nature.
Hegel thought this mechanistic paradigm insufficient for understanding life

for two main reasons: firstly because living beings, and life in general, are self-
generating and self-organising, while mechanistic explanations of events can only
explain the action of one entity upon another. Secondly, whereas organicism
regards living entities as a unity, a totum where whole and parts form an indivisible
unity, a mechanism can only be understood analytically, as a compositum where
the parts precede the whole.41 Hegel's reaction against dualism, his concern to
show, against Kant and Descartes, that the world is not primordially divided into
subject and object, mind and body, self and other – as well as all his central and
characteristic concepts, such as unity-in-difference and the dialectic – all grow out
of this organic conception of nature: a monistic, holist philosophical ontology that
underwrites his approaches to epistemology, subjectivity, freedom, ethics, and
politics.
Those encountering Hegel for the first time will likely find his use of
apparently contradictory terms such as 'infinitely finite,' 'unrestricted
restrictedness,' and later 'unity-in-difference,' perplexing to say the least. Indeed

40. Although this sounds implausible, besides Winnicott's example of the mother and child to be
discussed shortly, such an organicist approach is not too far-fetched (at least on planet Earth). See,
for instance, research into the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA), a single cell existing
3/4billion years ago, from which all life has since evolved. Gary Hamilton, “Looking for Luca - the
Mother of All Life,” New Scientist 2515 (2005).
41. Frederick C. Beiser, Hegel, 81-82.
270

Hegel has often been dismissed as nonsensical.42 However, Hegel's concepts and
dialectical logic are less incomprehensible when placed in the context of his
organicism, since they emerge as attempts to provide a non-reductive or non-
atomistic method of understanding living beings as self-generating and self-
organising concrete wholes.43 They represent a reaction against atomistic accounts
of our understanding of life, where focus begins with the particular, from which
universals are generalised.
Hegel's Philosophy of Life
Hegel's holistic philosophical ontology represents an immensely important

move away from the metaphysical and methodological individualism associated
with the social contract theorists, but most significantly, from Kant. His holistic
philosophical ontology sees human beings, not primarily as subjects, but as
elements of a broader multiplicity of life. The term 'multiplicity' is used in contrast
to a plurality, as the latter implies a collection of subjects. Human 'multiplicity'
reflects the view that human beings are not independent units, isolated essences
that exist as one of many in a plurality of substantiality, but exist as different
elements of the multiplex nature of life; individuals are thus regarded as
modifications of the same life rather than being wholly separate essences.
While Habermas, Honneth, and Linklater all read Hegel through a Kantian
kaleidoscope, Hegel's philosophy of life had earlier found favour, influencing the
development of Schopenhauer and Nietzsche's Lebensphilosophie ('life-
philosophy'), hermeneutics, and Heideggerian phenomenology - the latter two at
least through the work of Wilhelm Dilthey. In contrast to other biographer's focus

42. Schopenhauer's many denunciations of Hegel along these lines reaches almost comic vigour.
An example: 'But the height of audacity in serving up pure nonsense, in stringing together senseless
and extravagant mazes of words, such as had previously been known only in madhouses, was
finally reached in Hegel, and became the instrument of the most barefaced general mystification
that has ever taken place, with a result which will appear fabulous to posterity, and will remain as a
monument to German stupidity.' Arthur Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Idea, vol. 2
(Edinburgh: The Edinburgh Press, 1906), 22.
43. Frederick C. Beiser, Hegel, 81-82.
271

on Hegel's 'mature' system, Dilthey's (1905) study The Young Hegel's History
considers Hegel's later thought as an inexorable expression of his earlier
metaphysical and theological concerns, which are most apparent in his essays
Fragment on Love (1797/1798), The Spirit of Christianity and its Fate (1799), and
his Fragment of a System (1800) – now published as his Early Theological
Writings.44 What emerged from Dilthey's (1905) study of Hegel was a principal
concern with the concept of 'life,' which is the holistic, temporal context of
meaning. Dilthey writes '[l]ife is the basic element or fact which must form the
starting point for philosophy. It is known from within. It is that behind which we
cannot go. Life cannot be brought before the bar of reason.'45 Palmer explains that
the significance lies in the implication that '[o]ur access to an understanding of 'life'
lies deeper than reason, for life is rendered understandable through its
objectifications.'46
Dilthey's (Hegelian) view that 'life' is the holistic, temporal context of

meaning was to become a central theme in the writings of both Rosenzweig and
Heidegger, and in turn influenced the 'ontological turn' in hermeneutics, as initiated
by Heidegger and developed by Gadamer.47 Dilthey's influence on early Heidegger
is well documented, for whom philosophy occurs within a hermeneutic sphere of
temporal existence: in Being and Time this is Dasein, but in Heidegger's early

44. This rescuing of Hegel's metaphysics is common to writers of the (first) 'Hegel Renaissance,'
which emerged at the end of the 19th century. G.W.F. Hegel, Early Theological Writings, trans.
T.M. Knox (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1971). Alice Ormiston, Laura Werner,
and the author of this thesis also share this view. See Alice Ormiston, “”The Spirit of Christianity
and Its Fate:” Towards a Reconsideration of the Role of Love in Hegel,” Canadian Journal of
Political Science 35, no. 3 (2002): 499-525; Alice Ormiston, Love and Politics: Re-Interpreting
Hegel (New York: SUNY Press, 2004). Laura Werner, “The Restless Love of Thinking: The
Concept of Liebe in Hegel’s Philosophy” (Ph.D Thesis, University of Helsinki, 2007).
45. Quoted in Richard E. Palmer, Hermeneutics: Interpretation Theory in Schleiermacher, Dilthey,
Heidegger, and Gadamer (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1969), 120.
46. Ibid.
47. On Dilthey's influence on Rosenzweig and Heidegger see Peter Eli Gordon, Rosenzweig and
Heidegger: Between Judaism and German Philosophy (Berkeley: University of California Press,
2003), 86. On his influence on hermeneutics see Richard E. Palmer, Hermeneutics: Interpretation
Theory in Schleiermacher, Dilthey, Heidegger, and Gadamer. Schopenhauer and Nietzsche's
Lebensphilosophie ('life-philosophy') proceeds in a similar vein, criticising the theoretical and
positivist focus of post-Kantian philosophy.
272

work, such as his 1920-1921 lectures on the philosophy of religion, he designates
this sphere as 'life.'48
It is worth noting that Hegel's idea of an underlying unity of life is not as

mystical or metaphysical as it might first appear, especially in contrast to Kant's
assignation of subjectivity to the individual. Illuminating in this regard is the work
of the child psychologist Donald Winnicott, who develops an essentially Hegelian
approach to understanding the relation between a mother and child.49 Successful
child development requires that the infant build the self-confidence to separate
from the mother and to have an independent existence. In this process Winnicott
treats the mother-infant as a single subjectivity that subsequently develops into
separate, autonomous individuals. This development is not a process of
confrontation between two independent subjects, but is a process of differentiation
of a single subjectivity into independent agencies.50
Blunden uses this illustration to criticise Honneth's reading of Hegel's

recognition theory, as this is a process of becoming a self-conscious independent
person through a process of differentiation rather than 'a demand for recognition
from an already self-conscious subject upon another independent subject.'51 Since
this not a process of confrontation between two independent subjectivities, the
criticism applies to kaleidoscopic readings of Hegel as a 'theorist of
intersubjectivity' more broadly. Considered in this light then, rather than being
mystical or metaphysical, Hegel's monistic philosophical ontology can be seen as
contributing to a deeper ontological account of individuality.
From Particular/Universal to Part/Whole

48. In his History of the Concept of Time Heidegger writes that 'Dilthey was the first to understand
the "aims of phenomenology."' Quoted by Peter Eli Gordon, Rosenzweig and Heidegger: Between
Judaism and German Philosophy, 87n12. See also Martin Heidegger, The Phenomenology of
Religious Life (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2004). Especially pp7-10
49. See Donald Woods Winnicott, Playing and Reality (London: Routledge, 1971).
51. Ibid.
273

Hegel's holism thus marks an important shift from thinking relations of
particular to universal to relations of parts to whole; a shift that plays out across his
work, with consequences for fields such as ethics, freedom, epistemology,
aesthetics and theology. His Science of Logic presents a 'logic of life,' an attempt to
understand the organic development of life in conceptual form, the Phenomenology
of Spirit is a philosophical study of the organic and phenomenological
development of different forms of consciousness, while his Philosophy of History
traces the historical development of different forms of human freedom, and his
Philosophy of Right is a study of the organic development of Recht (law/right).
It is this latter example, where relations between individual and community

are presented as organic relations between parts and whole that is likely to be most
familiar with the reader. Hegel's argument in the Philosophy of Right poses a
forceful challenge to the social contract approach to the relation between individual
and state, and is later a source of inspiration for Mervyn Frost's 'constitutive theory'
of individuality.52 Whereas the social contract tradition projects an interpretation of
the nature of human individuals that might be said to exist in a hypothetical state of
nature, from which universal interests – such as provision of security, the
protection of property, or the enforcement of the general will – can serve to justify
state authority, Hegel's holism presents the interests of citizens and community not
as relations of particular to universal, but as part to whole. This does not
subordinate the individual to the community, but regards both as implicated in
mutually sustaining living relations between parts and whole. Hegel provides a
poetic illustration of this idea in his essay The Spirit of Christianity and Its Fate:
Even in the expression "A son of the stem of Koresh," for example, which the Arabs use to
denote the individual, a single member of the clan, there is the implication that this
individual is not simply a part of the whole; the whole does not lie outside him; he himself
is just the whole which the entire clan is. As with any genuinely free people, so among the
Arabs, the individual is a part and at the same time the whole. It is true only of objects, of
things lifeless, that the whole is other than the parts; in the living thing, on the other hand,
the part of the whole is one and the same as the whole. If particular objects, as substances,
are linked together while each of them yet retains its character as an individual (as

52. Mervyn Frost, Ethics in International Relations: A Constitutive Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge
274

numerically one), then their common characteristic, their unity, is only a concept, not an
essence, not something being.53
It is for this reason that Nancy is correct to claim that Hegel's world is a 'world in
which no generality subsists, only infinite singularities.'54
Neither generality nor particularity subsists, for the "particular" is still only the finite in an
extrinsic relation with the general, itself still exterior and therefore in its turn posited as
particular - the finite, therefore, in the relation of particular interests with a general
interest. The singular, on the contrary, is the finite in itself and for itself infinite, for which
there is no separate universality. If I say, "Socrates is a man," I take Socrates for a
particular case of the human species. But Socrates-the-singular is not a case: it is he and
nothing other. If one prefers, he is an absolute case, and the absolute in general is made up
solely of absolute cases and of all their absolute relations.55
‘Ontological’ Implications of the Foundational Subject
In the opening pages of the Phenomenology Hegel criticises any philosophy

that is only an epistemology, and, since it involves claims and assumptions about
the relationship between individuality and subjectivity and the relationship
between self and world, our discussion of the development of the relationship
between subject and object is not exclusively an epistemological one but is also an
ontological one. In light of the previous discussions of Hegel's completion of
Kant's constructivist approach to knowledge, along with his rejection of the
emergent (Kantian/Fichtean) subject of transcendental idealism, and his monistic
philosophical ontology, we are now in a position to discuss the implications of
these (primarily epistemological) arguments for our mode of being in the world.
We will recall that Hegel's completion of Kant's critical epistemology

involves reformulating Kant's a priori constructivism a posteriori, where
knowledge is constructed retrospectively on the basis of our experience. This also
involves a shift in the conception of the knowing subject. Whereas Kant's subject is

53. G.W.F. Hegel, “The Spirit of Christianity and Its Fate,” in Early Theological Writings
(Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1971), 260.
54. Jean-Luc Nancy, Hegel: The Restlessness of the Negative, 22.
55. Ibid.
275

a foundational subject that faces the world, remaining unconditioned by the objects
of its experience, Hegel's self-conscious subject is one that is dependent on others
for its subjectivity and is transformed in its interaction with the objects of its
experience. In contrast to Kant's dualist account of the relation between self and
world, where the individual (as subject) faces a world of objects, Hegel's monistic
perspective sees 'subject' and 'object' as categories that arise through the activity of
consciousness, subordinate to the relationship between self and world, where
consciousness splits experiences into 'subject' and 'object.' This leads to a very
different conception of the nature of the role of reason in the relations between self
and world, centring on the faculty of the understanding.
The Activity of the Understanding
Hegel discusses the faculty of the understanding in Part (A) of the

Phenomenology, where it is introduced as a more complex form of object-oriented
consciousness than the other two forms that he discusses, perception and sense-
certainty.56 For both Kant and Hegel the understanding attempts to grasp the object
intellectually. Whereas for Kant the understanding is a relationship of subject
towards an object, where the subject 'works up' the objects of its experience, for
Hegel it is the understanding that splits experience into subject and object. The
faculty of the understanding is an activity, a mode of being in the world.
Whereas in Kant and Fichte theoretical and practical reason mediate the
encounter between mind (subject) and world (object), for Hegel practical reason is
necessarily retrospective, it occurs on the basis of prior experience, experiences
that it splits into subject and object. While for both Kant and Hegel the
understanding seeks to grasp the objects of experience intellectually, since for
Hegel the split between subject and object occurs within consciousness, rather than
corresponding to a primordial split between mind and world, the understanding is

56. G.W.F. Hegel, Phenomenology of Spirit, trans. A.V. Miller (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977),
§§132-65.
276

regarded as a source of difference and otherness. The mind-independent real
appears to consciousness, which the faculty of the understanding then splits into
relations of subject and object (other persons can be objects too), and relations are
understood negatively, through a form of dissolution and relation.57 So, whereas
for Kant and Fichte the subject-object split occurs between mind and world, for
Hegel it is the understanding that is the source of this split, and is therefore a
source of difference and otherness.
Reification
So conceived, the understanding effects a 'diremption' (Entzweiung) of life:

literally, a splitting in two. This diremption is the condition of conceptual
knowledge of the world, but treating this split between subject and object as
foundational and as coextensive with the relation between self and world is seen by
Hegel to lead towards the pathologies of modernity: the establishment of
bifurcations between mind/body, man/nature, individual/society, faith/reason. The
central objection being made here is against metaphysical dualism, against
approaches that rely on a foundational subject-object split. This objection is made
because – by treating this split as foundational, and thus conceiving the individual
as subject – a false independence is established between self and world, where the
two seemingly escape the logic of mutual dependence through which 'subjectivity'
(and objectivity) is established. To put it differently, a foundational subject-object
split effectively treats the finite individual human being as something that is
essentially pre-formed and unconditioned by its interaction with the world; the
individual is thereby reified into an object. This is the paradoxical logic of treating
the human beings as subjects: they become things.58

57. See Ibid., §§113-15.
58. This is the truth of Adorno's remark that, the more autonomously the subject ascends above the
ontic realm, the more it surreptitiously turns into an object, in ironic cancellation of its constitutive
role. Theodor Adorno, Negative Dialectics (London: Routledge, 1990), 176-77. It is also the idea
expressed by Nancy in his criticism of discourse ethics, quoted in Chapter 5: 'What cannot appear is
both the other and communication. For the other of a communication becomes the object of a
subject - even and perhaps especially as "suppressed object or concept" as in the Hegelian relation
between consciousnesses [...] This other is no longer an other, but an object of a subject's
277

This concept of ‘reification’ (literally, 'making into a thing') later becomes

prominent in Western Marxist thought, and is employed by Marx, Lukács, Adorno,
and Honneth.59 For Lukács, reification follows from contemplative activity in a
capitalist mode of production, within which social relations become objectified.60
Building on Lukács's work, Honneth identifies three kinds of reification: in
relations to the objective world, in towards other persons, and in relations towards
ourselves.61 For Honneth, each of these types of reification indicate an underlying
social pathology, a pathology where one's own relation towards praxis - one's
mode of being in the world - is misunderstood. Reification thus leads to 'an
atrophied or distorted form of a more primordial and genuine form of praxis, in
which humans take up an empathetic and engaged relationship toward themselves
and their surroundings.'62
The similarities here with Heidegger's notion of resolute solicitous being-

with-others, discussed in Chapter 4, are clear. Indeed, the similarities between
Heidegger and Hegel go further. We will remember from Chapter 4 that
Heidegger's engagement with Duns Scotus led him to regard the objectifying
attitude of the subject towards the object to originate in the theoretical attitude
itself, and that he considered theoretical thinking to 'un-live' human experience and
to objectify existence.63 Hegel held a similar view. Since Geist is the passage
between mutually conditioned subject and object, self and other – which, as Nancy
has shown, is perpetually restless – the understanding is essentially a mode of

representation (or, in a more complicated way, the representative object of another subject for the
subject's representation). Jean-Luc Nancy, The Inoperative Community (Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press, 1991), 24.
59. See Marx's discussion of 'commodity fetishism' in Chapter One of Capital. Karl Marx, Captial:
Critique of Political Economy, vol. 1 (London: Penguin, 1976).; Georg Lukács, Reification and the
Consciousness of the Proletariat, History and Class Consciousness: Studies in Marxist Dialectics
(Pontypool: The Merlin Press, 1971). Axel Honneth, “Reification: A Recognition-Theoretic View”
(Paper presented at the Tanner Lectures on Human Values, University of California, Berkeley,
2005); Axel Honneth, Reification: A New Look At an Old Idea (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2008).
60. Georg Lukács, Reification and the Consciousness of the Proletariat.
61. Axel Honneth, Reification: A New Look At an Old Idea.
62. Axel Honneth, “Reification: A Recognition-Theoretic View,” 101-02.
(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2007), 36.
278

death, as it fixes subject and object in their determinations: it is a hypostatisation of
beings that exist essentially in their becoming. As T.M. Knox explains in a note to
Hegel's Fragment of a System, for Hegel '[p]hilosophical reflection always 'kills'
life by distinguishing oppositions, and it cannot give up those distinctions without
killing itself.'64
For Hegel then, the understanding necessarily leads to the diremption and
reification of life, and it fosters several divisions that characterise the historical
conditions of modernity: such as those between individual and community, mind
and nature, reason and emotion. This diremption, these divisions, contribute to the
development of human life from an immature unity (being-in-itself) in the
absolute, but the mistake is to remain caught in the dualist frame that is wrought by
the understanding. Hegel wants us to transcend this framing by recognising a
higher unity between thought and being, a unity he thinks can be achieved by
overcoming the contemplative attitude, achieving self-conscious subjectivity, and
identifying with the broader wholes within which the self is situated: such as
epistemic or ethical communities.
Dereification
A related problem that arises as a result of taking subjectivity as foundational

and treating it as coextensive with individuality (i.e., the view that every individual
person is necessarily to be regarded as a subject with reason) is that identified with
as Fichtean trope. As we saw above, Fichte, who is credited by Jacobi as the true
disciple of Kant for taking the premises of his transcendental idealism to their
logical conclusions, attempts to overcome Kant's dualisms between theoretical and
practical reason, and subject-object non-identity, by grounding them in the
dynamic activity of self-consciousness – where self-consciousness strives in its
moral actions to make the 'is' what it ought to be. This, we saw, is de-reification:

64. G.W.F. Hegel, “Fragment of a System,” in Early Theological Writings (Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 1971), 312-313n6. translator's note.
279

the activity of taking something that is thing-like, independent of us, and
withdrawing its independence by bringing it into accord with the norms of reason,
desire, and humanity.
The problem with the Kantian/Fichtean foundational subject is that it leads to

a conception of the self where the self stands in a transcendent, knowing and
assimilatory relation to the objects of its experience. Other persons can also be
objects of our experience, as the struggle for recognition attests. However, while
Hegel's account of the master and slave disrupts the subject's object-oriented
consciousness, the Kantian/Fichtean foundational subject is not similarly
interrupted – and persons are therefore encountered in a way that presupposes their
assimilation into the order of the same. We claimed earlier that this thought – that
consciousness strives to take objective recalcitrance out of the world and bring it
into accordance with human desire – is important to a whole aspect of continental
thought, including Marx; it is most certainly evident in Habermas's moral
cognitivism, and Linklater's account of emancipation as the progressive self-
realisation of the ethical subject, along with his defence of universalism through
the projection of an ethical subject, seems to lend credence to the contention that it
underwrites his emancipatory cosmopolitanism too.
Deification
Hegel's objection is that the commitment to a foundational subject is both

ontological error and epistemological insufficiency as it misunderstands what the
human being is, and misrepresents our mode of being in the world. It leads to an
overemphasis on the role of reason in the self's relation to the world, and an
ignorance regarding the pernicious implications of a foundational commitment to
subjectivity, which involves the distortion of the relationship between self and
world where the self encounters the objects of its experience in an assimilatory and
dominating way.
280

Indeed, it is perhaps the overemphasis on the nature and role of reason that is
Hegel's central objection to the emergent subject of transcendental idealism. It is
reflective rationality, for Hegel, that splits subject from object, establishing
distance between the self and the objects of its experience, and alienating self from
world. He recognises that this diremption contributes to the development of life –
and importantly, the self-consciousness of life – but he insists that this dualism
between self and world is simply a moment on the path to truth, which requires the
subsequent reconciliation of consciousness and being.65 This, in short, is his way of
maintaining a commitment to subject-object non-identity: the fact that our
experience of the world is different from our experience of ourselves, a duality that
neither Kant nor Fichte can account for.
In short, Hegel is soliciting us to step back from our reliance on reflective

rationality, on our commitments to subjectivity or objectivity, and instead attune
ourselves to our practical relation to the world. For Kant, theoretical reason allows
the self-conscious subject to make intelligible the appearances given to sensible
intuition, and practical reason is exercised when the subject acts in the world, while
for Fichte practical reason brings about subject-object identity in the objective
world. For Hegel, on the other hand, practical reason is essentially retrospective:
we can only know what has appeared to consciousness, and this knowledge is
achieved by alienating self from world. Crucially then, Hegel rejects the
Kantian/Fichtean view that reason should mediate the relation between self and
world. If we are to maintain a commitment to subject-object non-identity and not
fall into the problems associated with the Kantian/Fichtean overemphasis on the
role of subjectivity, we have to remain open to the mind-independent real
'appearing' to consciousness.

65. While Hegel follows Schelling in his adherence to Naturphilosophie and his positing subject-
object identity residing in the absolute as the ground of existence, there are two important
differences between Hegel and Schelling that must be noted. Firstly, Hegel was unable to accept
Schelling's notion that the absolute in which subject-object identity resided be regarded solely as
the ground of existence, as this would reduce human beings to non-being, since as the finite
particulars the implications is that humans non-essential as they contribute nothing to the substance
of the absolute. Hegel contrarily wants subjective activity to be recognised as an integral part of the
development of Geist, of human spirit, and so the absolute becomes both the ground and the result
in his absolute idealism: the absolute starts as being 'in itself' and ends as being 'for itself' in self-
conscious subjectivity. In short, whereas Schelling provides an account of the development of
consciousness from life, Hegel goes one step further to account for the self-consciousness of life.
281

Overcoming the Limitations of Reflective Rationality
As we saw, Hegel's response to the emergent subject of transcendental

idealism is to insist that our mode of being in the world is not essentially as
knowers, but as agents. For Hegelian self-conscious subjectivity is not a
subjectivity of the Kantian/Fichtean type, but involves recognising the essential
limitations of our own subjectivity. This recognition entails being open to an
overcoming of the limitations of reflective rationality, being open to the
reconciliation of thought and being, to the achievement of a living union between
self and world. For Hegel it is the experience of love, an experience where thought
and being are reconciled, that represents such an overcoming.
From an underlying unity of life the activity of the understanding erects

oppositions between subject, object, and between objects (and subjects). As an
experienced identity of subject and object, love is a step beyond the reifying effects
of contemplative activity and thus constitutes a higher form of knowing. It
transcends the divisions that the understanding establishes, reconciling subject and
object in a broader unity-in-difference.66
While the philosophical or theoretical standpoint assumes the subject and

object to be distinct from one another, and the moral or the practical standpoint
demands that the subject dominate the object, in love subject-object unity is
achieved: in love, we are at one with the object, which at the same time is not us.
As an experienced identity of subject and object, love transcends these prior
standpoints, annulling or overcoming the differences that are established by the
understanding: '[love] is this feeling of unity of life, a feeling in which all
oppositions, as pure enmities, and also rights, as unifications of still subsisting

66. We will return to an extensive discussion of Hegel's notion of a 'unity-in-difference' and its
relation to love in the next chapter.
282

oppositions, are annulled.'67 Love is thus a living, non-conceptual bond that reacts
against the objectification of life through the adoption of philosophical or moral
standpoints, which it transcends in order to achieve a mature unity of subject and
object. As Frye puts it in Double Vision: 'the conscious subject is not really
perceiving until it recognises itself as part of what it perceives. The whole world is
humanised when such a perception takes place.'68
This is because in the love relationship, that which is encountered is not a

subject or an object, but something unique and irreplaceable. While the self can
stand towards the world in an open, loving way – Heidegger's discussion of the
Rhine is an example – the love relation is perhaps easiest to comprehend as a
relation to another person, to a singular and irreplaceable being.69 In both examples
– in our relation to other persons and our relations to nature – these entities are
reified and (figuratively) 'killed' by contemplative reflection because such a
relation is constituted by a relation of 'subject' to 'object'.
Since something dead here forms one term of the love relationship, love is girt by matter
alone, and this matter is quite indifferent to it. Love's essence at this level, then, is that the
individual in his innermost nature is something opposed [to objectivity]; he is an
independent unit for whom everything else is a world external to him. That world is as
eternal as he is, and, while the objects by which he is confronted change, they are never
absent; they are there, and his God is there, as surely as he is here; this is the ground of his
tranquility in face of loss and his sure confidence that his loss will be compensated,
because compensation here is possible. [trans. note: i.e., what is lost at this level of thought
is a material object and therefore something replaceable by something else.]70
Sharing a concern to challenge views of the relation between self and world as
relations of subjects to objects, what Hegel terms the 'love' relation bears striking
affinities with the relation between self and world that Heidegger seeks to foster

67. G.W.F. Hegel, “The Spirit of Christianity and Its Fate,” 278.
68. Northrop Frye, The Double Vision: Language and Meaning in Religion, 23.
69. In The Question Concerning Technology Heidegger contrasts technology's ‘challenging forth’
and poetry's ‘revealing.’ Technology's instrumental orientation to the world, where the world is
turned into a ‘standing-reserve,’ and the human relation to the world becomes one of ‘enframing,’ is
contrasted with poetic ‘revelation.’ Using the example of the Rhine, when a hydroelectric dam is
built on the river, the meaning of the Rhine changes; it becomes an energy reserve. This is
contrasted to the appearance of the Rhine in Höderlin's work, where it serves as a source of
philosophical inspiration and cultural pride. Martin Heidegger, The Question Concerning
Technology and Other Essays, trans. William Lovitt (New York: Harper & Row, 1977), 16.
70. G.W.F. Hegel, “Fragment on Love,” in Early Theological Writings (Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press, 1971), 303.
283

with his notion of solicitous being-with. We saw in Chapter 4 that the latter is
Dasein's authentic mode of being in the world, and leads to a genuine appropriation
of human freedom. Similarly, the 'love' relation involves overcoming a theoretical
attitude through engaged praxis – the intention of both is the same: to overcome
the limitations and pernicious effects that each author regards as going hand in
hand with a dualistic 'philosophical ontology'. Heidegger's primary target is
Descartes, whereas Hegel's is Kant.
Hegelian 'Phenomenology'
It would be easy to misunderstand Hegel's view that love leads to a

reconciliation of self and world as something overly sentimental, romantic, or
idealistic. We should not make this mistake. Hegel's conception of love is better
understood as a proto-phenomenological approach to the relationship between self
and world that recognises that the theoretical attitude serves to un-live human
existence and to objectify the objects of its experience, including other persons.
We have seen that for Hegel the mind-independent real 'appears' to consciousness,
and that these appearances are understood retrospectively. We have also seen that,
if we are to avoid the pernicious implications of the Kantian/Fichtean subject, we
must be cognisant of the limitations of both our own subjectivity and of the
limitations of reflective rationality – which means that we must leave ourselves
open to experiencing the mind-independent real. It is this openness that Hegel is
advocating when he is talking about the love relationship. The love relationship is
a relationship of openness of self to self and self to other, a post-theoretical
attunement to practical experience; a position that we now call phenomenology.71
Phenomenology

71. This is a key difference between Hegel's 'phenomenology' and Heidegger's phenomenology.
Heidegger's phenomenology, his fundamental ontology, seeks a pre-theoretical approach to reality.
284

Phenomenology is not simply a method, but is best understood as an attitude
towards philosophical problems.72 For Scheler this attitude equates to a 'spiritual
seeing,' while for Heidegger it involves being open to 'the event' through which
Being is disclosed.73 Common to both is an attunement to original experience, an
engagement with phenomena as phenomena, and an openness to experience that
resists the assimilation of experience into a set of categories – resisting the
presupposition of essences given a priori.
While widely attributed to Husserl, who believed and sometimes even

claimed to have invented phenomenology, there are significant pre-Husserlian
phenomenologists, including Kant, Fichte and Hegel.74 Phenomenology is broader
than the epistemological domain because phenomenologists often regard
knowledge claims to be a subset of a broader phenomenological domain – such as
ontology or metaphysics – and as such 'phenomenology' may be traced back as far
as Parmenides and Plato, who drew the distinction between appearance and reality.
However, as an approach to knowledge, phenomenology goes back at least to
Kant's epistemological concern with the construction of phenomena as
distinguished from mere appearances; this then entails all the reformulations and
rejections of Kant's approach as contributions to phenomenology, which includes
Fichte, Hegel, Husserl, Heidegger, and Merleau-Ponty.75
Phenomenology takes on different meanings across these different angles but

it retains its concern throughout with a distinctly practical relation to reality. In part
due to his emphasis on practical reason (as embodied in Geist), over two hundred
years later, Hegel's thought remains a good guide. Deriving from the Greek
phenomenon (‘what appears’) ‘phenomenology’ is literally the study of phenomena
present to our mind at the level of consciousness. As such, Hegel completes what

72. On the misguided conception of phenomenology as a method see Tom Rockmore, Kant and
Phenomenology, 189-90.
73. Max Scheler, Selected Philosophical Essays (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press,
1973), 137.
74. The term appears for the first time in a book published by Kant's friend Lambert in 1764. Tom
Rockmore, Before and After Hegel: A Historical Introduction to Hegel’s Thought, 87.
75. For more on this see Tom Rockmore, Kant and Phenomenology. especially pp1-3
285

Kant's epistemology starts and, as a phenomenologist, is perhaps even more
Kantian than Kant:
Since Kant maintains that without doubt all our knowledge comes from experience, he
opens the door wide to the possibility of knowledge that is not founded on experience [...]
[although he later closes this door]. Hegel immediately closes the door on this possibility,
or rather, he does not open it. According to Hegel, the only source of knowledge is
experience, namely what appears on the level of consciousness. The difference, however,
is clear. For where Kant speaks of experience, Hegel speaks of the experience of
consciousness. He goes, hence, further than Kant, since he elucidates what his illustrious
predecessor presupposes. According to Hegel, our experience of the external world is not
something that remains external to us. For experience presupposes that its object is, so to
speak, in consciousness.76
For Scheler, who describes philosophical thinking as 'a love-determined

movement of the inmost personal self of a finite being toward participation in the
essential reality of all possibles,' a properly phenomenological relation to the world
is a loving one, an appropriate attitude that allows the proper disclosure of
phenomenological facts.77
Understanding Through Love, Not Vivisection
We can illustrate the phenomenological impulse and illuminate what Hegel is

talking about with the love relationship with reference to Stanislaw Lem's science-
fiction novel, Solaris.78 The novel highlights anthropological limitations through
an interaction between human beings and a higher sentience, 'Solaris,' where the
protagonist, Kris Kelvin, a psychologist, is sent to a space station hovering above
Solaris – a planet covered by an ocean that we soon discover is a single-planet
encompassing sentient organism. The space station is host to scientists that have
studied Solaris for decades, research that has yielded little more than the formal
classification of phenomena occurring on the ocean surface. Shortly prior to
Kelvin's arrival, the scientists embark on a more aggressive form of

76. Tom Rockmore, Before and After Hegel: A Historical Introduction to Hegel’s Thought, 88.
77. Max Scheler, On the Eternal in Man, trans. Bernard Noble (New York: Harper & Brothers,
1960), 74.
78. Stanislaw Lem, Solaris (New York: Berkeley Books, 1982). The novel has inspired cinematic
adaptations by both Andrei Tarkovsky (1972) and Stephen Soderbergh (2002).
286

experimentation by bombarding the planet with X-rays, which elicits a response
from Solaris.
Solaris's sentience is beyond the reach of human understanding, but it

attempts to communicate with the humans aboard the research station by reading
their minds and constructing physical human simulacra from their memories.
However, this attempt to communicate between two vastly different
consciousnesses fails, exposing deeper, hidden aspects of the researcher's
personalities in the process. One of the scientists is sent dwarves and strange
creatures, and his response is to dissect them and experiment on them, which he
justifies as essential to understanding the phenomena. Kelvin, however, is visited
by a simulacra of his late wife, Rheya, who had killed herself after Kelvin had told
her that he would leave her. Although aware that he is in fact communicating with
Solaris and not with his wife, Kelvin falls in love with Rheya.
The novel serves to reveal the stark contrast between divergent responses to
attempted communication from an unfamiliar consciousness. The scientist's
dissection of the phenomena reflects the objectifying attitude of scientific inquiry,
an attitude that kills the object of inquiry and perverts the subject (the scientist)
into a monster, a lesser Dr Mengele. Kelvin, however, resists objectifying the
phenomena that he experiences, a response that reflects the phenomenological
attitude: what Hegel represents as the love relationship, and what Heidegger
discusses as positive solicitude. In short, phenomenology seeks to understand
through love, not vivisection.79
Conclusions

79. My characterisation of phenomenology is an adaptation of a blog post on Solaris. See Phil Hall,
“Solaris: Higher Sentience Communicates Through Love, Not Vivisection,”
http://xuitlacoche.blogspot.com/2008/07/solaris-higher-sentience-communicates.html (accessed
14/06/2012).
287

In light of our previous discussion, we can now return to the broader
argument that is being developed over the course of the thesis: that we are
constitutively unable to build an emancipatory cosmopolitanism from dualist
premises. The problem, to be precise, is foundational subject-object thinking, a
dualism that characterises Linklater's emancipatory cosmopolitanism. Such
thinking is both epistemological error and ontological insufficiency: it
misunderstands the nature of the cognitive object as something that exists in the
mind-independent real rather than something that we construct on the basis of our
experiences, and it misrepresents our mode of being in the world by representing
ourselves as subjects, rather than as self-conscious subjects cognisant of the
limitations of the contemplative attitude, and open to the transcendence of
reflective rationality through an attunement to practical experience: what Hegel
understands as the love relationship, and Heidegger as engaged solicitous being-
with.
The problem is that treating individuality as coextensive with subjectivity

establishes the individual a false independence and reifies the person into an
object. Through an overemphasis on the constructive role of the subject, and
failing to recognise the objectifying nature of reflective rationality, approaches to
social inquiry proceeding from foundational commitments to subjectivity are
unable account for subject-object non identity – that is, the independence of the
thing in itself – and leads to a conception of the self that stands in a transcendent
and assimilatory relation to the objects of its experience. By failing to account for
the independence of the mind-independent real, the Kantian/Fichtean subject de-
reifies the objects of its experience, leading to a conception of the human being
where the self strives to bring the phenomena it encounters into conformity with its
own moral law through the exercise of practical reason. This, we contend, is a
central aspect of what we have called a politics of subjectivity: a politics that
follows from a foundational commitment to the individual conceived as subject.
Such a foundational commitment to subjectivity thus unwittingly leads dualist
approaches to social inquiry into the terrain of hegemony and domination.
288

The trick then must be to situate subject-object thinking; this is the task of
philosophy. Hegel's challenge to dualism, for instance, solicits us to different
understandings of the cognitive object, the self, the relation between self and
world, and the nature and limitations of reflective rationality. For Hegel, we saw,
the cognitive object is not represented by the epistemological subject, but is
constructed on the basis of the mind-independent real appearing to consciousness.
From these phenomena that appear to consciousness we construct the cognitive
object; although corresponding entities exist in the mind-independent real, the
cognitive object itself does not, but is instead constructed through 'the interaction
between human beings situated within the historical process in which we come to
know the world and ourselves.' 80 Consequently, rather than being established
through a simple correspondence between mind and mind-independent real, 'truth,'
'objectivity,' subject-object unity, or what Hegel calls 'absolute knowledge,' is
never fully achieved, but is perpetually deferred in an ongoing process within
consciousness whereby increasingly adequate accounts of reality emerge; a process
that transforms both subject and object.
Following a comprehensive survey of phenomenological thought, which,

despite his claim, does not begin with Husserl, Rockmore concludes that Hegel's
'constructivist strategy, which is routinely overlooked in phenomenological circles,
is arguably the best such approach we currently possess.'81 He explains that Hegel's
view of knowledge is constructivist in three senses:
[F]irst, knowledge arises in an ongoing historical process in which we construct

conceptual frameworks based on prior experience that we test against later experience.
Second, we routinely alter these frameworks when they fail to fit experience; and to alter
the framework alters the conceptual object. Third, since cognitive objects depend on the
conceptual framework, a change in the framework results in a change in the object.82
Proceeding from the view that 'knowledge does not concern the world in itself but
the world for us,' Hegel's approach situates knowledge within the historical process
and subordinates knowledge construction to the interaction between human

81. Ibid., 213.
82. Ibid.
289

beings.83 Reality, what we consider to be 'real,' emerges out of these relations, and
there are thus irrevocably plural and historical dimensions to 'subjectivity.'
In contrast to kaleidoscopic readings of Hegel, such as those of Habermas

and Linklater, who read into Hegel an individualism in order to recover a
commitment to moral cognitivism, Hegel's phenomenological approach to the
construction of knowledge means that we simply cannot hold fast to an
understanding of the individual as subject. Rather, as a knowing and acting being,
the individual can instead be understood as potentially a self-conscious subject
who is cognisant of the limitations of contemplative activity and who remains open
and attuned to practical experience. In relations between persons, so as not to slip
back into a form of object-oriented consciousness, a form of consciousness that the
account of the master and slave serves to disrupt, we suggested that other persons
are best thought as singularities.
Understanding the human being as a self-conscious subject or singularity

involves treating ourselves as cognitive objects, as something that can be known.
This represents a move beyond the foundational/anti-foundational divide in
normative theory, providing a response to Cochran's claim that we must resign
ourselves to pragmatic critique; a response that follows in the spirit of Nancy's
claim that there is a common measure, which is not a common standard applied to
everyone and everything, but 'the commensurability of incommensurable
singularities.'84
We saw that Linklater's commitment to foundational subjectivity involves

treating the human being as a mind-independent object, which serves as the ground
for his emancipatory cosmopolitanism, and that Cochran's anti-foundationalism
denies the validity of this strategy. Later in Chapter 3 we then suggested that both
foundationalist and anti-foundationalist strategies involved obscuring the

83. Ibid., 215.
84. Jean-Luc Nancy, Being Singular Plural (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2001), 75. See
also Nick Vaughan-Williams, “Beyond a Cosmopolitan Ideal: The Politics of Singularity,”
International Politics 44 (2007), 122.
290

ontological difference between entities and the being of entities; that is, while
human beings clearly exist independent of our knowledge of them, the being of
those beings does not. Our determination of the being of human beings as ethical
subjects, for instance, is dependent on a particular interpretation of the nature of
human beings that is projected onto them. We saw in Chapter 4 that Heidegger's
concern is to ensure that the being of beings remain open to contestation, that we
do not treat our regional ontologies of the person as general ontologies. Hegel's
constructivist epistemology can help us develop this further.
Ontological claims about the nature of a being's existence are simultaneously

epistemological claims because they entail the supposition to know that this claim
is true. The problem with foundationalist approaches to normative theory is that
they usually presuppose the truth of their understanding of the being of beings: that
they (the subject) are representing the nature of human beings (the object) 'as it
really is'. With the aid of Heidegger we have argued that this is simply not the case,
and that we project interpretations of the being of beings onto human beings in
general on the basis of our own particular (subjective) experiences. An example
would be to interpret ethical subjectivity as the essential being of human beings.
The mistake made by many foundationalists, including Linklater, is to fail to

recognise that such an interpretation of the being of human beings is in fact a
construction of the human being as a cognitive object – one that remains dependent
on historically and socially conditioned (i.e., particularist) conceptual frameworks
(such as a mechanist paradigm of nature and a Kantian/Fichtean conception of the
self as subject) – rather than an unbiased representation of the human being as a
mind-independent 'thing'. It is this mistake that anti-foundationalists rightly call
our attention to.
Nonetheless, their skepticism often leads anti-foundationalists to resign

themselves to pragmatic critique or liberal postmodern irony, for instance. The
oversight here is to fail to recognise that there can be better or worse accounts of
the nature of human existence. By conceiving the human being as both mind-
291

independent entity and mind-dependent cognitive object, with the being of human
beings an aspect of our understandings of human beings as cognitive object,
Hegel's constructivist approach to knowledge can lead us out of this impasse.
From the Hegelian perspective developed here, accounts of the being of

human beings would not be evaluated according to their correspondence with the
mind-independent real (whether they represent the thing in itself), but with the
degree to which they accord with our experience, and/or according to their political
and ethical consequences – such as their contribution to human freedom, for
example. For instance, by proceeding from a foundational commitment to the
ethical subject, Linklater's critical approach to international theory (including his
criticism of neo-realism and his agenda for the triple transformation of political
community) can be judged favourably since it can contribute to the development of
states of affairs that are more conducive to human freedom. Nonetheless, it can
also be criticised as an insufficiently universalistic foundation, and for potentially
undermining his commitment to emancipation for the reasons given earlier.
We can then attempt to further the debate by engaging in a philosophical

ontology of the human being, provided that we recognise that these interpretations
of the being of human beings are essentially perspectival and must be left open to
contestation rather than providing the foundation for a form of universalism.
Consequently, rather than simply rejecting the foundationalist claim that human
beings are ethical subjects, by specifying that our interpretations of the being of
human beings can be regarded as contributions to an understanding of the human
being as a constructed cognitive object, Hegel's constructivist epistemology can
lead us out of this impasse.
Our philosophical ontology of the human being as singularity or subject is a

contribution to such a task, responding to both the foundational/anti-foundational
divide and Behr's call for more universalistic ontology(ies) for global ethics and
politics. The respective epistemology is a phenomenological constructivism, which
is considered to be a more fruitful phenomenological approach to knowledge than
292

Michel's renewed focus on language, and which stresses the essential limitations of
the contemplative attitude; emphasising instead the importance of a practical
relation to reality. One of the central contentions of this philosophical ontology is
the concern to avoid over-relying on subjectivity and reflective rationality as an
arbiter of difference, since these commitments are constitutively unable to
reconcile the divisions that they foster.
We saw that Hegel's insistence on a practical relation to reality, what he

considers to be a loving relation between self and world, bears similarities with
Heidegger's conclusion that an authentic (read ethical) relation to the other is not
one in which subjective preconceptions are foisted upon them, but involves
engaging in solicitous being with others. We saw, however, that Heidegger's
weakness lay in the fact that he fails to provide for an account of the interpersonal
conditions of self-hood and freedom. We caught a glimpse of how Hegel achieves
this in our discussion of the interpersonal conditions of self-conscious subjectivity,
but it is to a discussion of this point that we now turn.
293
Chapter 7.
Exposure, Transcendence, and the Community of
Fate
Introduction
One of the central aims of the thesis is to contribute to the development of

more universalistic ontological foundation for contemporary (global) politics and
ethics, a task motivated by a left-Hegelian commitment to evaluate practices and
institutions on the basis of a commitment to human freedom. This has seen us
engage with the tradition of left-Hegelian thought in International Relations, most
notably that of Andrew Linklater. We saw in Part 1 that Linklater's emancipatory
cosmopolitanism relies on a commitment to a foundational ethical subject, where
freedom is equated to the unhindered exercise of ethical subjectivity, a
commitment reflected in his treatment of emancipation as the process by which
that which negates the autonomy of the ethical subject is itself negated.
Chapter 3 discussed challenges to Linklater's association of freedom with

subjectivity in more recent critical theory, where Brincat (following Honneth)
shifts focus to the inter-subjective conditions of human freedom. Here,
emancipation is no longer simply about the establishment of the political
conditions for the non-contradiction of ethical subjectivity as it is in Kant,
Habermas, and Linklater, but develops along a more Hegelian line, where
emancipation is located in relations of intersubjectivity. However, we argued that,
although a valuable contribution to the revival of the praxeological aspect of
emancipation that remains largely recessive in Linklater's CIRT, Honneth and
Brincat rely on a kaleidoscopic reading of Hegel as a theorist of intersubjectivity,
PART 3/Ch7. Exposure, Transcendence, and the Community of Fate

where recognition is mistakenly conceived as the confrontation between two
independent subjects. We will demonstrate in this chapter that this reading of
Hegel jettisons some of his most interesting and powerful ontological insights –
insights into the nature of human existence and human freedom.
Later in Chapter 3 we discussed recent challenges to such a commitment to

subjectivity in the work of Nancy and Odysseos, both of whom demonstrate the
deeply co-existential and relational nature of individuality and subjectivity. Part 2
deepened this insight through an exploration of Heidegger's general ontology of
Being, whose existential analytic of human existence demonstrated that a
commitment to a foundational subjectivity is misguided, and that approaches to
sociality reliant on the notion of intersubjectivity involved abstracting from and
subsequently objectifying sociality. We then learnt that Heidegger's engagement
with Kant's understanding of freedom meant that an understandingof freedom as
individual autonomy must itself be grounded in freedom understood as existential
condition, where properly free and ethical relations with others cannot be relations
predicated upon the projection of a substantive interpretation of the being of
beings, but must be predicated on an engagement with others as others, which
involves orienting ourselves in a way that encourages authentic mutual co-
disclosure between self and other.
Although such an aim is shared by Linklater, most clearly in his defence of

universalism against Rorty's anti-foundationalism in Transformation, we saw that
his argument for the universal responsibility to engage others in dialogue is
predicated on the projection of an ethical subject, a morally deficient strategy as
recognition was extended on the condition that the other appeared as an ethical
subject. Further compounding this weakness, we saw in Chapter 5 that for Nancy it
is precisely this commitment to a foundational subjectivity that constitutes the
stumbling block to a thinking of community, and that hence, ironically, it is
precisely this foundational commitment that establishes the impossibility of an
authentic community, since the dialogic approach to ethical universality and moral
inclusion precludes a genuine encounter with the other.
295

In light of these prior discussions, the last chapter engaged with a reading of
the development of the subject-object relation from Kant to Hegel with three main
aims. Firstly, to destabilise readings of Hegel as a theorist of intersubjectivity, such
as those of Habermas, Linklater, and Honneth; all of whom read Hegel through a
kaleidoscope of the Kantian subject. Secondly, to outline the ontological and
epistemological groundwork for the alternative emancipatory cosmopolitanism that
will be developed in this chapter and the next; and finally, to provide a defence of
Hegel as a theorist of self-conscious subjectivity.
This chapter develops the latter point, turning what has largely been an
ontological and epistemological argument in an essentially ethical and
emancipatory direction. In so doing, we substantiate the claims made in Chapter 1
that Hegel's philosophy leads to a better way of conceiving human relationality
(relations to other persons, to our worlds, and to ourselves) than can Linklater's
reliance on Habermas's discursive account of moral reason. We also pick up and
develop the claim made in Chapter 4 that, while the notion of resolute solicitous
being with others has important implications for an account of inter-human
recognition that does not purely operate at a cerebral level, that Heidegger's
position lacks an account of the inter-personal conditions of freedom and
individuality – a deficiency that he might have avoided had he been a better
student of Hegel.
This chapter will continue the discussion of the inter-personal aspect of

freedom as sociality initiated in Chapter 3: the aspect of freedom that is not simply
associated with the autonomy of the individual, but is understood as practical
engagement with others. However, with the aim of effecting a shift from
conceiving the individual as an autonomous ethical subject to a recognition of the
concrete interdependence of selves, our focus is on the inter-personal rather than
inter-subjective aspects of freedom and individuality. It was suggested in the last
chapter that Hegel's account of the master and slave in the Phenomenology
essentially serves to disrupt object-oriented forms of consciousness, and leads to
296

the achievement of self-conscious subjectivity where the self becomes cognisant of
the essential limitations of reflective rationality and attunes themselves to practical
experience: to the appearance of the mind-independent real, where other
consciousnesses (i.e., persons) are related to as singularities rather than subjects.
This chapter engages with Hegel's account of the master and slave in greater depth,
demonstrating the profoundly ethical and emancipatory aspects of this argument
that are, by and large, obscured by kaleidoscopic readings of Hegel.
We saw that for Hegel it is love that represents an overcoming of the

limitations of reflective rationality, representing a higher form of cognition where
the duality between self and world is overcome. In this chapter we will see how the
experience of love models the ethical logic of traversal between self and other,
leading to the transcendence of subjectivity. We argue that this is not confined to
the experience between two lovers, but that it provides us with both the personal
experience of the co-existential nature of individuality, and an experience that can
provide us with a model of more genuinely ethical and emancipatory relations with
others than can the notion of intersubjectivity.
However, in order to distinguish it from Kant's model of freedom, where

transcendence is the transcendence of the self conceived as ethical subject from its
phenomenal experience, the suggestion is made that the model of self-other
relations provided by the experience of love is better understood as a process of
transgression rather than transcendence – where emancipation is thought as a
process through which any prior determination of the self (subjectivity) is
transcended, or better, overcome, through the concrete interaction between self and
world. Understanding emancipation as a process of beings in their becoming,
freedom is then thought as freedom-with rather than freedom-from, and the model
of our radical dependency is love.
The Argument of Chapter 7
297

The central argument of this chapter is that properly ethical and
emancipatory action is action that proceeds from the knowledge of love. By this
what is meant is that the experience of love is an experience that can lead to a
greater awareness of the nature of our existence as self-conscious beings, as
individual selves who are dependent on others for the very constitution of our own
subjectivity. This awareness solicits us to cultivate our practical relation to reality,
and leads us to engage with others as others rather than as ethical subjects.
We first discuss the philosophy of love, coming to see love as an experience

that can lead to an overcoming of object-oriented forms of consciousness to attain
self-conscious subjectivity, where the self becomes fully cognisant of a living
union between self and world, and leads to a more faithful attunement to reality
and to the world of others. When we talk of the 'knowledge of love,' it is the
knowledge of this experience to which we are referring, not knowledge of what
love is, since we argue that love is not a substantial thing that we can know.
We see that Hegel's conception of love is best understood in this experiential

way – as an open receptivity to otherness – and we learn that it plays a central role
in the development of his thought; a role that, until recently, twentieth-century
interpretations of his thought have obscured. This claim is substantiated through a
discussion of Hegel's account of the master and slave. Although commonly
interpreted as a treatise on the nature and possibility of freedom, this passage is
principally about the re-cognitive structure of self-consciousness, serving to
identify a radical mutual dependency of self on others for the constitution of self-
conscious subjectivity. This account of the nature of self-consciousness is
modelled on the experience of love, by which is meant that the moves through
which self-conscious subjectivity is established reflect the movement between self
and other in loving relations, and the experience of both leads to a higher form of
self-awareness: an awareness of myself as subject.
Whereas Linklater ultimately equates acting freely with acting morally,

where individuals are most free when they act according to maxims that have been
298

subjected to the test of universalisability, our conception of self-conscious
subjectivity leads both to a different conception of self-other relations, and an
understanding of freedom as the transcendence of any prior determination of my
subjective being through concrete interaction with others. Finally, we argue that
self-conscious subjectivity involves cultivating an attunement to the existence of
others where the existence of others becomes part of a deeper fabric of our own
self-understandings, subsequently informing the way that we relate to ourselves, to
others, and to our worlds. We represent this orientation through the notion of our
participation with others in a community of fate, and argue that this self-conscious
awareness of the relational constitution of our own individuality augments
Heidegger's account of freedom as solicitous being-with others by demonstrating
the profoundly inter-personal and cooperative basis for own freedom and self-
hood.
To pre-empt an obvious criticism: this is not an overly idealistic argument.

We are not arguing that the establishment of a universal human community where
all human beings relate to each other in this way is likely, or even necessary. In
this sense we echo Linklater's recognition that the normative ideal of a universal
discourse community is, at the limit, unattainable. Although recognising that there
are significant obstacles to the realisation of these characteristically ethical and
emancipatory relations, and that there are limits to what can be achieved by an
emancipatory politics, our argument is that it is these relations that constitute both
the fullest appropriation of our freedom and to properly ethical relations between
self and other, and that this is what an emancipatory politics should be seeking to
achieve.
The Philosophy of Love
The Metaphysics of Love
299

Love has been a mainstay in philosophy at least since the early Greeks, and
its discussion transcends many sub-disciplines, including metaphysics,
epistemology, theology, politics and ethics. There are a variety of approaches to
love ranging from the materialistic reduction to a physical phenomenon – an
animalistic or genetic urge – to idealist conceptions of love as the construction of
the mind that is the consequence of the body's release of endorphins, but also
spiritualist conceptions that associate it with the touch of divinity. Most of these
use Platonic and Aristotelian conceptions as a touchstone.1
Characterising it in the Symposium as a series of elevations, for Plato love

starts with animalistic desire or base lust that is superseded by an intellectual
conception of love, before this too is superseded by an almost theological love that
transcends sensual attraction and mutuality.2 In contrast, Aristotle's Nicomachean
Ethics offers a secular theory, where love is reflected in what he poetically
described as 'two bodies and one soul.'3 In English the word 'love,' deriving from
the Germanic form of the Sanskrit lubh (desire) is broadly defined and hence
imprecise, which generates problems of definition and meaning. For this reason
explorations often start with a discussion of the different shades, or 'natures' of
love; shades that are discussed through the Greek terms eros, philia, and agape.4
Accompanied by its two companions, pathos (longing) and himeros (desire),

eros refers to that aspect of love experienced as a passionate and intense desire for
something, where the subject is driven toward the object; this is often conceived in
sexual terms, leading to the modern notion of the erotic. Eros is conceived by Plato
as desire that transcends the particular object. It is a desire for transcendental
beauty rather than the beauty of a singular entity since 'the particular beauty of an

1. For a concise overview of behaviouralist, physical determinist, and expressivist approaches to
love, see Alexander Moseley, “’Philosophy of Love’ Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy,”
http://www.iep.utm.edu/love/.
2. Plato, Plato’s Symposium, trans. Seth Benardete (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001).
See also Allan Bloom, “The Ladder of Love,” in Plato’s Symposium (Chicago: Chicago University
Press, 2001).
3. Alexander Moseley, “Philosophy of Love.”
4. As we shall see, the contention that love has a ‘nature’ would likely be disputed by Hegel, since
it presupposes that love can be described in rational propositions; a form of cognition that love
transcends.
300

individual reminds us of true beauty that exists in the world of Forms or Ideas.'5 On
this account, to love is to love the element of the ideal (true beauty) that the
particular element (a person, or piece of art) possesses. The implication is that the
object of love becomes interchangeable across people and things.
Contrasting with the yearning associated with eros, philia entails a fondness
and appreciation of the object, and is a derivative of eros that Aristotle
characterises as 'a sort of excess of feeling.'6 Philia is roughly captured by the
English concept of 'friendship,' although for the Greeks it also incorporated loyalty
to the family, to the polis, or to a job. Further distinguishing it from eros, philia
entails reciprocity between the subject and object of philic love. For Aristotle,
those with whom we share a philic love are only those who are worthy of it, and he
suggests that there is therefore an objective basis for philia. For instance, we would
share with them dispositions, and they would admire us appropriately as we admire
them, etc. Although it is not necessarily equal, and parental love can involve a one-
sided fondness, reciprocity is the condition of Aristotelian love and friendship.7
Aristotelian philia is a love of virtue. True lovers are those whom act out of virtue
or the other's interest; all other relationships are ones of pleasure or utility.8
Drawing on elements of both eros and philia, for the Greeks at least, agape is
the highest kind of love; a perfect kind of love that entails both the fondness of
philic love and the passion and transcendence of the particular object of love in
eros, as well as its non-requirement of reciprocity. Unlike philia, agape is not
directed towards particular persons but to all of humanity, and it is later
appropriated by Christian theology where it refers to the 'paternal love of God for
man and man for God,' and to a brotherly love for all humanity. For this reason

5. Ibid.
6. Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics, trans. David Ross (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009),
VIII,6.
7. Aristotle writes: 'In all friendships implying inequality the love also should be proportional, i.e.
the better should be more loved than he loves.' Ibid., VIII, 7.
8. C.F. Cheung, “Between Myself and Others: Towards a Phenomenology of the Experience of
Love” (Paper presented at the Identity and Alterity: Phenomenology and Cultural Traditions, Hong
Kong, 24th May 2005).
301

agape is most commonly associated with the Christian sense of love as giving.9
The Biblical command to 'love thy neighbour as thyself' is a universalist command
that, if necessary, may be unilateral since the onus is on the extension of love to
others.10 That said, C.S. Lewis is misguided in his The Four Loves to claim agape
as a specifically Christian virtue since all the world's great religions assume and
teach the priority of love in religious practice.11
The Experience of Love.
'... the ultimate essence of love and hatred cannot be defined but only exhibited'
Max Scheler
The problem with the Platonic, Aristotelian, and Christian understandings of

love is that they focus on the object and finality of love rather than love as a
phenomenon.12 The eros-philia-agape schema is not a description of what love
actually is, but represents different attempts to prescribe meanings of what love
ought to be and against which all love should be measured. The schema thus
defines what I should love and how I should love it.13 These metaphysical accounts
of love are misguided: there is no object of love, there is not a 'thing' that love is.
Love is no-thing other than a movement, a lived experience. As Cheung notes, the
question of what love is, is then a metaphysically misplaced question, because love
is not a substance.
Between myself and the beloved object, there is love. But, the being of love is in loving
experience, i.e., my love for my mother is only meaningful if "loving my mother" is a
lived experience (Erlebnis) for me. This love cannot be abstracted from the "I" who is
loving my mother [...] I do not have something called love but I am loving something. This
loving as an irreducible unique in-between lived experience is the phenomenon of love.

9. Alexander Moseley, “Philosophy of Love.”
10. Matthew, 19:19; 22:39; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27; Romans 13:9; Galatians 5:14; James 2:8 Ibid.
11. C.S. Lewis, The Four Loves (Boston: Mariner Books, 1960). See John Templeton, Agape Love:
A Tradition Found in Eight World Religions (Radnor: Templeton Foundation Press, 1999). The
Buddhist example of Mettā ("loving-kindness," active interest in others) is a case in point.
12. C.F. Cheung, “Between Myself and Others: Towards a Phenomenology of the Experience of
Love,” 5.
13. Ibid., 4.
302

The how of love as experienced by myself is phenomenologically more primordial than
the reason or cause of love.14
Consequently, we should change our focus from the eidos to the ethos of
love. Since even if love has a nature, the question remains as to whether we are
able to understand it, whether love can be an object of our knowledge. We can
perhaps catch glimpses of its essence as phenomena of our experience, meaning
that it can be hinted at even if not ever fully understood in and of itself. Although
fundamentally limited, this is the benefit of the eros-philia-agape schema, since it
reflects several shades of love that are exhibited in different kinds of relationships:
romantic love, love for friends, or love of photography, etc. Rather than imposing
these prescriptive meaning onto experiences, however, we must suspend the
definitional schema of agape-eros-agape in order to render the lived-experience of
love more transparent.
Love and Phenomenology
Towards the end of the last chapter we saw that Hegel considers 'love' to
represent an overcoming of the standpoint of reflective rationality, an experience
that represents a higher form of cognition through which the self becomes more
attuned to practical experience and where that which is encountered is no longer
simply a subject or an object. This is why we suggested that what Hegel calls
'love,' the achieved reconciliation between self and world, is best understood not as
something overly sentimental or romantic, but as a proto-phenomenological
relationship between self and world. We also learnt that phenomenology is not
simply a method, but is better understood as an attitude towards philosophical
problems, an attunement to practical experience and an openness to experiencing
prior to the assumption of a set of criteria or assimilation within a set of categories
or conceptual scheme.

14. Ibid., 5.
303

Since Plato, grasping the meaning or essence of an object has involved
disengaging from the object, suspending that object's present and immediate
existence in order that it may be grasped as it is 'in itself.' In contrast,
phenomenology cultivates a shift in seeing so that the world is no longer taken for
granted, as is the assumption in treating something as a given object, but is
regarded critically and engaged with practically. Importantly, the
phenomenological attitude does not simply reject the objectification of the world,
where entities are treated as objects, but holds this objectified world in abeyance
out of a love of the world.15
Following both Augustine and Hegel, love is taken by Scheler as the

foundation of knowledge, and hence an affective and emotional life to be the
foundation of a rational one: '[b]efore the world is known, it is first given. The
loving human being is this openness to the world, to that which is other.'16 Love is
often derided as a way of acting in the world, and a more rational, objective way of
looking at the world is seen to be more appropriate since it helps us see how the
world 'really is.' However, perhaps we are blinded to the full mystery, depth and
singularity of other people by the standpoint of dispassionate objectivity; perhaps it
is our overemphasis on rationality that is the mistake, and perhaps love is the
expression of a more faithful attunement to a world of others, one that makes a
more honest and faithful encounter with the world possible. As Wirzba and Benson
write:
Love makes it possible for us to receive the world as it is rather than as we want or wish it
to be. Love enables us to resist the (often violent) integration of others into the sameness
and comfort of the thinker's world. It acknowledges in a way that no other disposition or
activity can the integrity and the mystery of existence.17

15. Zachary Davis and Anthony Steinbock, Max Scheler, Winter 2011 ed., The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2011/entries/scheler/, 2011).
16. Ibid. Referring to Max Scheler, Gesammelte Werke (Bonn: Bouvier Verlag, 1986), V,83.
17. Norman Wirzba and Bruce Ellis Benson, Transforming Philosophy and Religion: Love’s
Wisdom (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2008), 18.
304

Hegel and Love.
It is in light of these latter dimensions of love that Hegel's conception of love

is best understood. Love, for Hegel, is not an object but an experience of
essentially connected yet differentiated forms of life, which is best represented as
an experience through which the self overcomes the limitations of object-oriented
forms of consciousness to achieve the recognition of a living union between self
and world. We have seen that for Hegel reflective rationality reifies life into
subjects and objects, and can therefore only capture external relations between
things. Consequently, reason is an essentially limited way of understanding
relations towards and between living entities, as it is constitutively unable to grasp
the mutually conditioned nature of the relation between subject and object: reason
simply cannot capture the unity-in-difference that is, for Hegel at least, the
structure of life.
Proceeding from an underlying unity of life, the understanding splits this

unity into subject and object so that we may rationally represent the objects of our
experience and gain knowledge of them. The exercise of rationality therefore
alienates ourselves from the worlds in which we are immersed. This raises us
above our immediate existences, a process that is essential for the development of
knowledge and our self-conscious freedom. This relative independence of self and
world, however, is easily misconstrued – and the self might come to think of itself
as independent from nature and other persons, such as in the case of the
Kantian/Fichtean subject, for instance.
This misunderstanding, however, is self-defeating and cannot be sustained

because it involves a self-defeating logic that we see play out in the account of the
interaction of object-oriented forms of consciousness in the account of the master
and slave. For this reason, an object-oriented form of consciousness must itself be
transcended. This transcendence is not achieved by further abstraction, but through
a reconnection between self and world. This higher form of cognition requires that
the self takes a step beyond the reifying nature of contemplative activity to achieve
305

self-conscious subjectivity, whereby a living relation between self and world is re-
experienced, and the self recognises both its fundamental difference, and its
essential connection, to the rest of life: both physical processes of life, and the life
of Geist.
Love's recognition of a 'unity-in-difference' thus aims to capture the nature

of living relations between parts and whole: a dynamic that cannot be captured
wholly conceptually because these relations have no static structure or form, but
consist in fluid relations to that to which is not-me, but to which I am nonetheless
essentially bound.18 This recognition most certainly does not require a cancellation
or levelling of difference, nor a simple transcendence of difference through
abstraction. Rather, 'unity-in-difference' aims to reflect that the independence and
autonomy of parts, such as individual human beings, cannot be thought in
separation from their respective wholes, and that at the same time, these wholes are
nothing without their parts. Although fundamentally connected to these wholes,
there is an essential non-identity between part and whole: a non-identity that is the
essential condition of that whole. For instance, the self is essentially located within
communities, but these communities are nothing without the selves that comprise
them. The 'structure' of unity-in-difference is therefore an immense contradiction: a
contradiction that the understanding simply cannot resolve, because it wants
relations to be either external relations between subjects and objects, or for the
parts to be fully immersed within (and thus subordinate to) a broader unity, but as
self-conscious living beings, we are both.19
The Role of Love in Hegel's Thought.
First appearing early in his career during his Frankfurt years, in his Fragment
on Love (1797/1798) and in The Spirit of Christianity and its Fate (1799), love

18. Just as Heidegger's 'being-in-the-world,' is hyphenated, 'identity-in-difference' or 'unity-in-
difference,' is hyphenated to denote that this recognition is a unitary phenomenon.
19. J.M. Bernstein, “Phenomenology of Spirit. Lordship and Bondage,” Lectures on Hegel’s
Phenomenology of Spirit The New School. New York City. 8th November (2006):
http://bernsteintapes.com/lectures/Hegel/19MasterSlaveA.mp3.
306

plays a formative role in the development of Hegel's thought; three of Hegel's most
important ideas first emerge in these essays: his organicist conception of freedom,
his dialectical logic (the mutually conditioned nature of the relation between
subject and object), and his notion of ethical life (Sittlichkeit). Responding to
Kant's duality between freedom and nature, where freedom is thought of as the
freedom of the subject and the object as a limitation on the subject's freedom,
Hegel reworks the Kantian model of self and world. Here, the freedom of the self
is worked into a true freedom of the infinite, where the opposition between subject
and object is reworked into a living, mutually conditioned union of subject and
object in Geist, and the interaction between subject and object is governed by a
dialectical rather than a transcendental logic. Kant's transcendental morality,
governed by the categorical imperative, is thus situated within and subordinated to
the immanent structure of ethical life, and this leads to Hegel's well-known
distinction between Moralität and Sittlichkeit. All three of these responses to Kant
are based on the experience of love. Both love and freedom are defined by Hegel
as 'being with oneself in the other,' his dialectical logic is based upon the 'logic' of
love, and the experience of love is the experience of ethical life in its most basic
form. All three of these concepts developed in his Early Theological Writings are
central to the development of his subsequent thought.
The Reception of Hegel
Marxist appropriations of Hegel justifiably endorse the view of him as the

'pre-eminent philosopher of reconciliation.' However, they primarily read him as a
'philosopher of the concept', where the 'immature' metaphysics of his early
theological writings are superseded by a 'mature' analysis of the dialectical logic of
reason. Frankfurt School theorists such as Habermas, for instance, affirm Hegel's
commitment to the essential role that reason plays in the attainment of moral
autonomy and progress. Habermas follows Hegel in understanding reason as
having a historical and progressive core, thus supporting the emancipatory
possibility that human individuals thought as subjects may involve themselves in
307

the creation of their own world from a critical and rationalist perspective. In so
doing, Habermas reads the movement of Hegel's thought as a development from
the standpoint of love to the standpoint of reason. It is this reading of Hegel that
characterises Linklater's appropriation of his thought.
There are understandable historical reasons why this rationalist aspect of

Hegel's thought has been emphasised. The Hegel renaissance of the mid to late 19th
century took great interest in Hegel's early metaphysics of life, a metaphysics that
played a role in the development of the Lebensphilosophie (life-philosophy) of
Schopenhauer and Nietzsche.20 Yet the emphasis that Lebensphilosophie placed on
vitalism and renewal is believed to have been complicit in the promise of a
reinvigoration of the German spirit prior to the Great War, and this subsequently
led to Rosenzweig's infamous disavowal of Hegel in the introduction of his
doctoral thesis Hegel and the State prior its submission in 1920/21.
In the English-speaking world Hegel's thought was primarily represented by

the British Idealists, against whom the analytic tradition emerged as a revolt.21
Subsequently the opinions of writers such as Russell and Popper, whose
accusations that Hegel was an enemy of freedom and a totalitarian were as off the
mark as they were influential, prejudiced a whole generation of analytic
philosophy against Hegel. This prejudice went largely without challenge for over
half a century, as a generation of post-War German philosophers were keen to
resuscitate those elements of their beleaguered tradition that were not tarnished
with any association to a proto-fascistic irrationalism, and that were at least
compatible with key strands of analytic philosophy.22

20. See, for example, Dilthey's biography of the young Hegel Wilhelm Dilthey, Die
Jugendgeschichte Hegels Und Andere Abhandlungen Zur Geschichte Des Deutschen Idealismus
(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990).
21. See David Boucher, ed. The British Idealists (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997);
David Boucher and Andrew Vincent, British Idealism and Political Theory (Edinburgh: Edinburgh
22. Axel Honneth, Disrespect: The Normative Foundations of Critical Theory (London: Polity,
2007), 164.
308

The consequence is that, during the last century at least, people writing about
Hegel have consistently emphasised the developmental understanding of reason in
his writings, suppressing the role of love. However, Hegel's 'absolute' – absolute
knowledge and absolute spirit – is achieved through a recognition that is not given
wholly conceptually but is based instead upon a reconciliation of concept and
being, where the latter operates as the privileged signifier. Because of this,
'secularised,' 'demythologised,' or 'pragmatic' interpretations of Hegel ultimately
elevate reason to a position from which Hegel consistently and insistently displaces
it, effectively severing or 'killing' the living relationship between subject and
object, self and world, that is absolutely central to Hegel's thought. Consequently,
this dominant interpretation of Hegel is at best debatable, and, as is the opinion of
this author, may even be fundamental distortion of Hegel's thought.23
What is at stake here is nothing less than a recognition of the proper nature of
the relationship between self and world, the role of praxis, and the questionable
authority of reason (along with its essential limitations). Fortunately though, there
are several recent attempts to redress this interpretation of Hegel, Jay Bernstein
(1994;2003) and Alice Ormiston (2002;2004) are the most significant of these, but
Richard Beardsworth (2006) and Laura Werner (2007) are also worthy of note.24
These all see in Hegel's early writing a potentially radical way of conceptualising
self-other relations that is not effectively reflected in the 'demythologised,'
'secular,' and 'mature' readings of Hegel.

23. An argument might even be made that the emphasis on the sovereignty of reason in rationalist
interpretations of Hegel actually contributes to the totalitarian charges made against him by Popper.
On this rationalist view, universality is something that might be achieved: hence the part can
ultimately be subordinated to the whole, as opposed to recognising that our ‘universals’ are always
conditioned and incomplete; our concepts constituted by a Derridean 'trace,' a constitutive exclusion
or blind-spot. Such a realisation enjoins us to recognise the essentially limited nature of our
understandings.
24. J.M. Bernstein, “Conscience and Transgression: The Persistence of Misrecognition,” Bulletin of
the Hegel Society of Great Britain 29 (1994): 55-70; J.M. Bernstein, “Love and Law: Hegel’s
Critique of Morality,” Social Research: An International Quarterly 70, no. 2 (2003): 393-431.
Alice Ormiston, “”The Spirit of Christianity and Its Fate:” Towards a Reconsideration of the Role
of Love in Hegel,” Canadian Journal of Political Science 35, no. 3 (2002): 499-525; Alice
Ormiston, Love and Politics: Re-Interpreting Hegel (New York: SUNY Press, 2004). Laura
Werner, “The Restless Love of Thinking: The Concept of Liebe in Hegel’s Philosophy” (Ph.D
Thesis, University of Helsinki, 2007). Richard Beardsworth, “A Note to a Political Understanding
of Love in Our Global Age,” Contretemps (2006).
309

The Struggle For Recognition
We saw in the previous chapter that, in contrast to the Kantian/Fichtean

foundational subject that remains unconditioned by the objects of its experience,
the Hegelian subject is one that is transformed in its interactions with the objects of
its experience: it is a subject that does not persist, but is one that is transformed
through action. In Butler's words, Hegel's subject is an 'ek-static' subject.25 Further
deepening this account of Hegelian subjectivity – in contrast to self-conscious
subjectivity simply arising purely from the persistence over time of the TUA
(Kant), or from the practical activity of the 'pure ego' (Fichte) – for Hegel self-
conscious subjectivity is an achievement. This achievement is modelled in the
account of the master and slave, an encounter initiated when an object-oriented
form of consciousness encounters another object-oriented form of consciousness:
when two Kantian/Fichtean 'subjects' collide.26 To be clear, this is not an account
of the interaction of two independent self-conscious subjects demanding
recognition from each other (Honneth), but is about the achievement of
differentiated self-conscious subjectivities by the respective protagonists.
Although the outcome of this struggle is mutual recognition between self-

conscious subjects, this is only the non-vital end of the struggle.27 It is non-vital
because mutual recognition between free beings is simply a compromise solution.28
To be treated as autonomous, free, beings is what both the master and the slave

25. Judith Butler, Subjects of Desire: Hegelian Reflections in Twentieth-Century France (New
York: Columbia University Press, 1999), xv.
26. Hegel's account of the master and slave is found in the section of the Phenomenology of Spirit
on 'Lordship and Bondage,' commonly referred to as the master-slave dialectic or the struggle for
recognition. G.W.F. Hegel, Phenomenology of Spirit, trans. A.V. Miller (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1977), §§178-96.
27. J.M. Bernstein, “Phenomenology of Spirit. Lordship and Bondage,” Lectures on Hegel’s
Phenomenology of Spirit The New School. New York City. 8th November (2006):
http://bernsteintapes.com/lectures/Hegel/20MasterSlaveB.mp3.
28. The struggle for recognition is commonly read as a discourse on the nature and possibility of
human freedom, but the establishment of subjective freedom is only the non-vital end of this
struggle. For a reading of this passage as a treatise on the nature and possibility of freedom see
Robert B. Pippin, “What is the Question for Which Hegel’s Theory of Recognition is the Answer?,”
European Journal of Philosophy 8, no. 2 (2000): 55-172.
310

want: it is their desire for absolute independence, subjectivity, that draws them into
the struggle in the first place.29 Treating each other as if they were subjects is a way
of resolving the ensuing struggle between life and death. The 'subjects' that face
each other make claims of freedom on one another, and ultimately resolve to
recognise each other as subjects; this is freedom as sociality. Freedom as
independence is problematic because it is part of a fantasy of freedom, the fantasy
that freedom is absolute independence from all conditionality.30 Hegel's move is to
reroute freedom and argue that it is only within dependent relations with others that
we can establish any independence.31 Importantly though, mutual recognition is a
way of mediating the fact that we are absolutely dependent on the other, and
consequently, our independence can only ever be a relative independence, relative
to the others on whom we depend.
Freedom is the non-vital end of the struggle for recognition because the
outcome of the account of the master and slave is not simply about the
'intersubjective' conditions of 'subjectivity' (purposefully written without the
strikethrough), but is the achievement of self-conscious subjectivity; achieving
awareness of the fact that the self is not a subject. The self-conscious subject
establishes itself as an independent entity, but at the same time recognises that its
subjectivity is dependent on others. Recognition is, therefore, a union of
separateness and connectedness: it leads to the recognition that we are both
absolutely dependent on the other for their recognition, and at the same time,
absolutely independent of them. In short, the self-conscious subject achieves a
recognition of their unity-in-difference. Self-consciousness – becoming aware of
the nature of our own existence, what we actually are, and our mode of being in the
world – involves recognising this unity-in-difference, recognising our simultaneous
dependence and independence on others.

29. J.M. Bernstein, “Phenomenology of Spirit. Lordship and Bondage. (B).”
30. Ibid.
31. Ibid.
311

Love and Recognition: The Three Moments of the Re-cognitive Structure of
Self-Consciousness32
In short, what is being explored in the account of the master and slave is the
re-cognitive structure of self-consciousness. Becoming self-conscious, gaining a
higher level of self-awareness about the nature of our own individual existences as
human beings, as selves, involves overcoming object-oriented forms of
consciousness by realising that I am not a Kantian/Fichtean subject, and that I am
fundamentally and irrevocably reliant on others for the constitution of my own
subjectivity. In other words, that my own freedom and my self-understandings are
not purely own to me, but depend on the others with whom I interact.
There are three moments to this achievement, which are modelled on the
experience of love. Although stating that 'there are no parts, moments, types or
stages of love [...] only an infinity of shatters,' Nancy's discussion of the movement
of love mirrors the three moments of the re-cognitive structure of self-
consciousness discussed in Hegel's account of the master and slave, and dividing
Nancy's account of the movement of love into these moments can help us to better
grasp what Hegel is getting at in this part of the Phenomenology.33
Love is, for Nancy, 'the extreme movement, beyond the self, of a being
reaching completion,' which he later restates in Hegelian terms as 'having in an
other the moment of one's subsistence.'34 The first moment of love is that I do not
wish to exist as an independent person in my own right, since as this independent
existent I feel deficient and incomplete; in the second moment I then find myself
through the recognition of another person, and they find theirs in me. The

32. The discussion in this section follows Nancy's discussion in: Jean-Luc Nancy, “Shattered
Love,” in A Finite Thinking (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003). And Bernstein's discussion
in J.M. Bernstein, “Early Theological Writings,” Lectures on Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit The
New School. New York City. 20th September (2006):
http://bernsteintapes.com/lectures/Hegel/06EarlyTheologicalWritingD.mp3; J.M. Bernstein,
“Phenomenology of Spirit. Lordship and Bondage. (a).”; J.M. Bernstein, “Phenomenology of Spirit.
Lordship and Bondage. (B).”
33. Jean-Luc Nancy, “Shattered Love,” in A Finite Thinking (Stanford: Stanford University Press,
2003).
34. Ibid., 249.
312

combination of these two moments leads to the third moment, which is the
achievement of the recognition of unity-in-difference. This will now be unpacked.
Because love is essentially other-regarding, the first moment of love can be

referred to as the moral moment of love.35 Our experience of finding our own
meaning or truth in the love-object means that loving something is accompanied by
a feeling of being dispossessed of exclusive self-regard. The lack of reciprocity
here between the subject and the object of love shows that this is not a form of self-
love, which is why this constitutes love's moral moment. The second moment is
the logical aspect of love. Should the other return my love, I then find my
fulfilment in them and they find theirs in me; by finding fulfilment in the other, the
self lacks nothing, life has run the circle of development to a completely mature
unit of self and other. It is this moment that Nancy refers to in his definition of love
as the movement, beyond the self, of a being reaching completion. Since in this
moment, love neither restricts nor is restricted: it is not finite, between self and
other there is no exteriority, no external restriction.36
The third moment of love is a combination of these two prior moments, in

which I recognise a unity-in-difference with that which is not-me. This recognition
entails the renunciation of my absolute autonomy and the recognition of my
connection to the other, but simultaneously recognising that the other remains
absolutely independent, and will die proving this independence.37 This aspect of
love equates to the experience of being 'broken,' and of being constituted by this
exposure. This 'break' should not be confused with being damaged or faulty,
because being 'broken,' being exposed to the existence of others, is what makes us
human. It is only the narcissist who clings to their absolute independence.

35. Ibid., 258.
36. This is what Hegel means by 'infinite,' for example, when he says that, in love, finite life is
raised to infinite life: 'The partial character of the living being is transcended in religion; finite life
raises to infinite life.' G.W.F. Hegel, “Fragment of a System,” in Early Theological Writings
37. J.M. Bernstein, “Phenomenology of Spirit. Lordship and Bondage. (a).”
313

This unity-in-difference does not require a spontaneous one-ness of will: the
self is still a self, an independent agent, but it does realise that this independence is
only relative, and that absolute independence, subjectivity, is illusory. The other
remains other because I cannot make it will things. Although I can will its will and
desire its desire, I cannot force either: I cannot get ahold of the other's freedom. If I
am lucky the other can will what I will and desire what I desire, and in this case I
am united with the other, and them with me. However, the other can stop loving
me at any time, and so remains and must remain other: it cannot be dominated by
either force or reason. This is why love is an immense contradiction that the
understanding simply cannot resolve: the understanding demands either internal
relations or external relations, it wants me to be either in myself (separate) or
immersed in this unity (from which I cannot separate myself from), but I am both,
and there is no whole either holistically or atomistically.38
Unity-in-Difference: Emerson's Experience
We can readily admit that this discussion is not a straightforward one, and
the notion of recognising a unity-in-difference with something that is not-me does
seem foreign. But we can illuminate our discussion of love as the image of our
radical dependency, and its distinction from a model of self-other relations based
upon the subject, through a brief discussion of Ralph Waldo Emerson's essay,
Experience.
Emerson published two collections of essays, the first series in 1841 and the
second in 1844. Preceding the first was the death of his first wife Ellen in 1831.
The nature of Emerson's response to Ellen's death is reflected in the themes of his
first collection. These themes, best illustrated in the 1841 essay Circles, included
nature's forgetfulness, an overcoming of the past through casting off, and the
transcendence of pain and suffering by severing his relations to her. Essentially,
Circles sees Emerson responding to Ellen's death through acts of Stoic resignation

38. Ibid.
314

where he sheds his past and establishes himself as autonomous from it; an
individualism that is carried over to a fourth theme of the collection, the possibility
of self-perfection, where solace is sought by carrying the self to its highest possible
achievement.39
Preceding Emerson's second series of essays published in 1844 was the death
of his five-year-old son Waldo in 1842. Emerson is unable to react to his son's
death as he did to Ellen's, and this bind is reflected in his second collection in
which he adopts a radically different attitude to the autonomous individuality that
characterises the first: an attitude of embracing rather than forgetting; of relations
rather than individuality; and of mature acceptance rather than adolescent
rebellion.40
This shift in attitude is due to the fact that Emerson's stoicism simply does
not work with the passing of his son. He can neither forget Waldo, nor transcend
the experience of his death. Because he cannot achieve a visceral understanding of
Waldo's death, Emerson simply cannot comprehend the death of his son, and is
thus unable to pass through the experience to the other side. Waldo's ghost haunts
him. 41 There is 'no scar' from Waldo's death, there was no ripping apart; no
separation. Emerson writes '[s]ome thing which I fancied was a part of me, which
could not be torn away without tearing me, nor enlarged without enriching me,
falls off from me, and leaves no scar. It was caducous.'42 Emerson is saying to
himself that, if love was what he thought it was, which is what every lover, every
parent thinks love is, then he could not have survived this death; because they were
one. Yet he survived. And that is his terror: that he is absolutely separate.43

39. Ralph Waldo Emerson, Selections From Ralph Waldo Emerson (Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Company, 1960). Stephen Barnes, “Emerson: Death and Growth” (Paper presented at the Society
for the Advancement of American Philosophy, Las Vegas, 2001).
40. Ibid.
41. Ralph Waldo Emerson, Selections From Ralph Waldo Emerson. Stephen Barnes, “Emerson:
Death and Growth.”
42. Ralph Waldo Emerson, Selections From Ralph Waldo Emerson.
of Spirit The New School. New York City. 27th September (2006):
http://bernsteintapes.com/lectures/Hegel/07PhenomenologyIntroA.mp3.
315

The Interruptive Condition of Subjectivity
Clearly the death of a son is an extreme case, but it demonstrates what is for
Hegel a deeper truth about the nature of human existence; that is, the interruptive
condition of subjectivity. For Hegel, I can only gain awareness of myself as an
independent and free personality through the recognition of an other. 'Self-
consciousness exists only in and for itself when, and by the fact that, it so exists for
another; that is, it exists only in being acknowledged.'44 Since I cannot be assured
of being a self-conscious rational being without being recognised as such by the
other, Hegel's claim is that the other mediates my self-relation constitutively.45 For
this reason I remain bound to others on whom I come to depend on for my sense of
self.
Although Emerson is not so affected by Ellen's death, and clearly would be

even less so for the passing of a stranger, the love that he feels for his son brings
stark relief to the human connectedness that Hegel considers to be part of the very
fabric of self-conscious life. Waldo's death reveals Emerson's exposure, attesting
that he is in fact a finite human being who is exposed by his love, and that
consequently, his subjectivity is not wholly up to him. Indeed, Emerson's assertion
of a radical selfhood in response to Ellen's death paradoxically only serves to
affirm this connection. It is her death that spurs him to respond in this way; so,
despite attempting to establish himself as autonomous to his past, his connection to
Ellen remains in the person that he becomes: his Stoic acts of resignation only
distances him from Ellen, the relation simply cannot be severed.
Reading an individualism into Hegel's thought leads to representing inter-

personal relations as external relations between subjects, as 'intersubjective'
relations. Yet if our relations with others were simply external relations, then these

44. G.W.F. Hegel, Phenomenology of Spirit, §178.
45. An opposing view is given by Levinas, for whom the 'not me' is simply opposed to 'me,' but for
Hegel subjectivity requires more than difference: it requires interruption. J.M. Bernstein,
“Phenomenology of Spirit. Lordship and Bondage. (a).”
316

relations would not constitute our own subjectivity. The experience of love thus
discredits the idea that we can consider ourselves to be subjects because we are
fundamentally exposed to the existence to others, an exposure that constitutes the
condition of our own subjectivity.
Importantly, as Emerson attests, we cannot simply transcend these

attachments as if we were essentially undetermined by them. Our individual
freedom thus cannot consist in tearing ourselves away from these commitments,
because these commitments are deeply implicated in who we are; indeed, it is
precisely because I cannot transcend my attachments that I am a person at all. Just
as Emerson's assertion of an independent selfhood can only ever distance himself
from Ellen, thinking of ourselves as subjects is simply a fugitive way of
understanding the self. It is recognising the opposite, that transcendence is an
impossibility, and then acting accordingly, that constitutes the achievement of a
mature personality for Hegel.
Although he formulates it as the recognition of a 'unity-in-difference,' it is

this third moment of love – the recognition that the individual is 'broken' – which
the struggle for recognition leads to.46 This amounts to the achievement of a
mature personality, by renunciating my complete autonomy and recognising my
exposure, whereby self-consciousness has been established through several
moments which, in Hegel's words: 'must on the one hand be held strictly apart, and
on the other hand must in this differentiation at the same time also be taken and
known as not distinct.'47 It is recognising that I am 'broken,' exposed to others in
my subjective being and that my independence is only ever a relative
independence, that constitutes the highest form of self-awareness of the nature of
our own existences as selves.

46. Indeed, Nancy suggests that the Phenomenology can essentially be read as a tome that
ultimately leads to this exposure of the individual (i.e., the individual's exposure to absolute
knowledge). Jean-Luc Nancy, “Shattered Love.”
317

Transcendence: The Crossing of Love
Accompanying this conception of the person is a shift in an understanding of

freedom. Whereas Kantian/Fichtean freedom is predicated on the self transcending
(in the sense of standing above) the objects of its experience and negating that
which negates the exercise of autonomous subjectivity, Hegel's conception of
freedom is an entirely immanent form of transcendence that arises through the
interaction of exposed subjects.
This exposure binds self to other, and transforms both in their interaction;
something of the 'I' is lost in the act of loving: I come back to myself, I come out of
the experience broken.
The "return" does not annul the break; it neither repairs it nor sublates it, for the return in
fact takes place only across the break itself, keeping it open. Love re-presents I to itself
broken (and this is not a representation). It presents this to it: he, this subject, was touched,
broken into, in his subjectivity, and he is from then on, for the time of love, opened by this
slice, broken or fractured, even if only slightly [...] the break is a break in his self-
possession as subject; it is, essentially, an interruption of the process of relating oneself to
oneself outside of oneself. From then on I is constituted broken. As soon as there is love,
the slightest act of love, the slightest spark, there is this ontological fissure that cuts across
and that disconnects the elements of the subject proper [...] The love break simply means
this: that I can no longer, whatever presence to myself I may maintain or that sustains me,
pro-pose myself to myself (nor im-pose myself on another) without remains, without
something of me remaining outside of me.48
It is the interaction between self and other that leads to the transcendence of
the self; it is through the movement of love that I transcend the immanence of my
'subjectivity' and overcome any prior determination of my being. The interruption
of subjectivity is the transcendence of this subjectivity, and the transcendence of
subjectivity is the operation of human freedom. This transcendence is not the
transcendence of the Kantian (knowing or ethical) subject that stands above the
objects of its experience, but is the transcendence of a being that becomes
something else as a result of its interaction with others.

48. Jean-Luc Nancy, “Shattered Love,” 260-61. Butler expresses the same idea differently: 'The
price of self-knowledge will be self-loss, and the Other poses the possibility of both securing and
undermining self-knowledge. What becomes clear, though, is that the self never returns to itself free
of the Other, that its "relationality" becomes constitutive of who the self is.' Judith Butler, “Longing
for Recognition: Commentary on the Work of Jessica Benjamin,” Studies in Gender and Sexuality
1, no. 3 (2000), 286.
318

In order to distinguish this entirely immanent form of transcendence from the

Kantian form of transcendence, it is better termed 'the crossing of love.' This form
of transcendence is termed a 'crossing' because the individual does not 'unite' or
'commune' with the other, as if they stood in an external relation; neither does the
other 'penetrate' the self, transforming one but not the other. Love cuts across self
and other, exposing both.49 As the self-conscious individual is not separated, and is
neither subject nor object, this serves to reinforce our earlier designation of human
beings as finite singular beings: as singularities rather than subjects.
Bound Together: The Community of Fate
Hegel's account of the achievement of self-conscious subjectivity not only

leads us to a very different understanding of the self than that which emerges from
kaleidoscopic readings of him, but also to a very different model of self-other
relations. Moreover, and as a consequence, it leads to a radically different
conception of the nature of community from that presented by Linklater. We will
now explore the nature of these self-other relations, criticising the divergent
strategy employed by 'intersubjective' approaches to emancipatory
cosmopolitanism, before arguing that the character of this community can be
represented by the notion of a 'community of fate'.
I-Thou / I-It
We can illuminate the nature of the relationship between genuinely self-

conscious subjects that have emerged from the struggle for recognition with
reference to Martin Buber's relational schema. Buber, a philosopher, theologian,
and Levinas's friend and mentor is, like Hegel, concerned with the nature of the

49. Jean-Luc Nancy, “Shattered Love,” 262.
319

relationship between self and world.50 Referring to the nature of this relation as a
'between,' which we co-constitute before we know it, the nature of our relation to
the 'between' prefigures all subsequent relations that we have. In a similar vein to
Hegel's development of different forms of consciousness from an underlying unity
of life, Buber begins from a relational situation of all beings, akin to a prenatal
existence, out of which the establishment of a separate 'I' requires a fundamental
split. The establishment of this separate 'I' can then lead to the separateness of an I-
it relation, built on the schism of subject and object. This I-it relation is the typical
subject-object relationship 'in which one knows and uses other persons or things
without allowing them to exist for oneself in their uniqueness.'51
However, the I-it relation is not the only possible mode of interaction
between self and other, and Buber contrasts it to the I-Thou relation: a concrete
encounter between two persons that is characterised by openness, mutuality, and
presence.52 Whereas in the I-it relation I experience a detached thing (an object), in
the I-Thou relation self and other participate in a dynamic process in which we
exist as as polarities of relation, the centre of which is the ‘between’. Importantly,
the 'I' of man differs in these alternative modes of existence. The 'I' can be taken as
the sum of its attributes or acts, an abstracted essence that permits it to be
represented as a subject, or it can be taken as a singular, irreducible, finite being.
Only in the I-Thou relation is the other truly other, rather than existing as a
representative object for a subject, and only in this concrete encounter can the 'I'
develop as a whole being. Although Buber challenges Hegel in important respects
in his lecture What is Man, Buber's categorisation here can illuminate our response
to Linklater through Hegel, and help us to shed any latent religiosity, mysticism or
romanticism when discussing Hegel's notion of love – by foregrounding the ethical
logic that is reflected in the experience of love.
Since the establishment of a separate 'I' requires a split from a prior unity,
just as for Hegel, and in contrast to Kant, for Buber subjectivity is not

50. Martin Buber, Between Man and Man (London: Routledge, 2002).
51. Ibid., xii.
52. Martin Buber, I and Thou (London: Continuum, 2004).
320

foundational, but derivative. Moreover, this 'I' has different modes of interaction
with the world, Buber's I-it relation thus resonating with Hegel's analysis of object-
oriented forms of consciousness, both of which are inappropriate as relations to
persons. In this respect, as a relation between persons, Buber's I-Thou relation
echoes what Hegel seeks to achieve through the struggle for recognition: namely,
the transcendence of an object-oriented form of consciousness in the concrete
encounter with another human being. In Hegel's version, both 'subjects' actively
react against their reduction to objects, demonstrating right up to the pain of death
that they are underdetermined by their constitution as subjects in order to achieve
mutual recognition between mature personalities (i.e., self-conscious
subjectivities).
For both Buber and Hegel our mode of interaction with the world is
constitutive of the self. While for Buber the 'I' of man differs according to our
mode of interaction with the world, for Hegel subject and object are mutually
conditioning, and both are transformed in the interaction between self and world. It
is only in the I-Thou relation that both relata can develop as whole beings – just as
the interaction between mutually recognising self-consciousnesses is the condition
of a complete personality for Hegel. Although Buber's I and Thou is criticised for
denigrating I-it relations, he does not deny their usefulness and necessity. His point
is that one is only fully human to the extent that one can participate in the I-thou
relation. Similarly, Hegel would identify the I-it relation as a form of diremption of
life, epitomised by Kantian dualism between subject and object, a duality that is
transcended when the self achieves recognition of its own exposure.
Intersubjectivity: Walls and Bridges
Essentially what both Hegel and Buber recognise is that there is a different
kind of relation here, between I and Thou, and that it is this relation that constitutes
properly ethical relations between self and other. Since reflective thought
represents ethical relations as relations between ethical subjects, it constitutes a
321

retreat from the concrete relation between singular finite beings that are not
reducible to their ethical subjectivity. The problem is that in affirming the
sovereignty of reason in ethical subjectivity, we reinforce the split between self and
other and distort the nature of the 'between,' which adversely affects both self and
other. Moreover, as we have seen, by reducing persons to ethical subjects we
preclude the possibility of a genuine encounter with the other.
This is the problem of reading a methodological individualism into Hegel: it

reduces concrete interactions between self-conscious beings to relations between
things. If we were to draw out the implications of this insight regarding ethical and
emancipatory relations between persons even further, we might go so far as to
suggest that this indicates a more fundamental problem: that, perhaps, we are
constitutively unable to build an ethical and emancipatory cosmopolitanism
theoretically. One of the central problems with developing an ethical and
emancipatory cosmopolitanism from individualist, subjectivist premises is that this
essentially involves a strategy of building walls around the self, before attempting
to surmount those walls and bridge relations between selves through the exercise of
reason.
As we saw in Chapter 2, Linklater is far from unfamiliar with Hegel's

thought, especially with Hegel's insight into the social and historical constitution of
subjectivity and development of self-conscious freedom. Further, Linklater's later
works are not anti-Hegelian in their themes in as much as they engage in an
historical-sociological analysis of the evolution of the moral capacities of the
human being, and he does attempt to do justice to this notion of a unity-in-
difference, most evident in his desire to balance universality and particularity in
Transformation. However, Linklater's emphasis on discourse ethics simply serves
to reaffirm a separation between individuals by treating them as ethical subjects.
Here, concrete differences between individuals are supposedly reconciled through
discursive reason and ethical constructivism, but he is constitutively unable to
achieve this reconciliation because he remains reliant on thinking the individual as
a Kantian ethical subject (where the individual is represented as an autonomous
322

ground of action) before subsequently 'bridging' the relation between subject and
subject through the exercise of reason. In so doing Linklater effectively imposes a
vision of the ethical subject onto the human being. Not only can this imposition be
considered neither ethical nor emancipatory, but it serves to alienate self from
other.
While for Linklater individuals are by no means unconditioned, and they

exist in a social-historical context, this contradictory position that he gets himself
into is a direct consequence of failing to adequately apply Hegel's insight about
what self-conscious subjectivity entails and, in the last instance, treating human
beings as ethical subjects. This is precisely what Hegel insists against, and it is
why the struggle for recognition is essentially a struggle between love and death
rather than simply about the path to the constitution of free subjectivity. What
Hegel is demonstrating to us, not only in the struggle for recognition in §§178-196
of the Phenomenology on 'Lordship and Bondage,' but also in his Spirit of
Christianity and Fragment on Love essays, as well as in the Philosophy of Right
(specifically in the distinction drawn between Moralität and Sittlichkeit) is that as
individuals, our subjectivity is not absolute or foundational – and that hence
ultimately, we cannot adequately be referred to, or be treated as subjects. Through
the re-cognitive structure of self-consciousness Hegel is demonstrating to us that
we are connected to each other in ways that go beyond what can adequately be
represented by reflective thought, and that consequently reason is of limited value
for representing the relations between self and other. The struggle for recognition
is about a mutual dependence between self and other that reason is unable to
adequately grasp, where what is ultimately demonstrated is that the notion of the
subject is an inappropriate way of thinking about the relations between self and
other. This is why the free subject is the non-vital end of the struggle, and why the
relations between self and other that are modelled here are better understood as a
struggle between love and death.
Consequently, Linklater's dualist approach to emancipatory cosmopolitanism

establishes walls around the autonomous subject while it simultaneously attempts
323

to surmount that subjectivity through the exercise of discursive reason. By building
these walls around the subject freedom does not consist in the concrete interaction
between persons, but in the adoption of a universal perspective and acting
according to the rules given thereby. In addition to the problems associated with
the foundational ethical subject explored in the previous chapter, this involves an
alienation from our radical dependency, from the interruptive condition of our own
subjectivity, which leads to a limited account of human freedom and threatens to
alienate ourselves from the depth phenomena of human existence: from a genuine
experience of our own individual existences as selves, from a full appropriation
and experience of our freedom, and an from an authentic experience of
community. In short, the very experiences that make us human.53
The Community of Fate
We have seen that it is precisely the notion of an ethical subject that

constitutes the stumbling block to a thinking of community; a commitment that,
ironically, leads to the impossibility of a genuine encounter with the other.
Moreover, we argued that the theoretical construction of a more universal human
community is probably destined to fail. Questions remain however about post-
Westphalian forms of community: about how we ought to effect emancipatory
political change, and how we can overcome our solipsistic particularisms if not by
the establishment of some common measure such as 'impartial' ethical principles.
This section will argue that developing the notion of a 'community of fate' can help
us respond to these questions.
In Chapter 4 we saw that for Heidegger resolute solicitous being-with others

is the authentic appropriation of Da-sein's freedom, and that this form of activity is
both dependent on and expressive of human freedom. We learnt that this involves
acting in ways of 'caring' for others, and that this was a nascent but fruitful

53. Heidegger has a similar concern about the Western technological civilisation see Gregory Bruce
Smith, Martin Heidegger: Paths Opened, Paths Taken (Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007), 3.
324

alternative to conceptualising interpersonal relations as intersubjective relations.
Nonetheless, we concluded that the weakness of Heidegger's account was that it
falls short when it comes to a demonstrating that both freedom and self-
intelligibility are ineluctably acquired in relations to others under conditions of
cooperative interaction, and that Hegel's intersubjective account of freedom and
self-hood is more convincing. We are now in a position to substantiate that claim,
and to suggest that an important aspect of any emancipatory cosmopolitanism
involves not just establishing the conditions for the exercise of subjectivity, but
engaging in resolute solicitous being-with others and cultivating the awareness of
our shared participation within a 'community of fate.'
We have seen that while both Kant and Fichte identify the self with reason
rather than the authority of someone else, Hegel thinks that this view of self-other
relations, where a sharp distinction is drawn between the rational self and
everything else, is a mode of escape or self-withdrawal from our condition of
radical dependency. Hegel follows Fichte in understanding the self as its own self-
positing activity, but the self is regarded as the outcome of this activity rather than
its condition. Selfhood is not achieved through an aloofness of subject to object,
but through engaged participation in the world of objects and other
consciousnesses. Self-conscious selfhood (subjectivity) is achieved when I
recognise that I exist in a condition of unity-in-difference with others on whom I
am dependent for the constitution of my own subjectivity.
The idea that is modelled in Hegel's account of the master and slave – the
interruptive condition of subjectivity, that were we are left fundamentally exposed
to the other as part of the very fabric of our being – leads to self and other being
bound together in a community of fate. This is not a community based upon an
abstraction, such as one in which we participate simply by virtue of being 'human'
rather than 'non-human' – where specific attributes or capacities, such as
compassion for others, or universal ethical reasoning, have to be used or developed
in order for us to become 'fully human' – but is an existential community that is
325

created and recreated through our own activity, constituting the social matrix
within which humans become the kinds of beings that we are.
This experience of being broken, of being exposed, reveals my bind to others

– and, regardless of whether I recognise this exposure, I can either distance myself
from others through my actions, or I can identify with them. But I cannot sever this
bind. For Hegel at least, recognising this exposure amounts to the achievement of a
higher form of self-consciousness. Subsequently identifying with it, and taking
other's interests as not entirely distinct from my own – whereby the other is
regarded not as an external limitation on my own freedom but as co-constitutive of
it – is essential to the progressive development of human freedom.
The central idea here is that, ultimately, our self is not up to us: that we are
reliant on others not just for the things that we have and the things that we do, but
also for the very way that we are. This is not a psychological claim, but an
ontological one. Clearly we develop psychologically in relations to others. A child
is fundamentally dependent on their parents and other caregivers, and we all
develop at least initially in relation to others. As an ontological claim though, the
idea is not just that the self develops in relation to others, but that in some sense
that this relation precedes the self.
Co-dependent Arising
At least from the point of view of a Western cultural tradition, this is clearly
a paradoxical thought, which is why at least one commentator has suggested that
here Hegel perhaps reaches the end or limit of traditional Western thought and
approaches the East. 54 There are striking similarities here with a Buddhist
metaphysics of 'no thing' and dependent arising, for example. The latter (Sanskrit:
Pratītyasamutpāda) is a cardinal Buddhist doctrine that all phenomena arise

54. See the comments section on J.M. Bernstein, “An Interview With J.M. Bernstein,” The New
York Times Opinionator 21st November (2011).
326

together in a mutually dependent web of cause and effect. In the Madhyamaka
philosophy, founded by Nāgārjuna, this is synonymous with saying that all things
and persons are lacking in inherent existence and are without any enduring
essential nature; that there is no independently existing self and that all phenomena
depend on other things for their existence.55
Clearly this is a very different model of community from that which we are
accustomed to, but at its most basic it is simply a model of radical human
dependency at the level of self-consciousness. Hegel's idea is that the subject
(Geist, mind) is not in the head, but is in the social world, embodied in relations of
intersubjectivity, meaning that we are radically dependent on others for who we
are. The minimal unit for there to be self-conscious subjectivity is two, we cannot
have an immediate relationship to ourselves, our being is always mediated by the
other. But two is never enough; we always need the third: for an 'I think' we need a
'we think,' and this 'we think' is embodied in Geist.56
A key contention here is that rather than being something that bubbles up
from the ego or the id, the self is something that exists between you and me; i.e.,
that my subjectivity is essentially related to the way that people respond to me.57
Who I am is how I connect, how I get responded to, how I get recognised or fail to
get recognised by others. Others can harm, degrade, and devalue me, and it this is
in these relations of intersubjectivity that human life is lived. We are taught
independence since we need to separate from our parents, from our school, and
from our peer group. It is important to us that our lives are not pre-scripted, and
that we make our own way. Consequently, we seek to establish or secure our own

55. See Nāgārjuna, The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way: Nāgārjuna’s
Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, trans. Jay L. Garfield (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995),
24:18,24:19. also Dalai Lama, How to Practice: The Way to a Meaningful Life, trans. Jeffrey
Hopkins (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2002), 137,149,156-159. Candrakīrti, Introduction to the
Middle Way: Chandrakirti’s Madhyamakavatara (Boston: Shambhala Publications, 2002).
Elizabeth Napper, Dependent-Arising and Emptiness: A Tibetan Buddhist Interpretation of
Mādhyamika Philosophy Emphasizing the Compatibility of Emptiness and Conventional
Phenomena (Somerville, MA: Wisdom Publications, 2003).
56. J.M. Bernstein, “Introduction,” Lectures on Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit The New School.
New York City. 9th September (2006): http://bernsteintapes.com/lectures/Hegel/01IntroA.mp3.
57. J.M. Bernstein, “An Interview With J.M. Bernstein.”
327

independence, and as a result freedom is often understood in terms of an individual
thought as subject participating with other subjects on mutually agreeable terms.58
The problem with this conception of freedom from a Hegelian perspective,

however, is that it denies our mutual dependence and thus misrecognises
'subjective' freedom as an absolute freedom. It thereby contributes to the crises of
modernity, where dualisms between self and other, individual and community, man
and nature are taken to be absolute or foundational. To put it differently, our
mutual dependence and independence as finite singular beings does necessarily
equate to the subjective freedom associated with the sense of a self-directing 'I:'
our subjective freedom as individuals is not an absolute independence. Instead, our
subjective freedom only warrants us a partial independence, and so imagining
ourselves as subjects ultimately misrecognises the nature of our own existence and
leads to forms of alienation of self from other. Curiously we feel an indebtedness
to another is a limitation on our freedom rather than its proper condition, so we
tend to block out our dependency since it is almost always a sign of failure – just as
when we are old, ill, or incapacitated – rather than acknowledging it and
celebrating positive images of this dependency, playing in an orchestra, for
instance.59 From this perspective freedom is not the establishment of a separate 'I,'
nor does it equate to the ethical self-determination of the individual, although these
are both moments of freedom: true freedom is found through engagement, and self-
conscious, emancipatory engagement proceeds from the knowledge of love.
Action that Follows from the Knowledge of Love: The Condition of Ethical
Relations and the Full Appropriation of Human Freedom.
Since it proceeds from the recognition of the nature of the self's dependency
on others, action that follows from the knowledge of love is ultimately the
condition of a truly ethical and emancipatory politics. Such an approach to an

58. These Hegelian insights are Jay Bernstein's. See J.M. Bernstein, “Introduction (a).” J.M.
Bernstein, “An Interview With J.M. Bernstein.”
59. Ibid.
328

ethical and emancipatory politics might lead to a form of cosmopolitanism based
upon the recognition that emancipatory political action is not simply about
defending other people's rights to engage in dialogue with us, but involves being
aware that my fate is bound with yours (at least when it comes to self-conscious
individuality). Such an approach to an emancipatory politics would not require that
we 'bridge' relations between subjects through the exercise of reason, but would
demand instead that we foster an attunement to the social conditions of our own
'subjectivity'. On this basis it would then require that the relationship between self
and world be characterised by relations of openness, mutuality and co-presence;
relations that would contribute to the liberation of both self and other.
The rationale for this is as follows. By recognising my exposure and

subsequently identifying with the other within a common structure of unity-in-
difference, I transcend my previously alienated condition of a subject facing other
subjects in external relations between subject and object. This attunement to the
conditions of my own subjectivity leads to the possibility of a fuller appropriation
of my own freedom: a freedom that does not consist in an isolation from my
relations with others but in engagement with them. Because this engagement is
based upon the recognition of the other as other, rather than as subject or object, it
is also the proper condition of ethical relations between self and world. This
engagement, in order to be ethical, involves eschewing attempt to manage,
dominate, or control others (or at least recognising the essential limitations of these
engagements) and relating to the other as a singularity.60 Here ethical relations are
grounded not in universal ethical reason, but in the cultivation of loving relations
between self and other where I am motivated less by a desire to act according to
duty – the course of action that I should take if I wish to act like an ethical subject
– but from the recognition that the other's interests are not wholly distinct from my
own.

60. Recognising the essential limitations of these forms of engagements does not deny that there
will be a great many situations in world politics where the management or control of political
differences will represent an ethically significant improvement on a previous state of affairs,
particularly in cases where the protagonists are in a violent confrontation with one another. The
point being made here is that pacification or control is more a politically expedient or pragmatic
resolution rather than a truly ethical one.
329

Conclusions
We began the chapter by arguing that love is not an object of knowledge, but
is a lived experience, and that we should therefore change our focus from the eidos
of love to the ethos of love. Understanding love as an ethos is to regard it as an
experience through which we transcend object-oriented forms of consciousness
thereby achieving a higher level of self-awareness of the living union between self
and world. Understood in this way, we claimed that such an ethos of love can be
considered as a proto-phenomenological attitude that suspends the objectified
world in abeyance in order to attune the self to practical experience, thereby
making a more genuine encounter with the world possible.
We then saw that the experience of love is formative in the development of

Hegel's central and characteristic concepts, such as his dialectic logic, his
organicist conception of freedom, and his notion of ethical life (Sittlichkeit).
Nonetheless, we learnt that twentieth-century interpretations of Hegel's thought
have elevated the role of reason to a position from which Hegel consistently and
insistently displaces it, effectively severing or 'killing' the living relationship
between self and world, subject and object, that is absolutely central to Hegel's
thought. What is at stake here, we claimed, is nothing less than a recognition of a
genuine, authentic relationship between self and world, of the (limited) authority of
reason, and of the emancipatory role of praxis.
We later discussed Hegel's account of the master and slave, which is not an
account of the interaction of two independent self-conscious subjects demanding
recognition from each other, but is an account whereby the respective protagonists
overcome object-oriented forms of consciousness and thereby achieve self-
conscious subjectivity as a result of their concrete interaction. For this reason, we
argued, the account of the master and slave is about our radical dependency on
330

others for our own sense of self, and that the mutual recognition between free
beings ('subjects') is only the non-vital end of this struggle.
Consequently, the achievement of what we have termed 'self-conscious

subjectivity, gaining a proper awareness of the nature of our own existence as
individual selves, involves recognising our unity-in-difference: that our
'subjectivity' is ultimately illusory and that others mediate our self-relation
constitutively. It is for this reason that the achievement of self-conscious
subjectivity is modelled on the experience of love. This then leads to a different
form of freedom, where freedom is thought as 'the crossing of love.' In contrast to
Linklater/Habermas's Kantianism, this is an entirely immanent form of
transcendence that occurs through the concrete interaction of self-conscious
subjects.
The problem with Linklater's emancipatory cosmopolitanism from this point

of view is that it employs a strategy whereby walls are built around individuals
(conceived as ethical subjects) while it simultaneously attempts to surmount these
walls by establishing relations between subjects whose independence has already
been asserted. In summary, we claim that Linklater's reliance on the existence of an
ethical subject ultimately (and paradoxically) reifies individuals, distorts the nature
of our interactions, and alienates ourselves from the depth phenomena of our
existence: from a genuine experience of our own individual existences as selves,
from a full appropriation and experience of our freedom, and an from an authentic
experience of community; the very experiences that make us human.
Since it is precisely the notion of an ethical subject that constitutes the

stumbling block to a thinking of community, a foundational commitment that
ironically leads to the impossibility of a genuine encounter with the other, an
ethical and emancipatory politics begins to take a different shape. For instance, we
argued that a politics that aims to overcome our solipsistic particularisms and
develop more inclusive post-Westphalian communities ought not primarily be
concerned with the establishment of some common measure, such as 'impartial'
331

moral principles, but should involve cultivation an attunement to a practical
relation to reality and to the existence of others.
We represented this with the notion of our shared participation within a

community of fate, where an attunement to the existence of others becomes part of
a deeper fabric of our own self-understanding and informs the way that I relate to
myself, to others, and to the social and political institutions in which I am
enmeshed. In this account of an ethical and emancipatory politics, our freedom is
no longer about the ability of the ethical subject to abstract from its particularity
and act according to maxims that have been subjected to the test of
universalisability (even across state boundaries) but involves an attunement to, and
sense of responsibility towards, the social conditions of our own individuality.
This is not a community of ethical subjects, nor one based on the possibility
of mutual understanding, but is a community of mutually conditioning finite
singular beings co-existing in their becoming. In Chapter 4 we argued that an
authentic mode of being in the world involves solicitous being-with others, where
engaging with others as others, and in a way that 'frees up' their potentiality for
being. Hegel's contribution to this mode of being in the world involves self-
conscious subjects recognising that such an activity contributes to their own
liberation too, by overcoming forms of alienation between self and other that
seems to follow from object-oriented forms of consciousness.
In contrast to the establishment of the conditions of subjectivity then, which

can only achieve a partial and limited ethical and emancipatory politics, it is action
that follows from the knowledge of love that is the condition of a properly ethical
and emancipatory politics. The experience of love, which leads to a greater
awareness of the social conditions of my own subjectivity, allows us to be more
attentive to our co-dependent arising, and helps us move beyond a politics
predicated on the subject, and lead to a fuller engagement with the depth
phenomena of our existence, and a fuller appropriation of our freedom. The next
chapter will develop this claim by arguing for the development of a cosmopolitan
332

ethos from these premises, fleshing out the essentially ethical logic of the
experience of love, and exploring the nature of this logic as a guide for
emancipatory praxis.
333
Chapter 8.
The Lived Character of Ethics
Introduction
We have seen that when it comes to the interactions between self and world,
both Heidegger and Hegel consider the theoretical attitude to lead to an
objectification of human experience and an alienation of self from world. This
leads them both to develop pre- and post-theoretical relations to reality.
Heidegger's pre-theoretical relation to reality entails human beings being enjoined
into resolute solicitous being-with others, while Hegel's pre- and post-theoretical
relation involves an overcoming of object-oriented forms of consciousness through
the achievement of self-conscious subjectivity – where the self recognises the
social conditions of its own individuality and acts accordingly. In the last chapter
we argued that the experience of love provides a demonstration of our exposure to
the existence of others, with phenomenological enquiry demonstrating that this is
so, and that fully ethical and emancipatory relations with others were relations that
proceeded from this knowledge rather than on the basis of some notion of
‘intersubjectivity’.
We return here to a point made in Chapter 6, where we claimed that the

experience of love plays a formative role in the development of three of Hegel's
most important ideas. We focus here on one of these: that 'love' is the feeling of
ethical life (Sittlichkeit) in its natural form. Just as rationalist interpretations of
Hegel obscure his insights about the achievement of self-conscious subjectivity,
they also obscure his insights into the nature of ethical life. Both Habermas and
Linklater, for instance, mistakenly regard ethical life as essentially atavistic, and
PART 3/Ch8. The Lived Character of Ethics

thus subordinate it to ethical rationality. This reverses Hegel's own conception of
the relation between moral law (Moralität) and ethical life (Sittlichkeit), so that it
falls into line with their commitments to understanding the individual as subject
rather than as a potentially self-conscious subject. We argue that this denies them a
powerful tool for critical social theory, a claim that we defend in our conclusion.
Love in Practical Philosophy
The subject of love has played a minor role in postwar philosophy, with
practical philosophy paying little attention to its concept and essence. There are
several reasons for this, but, as Honneth suggests, they ultimately 'derive from the
predominance of a concept of morality geared so strongly towards principles of
impartiality that personal relationships hardly seemed worthy of inquiry.' 1 He
further explains that in the postwar Anglo-Saxon world, practical philosophy did
not engage in any serious exploration of the experience of love largely as a
consequence of a 'narrow interpretation of Wittgenstein,' where focus lay on meta-
ethics and the logical status of moral statements; as the dominance of this approach
receded, 'the resurgent currents of utilitarianism and Kantianism then saw to it that
the subject remained in the margins of philosophical interest.'2 In the German-
speaking world, if we were to take the phenomenological tradition further beyond
Heidegger to Max Scheler, we would rediscover 'a work enormous current
importance in philosophy's treatment of the subject.'3 Yet Scheler's influence was
quickly overshadowed by that of Heidegger.
Nonetheless, in the 1970s a full-scale turn towards topics of love and

friendship was initiated by Michael Stocker's seminal essay The Schizophrenia of
Modern Ethical Theories.4 Stocker's central claim was that modern ethical theories

1. Axel Honneth, Disrespect: The Normative Foundations of Critical Theory (London: Polity,
2007), 163.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid., 163-64.
4. Michael Stocker, “The Schizophrenia of Modern Ethical Theories,” The Journal of Philosophy
73, no. 14 (1976): 453-66.
335

had failed to examine motives and the motivational structures of ethical life, and
thus dealt 'only with reasons, with values, with what justifies.'5 Stocker argued that
this exclusive concern with moral rationalism led to ethical theories ignoring the
fact that love, friendship, affection, fellow feeling and community are important
sources of moral action, and that by ignoring them modern ethical theories force
moral agents to live a bifurcated, schizophrenic life in order to achieve what is
good.6
The Long Shadow of Immanuel Kant
With the possible exception of Andreas Wildt, who drew on Hegel's early
work to point out 'forms of moral awareness that could not be defined in legal or
contractual terms, thus setting them in opposition to the posture of impartial justice
favoured by Kant,' the vast majority of the subsequent treatment of love in
practical philosophy has remained trapped within a Kantian moral paradigm.7
Honneth's discussion of love in his essay Love and Morality is a case in point.8 We
have already seen how Honneth reads Hegel through a kaleidoscope of the Kantian
subject, reading into Hegel an individualism that obscures the ontological and
ethical significance of his account of love; this is reflected in his conclusion of his
survey of contemporary approaches to love and practical philosophy, where he
states that love 'does not lead us to abandon the idea of moral duty, but rather to
diversify it.'9
Rather than being an experience through which object-oriented

consciousness is overcome and an attunement to a practical relation to reality is

5. Ibid.
6. Stocker uses the example of a friend visiting you in hospital. You are pleased to see them until
you find out that they are visiting you, not out of any particular concern for you, but out of a sense
of moral duty. The point is that there is something wholly deficient about action motivated purely
by duty; we want to be visited by someone who cares about us directly, not about his duty. Ibid.
7. Axel Honneth, Disrespect: The Normative Foundations of Critical Theory, 164. Andreas Wildt,
Autonomie Und Annerkennung: Hegel’s Moralitatskritik Im Lichte Seiner Fichte-Rezeption
(Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1982).
8. Axel Honneth, Disrespect: The Normative Foundations of Critical Theory, 163-81.
9. Ibid., 178.
336

achieved, for Honneth love is simply an affective bind that we have to people close
to us, such as to our family – a relationship that must be appropriately balanced
with the respect that we owe to all.10 Pointing out that Honneth's ethic is 'very
"communitarian" in the bad sense of that word,' Blunden's critique of Honneth's
ethic of recognition illuminates the differences between Honneth's treatment of
love and the one developed here.11
Blunden reduces Honneth’s ethical claim to the claim that 'individuals are
entitled to expect appropriate love, respect and esteem from other people with
whom they interact.'12 A claim that is 'supplemented by the psychological claim
that people suffer injury to their moral development if they fail to receive the
affirmation that they expect from others by way of love, respect and esteem.'13 The
problem however is that, if 'solidarity' is given on the basis of the person's
contribution to the community, and 'rights' are what are owed to everyone as a
human being, then:
there is no place in Honneth's system for solidarity in the sense of hospitality, or

unconditional support extended to a stranger. But solidarity in this sense is the very
foundation of modern, urban, multicultural society, and Honneth's failure to incorporate it
in his ethics is problematic. On the basis of what mode of "recognition" would a stranger
give up their seat on a bus to a pregnant woman, or assist a lost child? According to
Honneth one owes loving care only to those with whom one has a close personal bond, one
owes solidarity only to those who have earned your esteem, and what one owes to a
stranger is only their rights. There is no room for the supererogatory. What right does the
child have for the care of a stranger? [...] What right, under Honneth's schema, does a child
have at all, for a child is not yet a subject.14
Honneth's treatment of love as a diversification of moral duty – as 'a form of

intersubjective relationship in which the persons involved are entitled to a degree
of reciprocal benevolence greater than that which can be expressed in the
observance of the Kantian requirement of respect' – is indicative of a general trend
in the way that love has been treated in practical philosophy. That is, to focus on
attempting to reconcile the special obligations that we undoubtedly owe to some

10. Ibid., 164.
11. Andy Blunden, “The Missing Mediation in Pragmatic Interpretations of Hegel,”
http://home.mira.net/~andy/works/missing-mediation.htm (accessed 29th June 2012, 2012).
12. Ibid.
13. Ibid.
14. Ibid.
337

(such as family members) with the opposing moral demand that we treat everyone
as equals.15
Kant casts a long shadow over these discussions. Recognising that the
partiality of loving relations exist in tension with practical reason's principle of
universalisability, Kant distinguishes between two aspects of love in his
Groundwork and in the Metaphysics of Morals: 'practical' love and 'pathological'
love.16 Insisting that morality must override loving relations, practical love is love
that is grounded in and subordinate to reason; love recalcitrant to such
subordination is considered 'pathological.'17 Kant thus treats love essentially as
problem for morality, and in a way that asserts the sovereignty of reason over
desire, the priority of concept over being: both serving to affirm a foundational
commitment to the individual thought as ethical subject.
Hegel: Love as the Condition of Morality
Hegel's famous critique of Kant's ethical theory proceeds from close readings
of both Kant's ethics of duty and the major alternative in moral theory at the time,

15. Axel Honneth, Disrespect: The Normative Foundations of Critical Theory, 178. See, for
example Michael A. Slote, Goods and Virtues (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983). J.D. Velleman,
“Love as a Moral Emotion,” Ethics 109, no. 2 (1999): 338-74. Susan Wolf, “Morality and
Partiality,” Philosophical Perspectives 6 (1992): 243-59.
16. It is worth noting that not all accounts of love see its universality and partiality as necessarily
contradictory. As Moseley explains: ‘The universalism of agape runs counter to the partialism of
Aristotle and poses a variety of ethical implications. Aquinas admits a partialism in love towards
those we are related while maintaining that we should be charitable to all, whereas others such as
Kierkegaard insist on impartiality. Recently, Hugh LaFallotte (1991) has noted that to love those
one is partial towards is not necessarily a negation of the impartiality principle, for impartialism
could admit loving those closer to one as an impartial principle, and, employing Aristotle's
conception of self-love, iterates that loving others requires an intimacy that can only be gained from
being partially intimate. Others would claim that the concept of universal love, of loving all equally,
is not only impracticable, but logically empty - Aristotle, for example, argues: "One cannot be a
friend to many people in the sense of having friendship of the perfect type with them, just as one
cannot be in love with many people at once (for love is a sort of excess of feeling, and it is the
nature of such only to be felt towards one person)"' Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics, trans. David
Ross (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), VIII.6. Alexander Moseley, “’Philosophy of Love’
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy,” http://www.iep.utm.edu/love/.
17. Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals: A German-English Edition, trans.
Mary Gregor (Cambridge: Cambridge, 2011), 27,399,31. Immanuel Kant, The Metaphysics of
Morals (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 203,401.
338

the Scottish theory of moral sentiments. Hegel read Hume, Rousseau, Kant and
Smith carefully, and is concerned throughout his philosophy (not just in his early
works) to overcome the tension between love and reason. Eschewing the
foundational commitment to an ethical subject, Hegel sees a broader ontological
significance to the experience to love, and he reverses Kant's formulation of the
relation between love and morality. Explicitly responding to Kant's notion of a
pathological love in his Spirit essay, he writes:
[O]f course "love cannot be commanded;" of course it is "pathological, an inclination;" but

it detracts nothing from its greatness, it does not degrade it, that its essence is not a
domination of something alien to it. But this does not mean that it is something
subordinate to duty and right; on the contrary, it is rather love's triumph over these that it
lords over nothing, it is without any hostile power over another.
[...]
Only through love is the might of objectivity broken, for love upsets its whole sphere
[...]
Love alone has no limits. What it has not united with itself is not objective to it; love has
overlooked it or not yet developed it; it is not confronted by it.18
While Kantian approaches to love forcibly reassert the sovereignty of the

ethical subject by shoehorning the experience of love into a deontological moral
schema, reconciling love's partiality with the overwhelming authority and
universality of practical reason, on the Hegelian view the experience of love tells
us something deeper about our own existential condition: that we are not actually
ethical subjects relating to objects (such as other ethical subjects).
On this view, love is not simply a special relationship between subjects who
love each other, but is an experience associated with a higher form of awareness of
the relation between self and world. Here, the self's independence is recognised as
only a relative independence; ultimately leading to the possibility of the sublation
of egoistic and object-oriented forms of consciousness into a form of other-
directedness, akin to what Gilligan identifies as 'care.' While for the Kantian love
must be grounded in the will if it not to be 'pathological,' for Hegel the converse is
true: the rational will must be grounded in love. And, as we shall see in our later
discussion of the Spirit essay, if not subordinate to this other-directedness, it is

18. G.W.F. Hegel, “The Spirit of Christianity and Its Fate,” in Early Theological Writings
339

reason that becomes pathological. From a Hegelian perspective then, love is the
condition of morality.
It is Harry Frankfurt who is the closest contemporary exponent of this view.

His central claim is that:
The origins of normativity do not lie [...] either in the transient incitements of personal
feeling and desire [as some Humeans would have it], or in the severely anonymous
requirements of eternal reason [as some Kantians would have it]. They lie in the
contingent necessities of love. These move us, as feelings and desires do; but the
motivations that love engenders are not merely adventitious or (to use Kant's term)
heteronomous. Rather, like the universal laws of pure reason, they express something that
belongs to our most intimate and most fundamental nature. Unlike the necessities of
reason, however, those of love are not impersonal. They are constituted by and embedded
in structures of the will through which the specific identity of the individual is most
particularly defined.19
Frankfurt thus associates volitional qualities with love, defining it as an

involuntary form of caring that involves an investment in and identification with
that which is loved, and is not dependent on reciprocity or symmetry. He sees in
the experience of love an originary quality as a form of motivation – from love
springs other drives: esteem, value, and reasons for action. By regarding love as a
source and limit on the will, Frankfurt defends an essentially Hegelian position that
regards love as the ultimate ground of practical rationality: that rationality is
dependent upon moral experience, that the authority of practical reason is lesser
than that of love, and that the authority of reason is itself grounded in the authority
of love.20
Deflecting the Ethical
According primacy to love over an essentially limited moral rationality

further pits this reading of Hegel against that of Habermas and Linklater. Although
neither denies that other-directedness is an important component of morality, both

19. Harry G. Frankfurt, The Reasons of Love (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 48.
20. Ibid., 170. Harry G. Frankfurt, Taking Ourselves Seriously and Getting it Right (Stanford:
Stanford University Press, 2006).
340

fail to recognise the full ethical and ontological significance of Gilligan's
identification of the dual context of moral maturity. While Gilligan's criticism of
Kohlberg resembles that of Hegel's critique of Kant, Habermas and Linklater's
rationalist interpretations of Hegel essentially obscure the nature of Hegel's
position; similarly, their ontological commitment to a foundational ethical subject
means that they are unable to grasp the full implications of Gilligan's position. This
significance, we will argue, is that it reflects a fundamental discontinuity between
the logics of love and law: between ethics and politics.
We saw that Habermas's discourse ethics proceeds from a moral cognitivist

belief that ethical subjects can approximate knowledge of universal, 'objective'
moral principles. In his response to Gilligan's critique of Kohlberg, Habermas
reasserts the sovereignty of ethical subjectivity by insisting that an ethics of care
supplements a universalistic form of moral reasoning.
The unique disposition of a particular case that calls for regulation, and the concrete
characteristics of the people involved, come into view only after problem of justification
have been resolved. It is only when it has to be established which of the prima facie valid
norms is the most appropriate to the given situation and the associated conflict that a
maximally complete description of all the relevant features of the particular context must
be given.21
Linklater responds twice to Gilligan in Transformation, both times reflecting

Habermas's reassertion of ethical subjectivity. His first discussion recognises the
feminist claim that women frequently speak in a different voice to men, but
concludes that the ethic of care simply cannot deal with social relations separated
by considerable distances.22 Although only reflecting the title of Gilligan's book,
this gendered frame of reference deflects the deeper ontological and ethical
significance of Gilligan's position. 23 Linklater's second discussion of Gilligan
returns to Habermas's insistence that the ethic of care complements the ethic of
justice, and Linklater recognises that the criticism that Habermas's account of
moral reasoning always privileges universality over difference is understandable;

21. Jürgen Habermas, Justification and Application: Remarks on Discourse Ethics (Cambridge:
Polity Press, 1993), 153-54.
Post-Westphalian Era (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1998), 68-69.
23. Carol Gilligan, In a Different Voice (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993).
341

yet, deploying his familiar strategy, Linklater simply surmises that we must be
more sensitive to difference.24
Although Linklater's work commands a truly impressive breadth of

reference, and despite being admirably responsive to criticism, challenges to his
position tend to be met with this logic of supplementarity – where alternative
perspectives to his own are only ever seen to augment rather than fundamentally
challenge his central argument. His non-negotiable commitment to moral
universalism is supplemented by an ever increasing sensitivity to difference; yet he
never seems to recognise that his concern to balance universality and particularity
rests upon the fulcrum of a shared foundational commitment to ethical subjectivity.
Another example is his treatment of 'cosmopolitan emotions' in his most

recent book, The Problem of Harm in World Politics.25 Here he engages in a
historical sociological and social psychological discussion of emotions – including
love, shame, and guilt. He follows Elias's view that emotions represent an essential
component of the civilising process, with shame and guilt playing the role of
regulating conduct in modern societies, which he views as potentially supportive of
cosmopolitan harm conventions. 26 He also discusses the relationship between
emotional responses to suffering and proximity, and the possibility of
emancipating human sympathy from its ties to existing groups in order that
emotional attachment might be extended to distant strangers. 27 He concludes,
however, that moral emotions 'might be more useful in shaping ethical ideas than
in trying to understand how radical change may occur at a global level.'28 We
challenge this conclusion in the next chapter.
In the same work Linklater briefly discusses Schopenhauer's critique of Kant,

making the point that compassion is important for moral conduct. Nonetheless, the

25. Andrew Linklater, The Problem of Harm in World Politics, vol. 1 (Cambridge: Cambridge
26. Ibid., 211-212,221.
27. Ibid., 222-31.
28. Ibid., 231.
342

discussion of the relation between compassion (i.e., 'love') and reason is largely
confined to footnotes, and he quickly returns to the importance of the rationality
and universality of moral principles for just relations between strangers.29 The
latter point is correct, but still misses the significance of Gilligan's argument about
the dual context of moral maturity. We hinted at this in Chapter 5 when discussing
Nancy's criticism of discourse ethics. This, we claimed, heralded a fundamental
discontinuity between ethics and politics, where ethics is understood as a relation
to the other, while politics is the domain of competing universal principles. This
discontinuity is also reflected in the work of Derrida, Nancy, and Levinas. While
the latter reformulates Heidegger's fundamental ontology, both Derrida and
Nancy's positions draw heavily on Hegel.30 We return to Hegel's discussion of this
discontinuity, his identification of an essential inequality between ethics and
politics, which will lead to our distinction between a cosmopolitan justice and a
cosmopolitan ethos in the next chapter.
Love and Law: the Vertical Moral Geometry of Moral Law

and the Ethical Logic of Love
We will recall that the claim was made in Chapter 7 that Hegel's central and
characteristic concepts first arise in his early works, in which the experience of
love plays a formative role, setting the trajectory of the future development of his
thought.31 This section sees us return to a discussion of Hegel's essay The Spirit of
Christianity and its Fate (1799) to illustrate the nature and significance of Hegel's

29. Ibid., 94-96.
30. Levinas reformulates Heidegger's Mitsein from being-with to being-in-front-of in order to
establish ethics as first philosophy. Derrida's ethical position develops most obviously in relation to
Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling in his Gift of Death, but before this he deals with Hegel's
identification of this discontinuity in The Spirit of Christianity and its Fate in his Glas, while we
saw that Nancy refers to Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit in our quote from The Inoperative
Community. Emmanuel Levinas, Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority (Pittsburgh:
Duquesne University Press, 1999). Jacques Derrida, The Gift of Death (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1996). Jacques Derrida, Glas (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1990). Jean-
Luc Nancy, The Inoperative Community (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1991), 24.
31. For two strident defences of this reading of Hegel see Alice Ormiston, Love and Politics: Re-
Interpreting Hegel (New York: SUNY Press, 2004). Laura Werner, “The Restless Love of
Thinking: The Concept of Liebe in Hegel’s Philosophy” (Ph.D Thesis, University of Helsinki,
2007).
343

understanding of love and its relation to Kantian moral rationalism, before we draw
out what we consider to be the implications for an ethical and emancipatory
approach to world politics.
We will remember from Chapter 6 that Hegel considers the understanding to

be a mode of being in the world, an activity that is essentially retrospective,
dissolutive, and objectifying; a view later shared by Heidegger, who considered the
objectification of the object by the subject to originate in the theoretical attitude
itself. As a result both seek a pre- or post-theoretical relation to reality that
overcomes this objectifying attitude. For Heidegger this involves Da-sein's resolute
solicitous being-with, while for Hegel this is achieved through action that proceeds
from the knowledge of love. While Heidegger's challenge to Kant is more indirect
than direct, Hegel's response is far more explicit.
A Genealogy of Transcendental Reason
Although once prizing the Kantian ideal of autonomy in The Life of Jesus
(1795), by the time he wrote The Spirit of Christianity (1799) Hegel had distanced
himself from Kant's commitment to the notion that individual self-legislation under
the aegis of reason leads to freedom because he considered it to establish in the
subject a division between law and inclination, concluding that submitting to the
laws of one's own reason merely makes a man 'his own slave.'32
In his Sprit essay Hegel engages in a genealogy of moral reason with the aim
of establishing the theological origins of the rationalism that characterises Kant’s
approach to ethics. Hegel locates the emergence of Western rationality as a
response to the flood whereby humans might master a nature that they discovered
to be indifferent to themselves. 33 Through a discussion of Noah, Nimrod,
Deucalion and Pyrrah, and Abraham, Hegel sees in Judaism a vertical moral

32. 'For Kant, man remains a duality; reason tries to thwart desire, but the two are never
synthesised.' G.W.F. Hegel, “The Spirit of Christianity and Its Fate,” 211n34.
33. Ibid., 182-87.
344

geometry in which the individual subject mediates his relation to the world through
a relation to a fictional transcendent object: God.
This leads Hegel to regard Judaism as a religion of positive legislation, where

believers subject themselves to an external authority and are subsequently only
able to appeal to categories of generality, where universal rules are applied to
particular instances. Taking an ultra-rationalist view of Kantian morality, Hegel
regards the transcendental idealism of Kant and Fichte to be a philosophical
replication of the same vertical moral geometry – where God's authority is replaced
with that of reason; Kant substituting the fear of a dominant lord outside of him for
a reverence of the moral law within man's conscience. Both Judaism and
Kantianism are seen as systems of positive legislation, where action is
subordinated to an overarching law.
The implication of this mediated relation between self and world is illustrated
by the story of Abraham and Isaac, where Abraham's willingness to act on God's
command by sacrificing his son demonstrates a refusal of love in order to be free.
By being cold and indifferent to his son, Abraham's freedom consists in tearing
himself free from his family – from the most affective of loving relations. For
Hegel, this parable heralds a form of diremption between life and law that is
pervasive in Western thought, a diremption that is the source of discontinuity
between two different forms of social organisation: between family and state,
Sittlichkeit and Moralität.34
Hegel regards Kant's equation of acting freely with acting morally to be a

replication of Abraham's assertion of a strict independence of self from world,
where loving relations – affective ties, relations that Kant regards as 'pathological'
unless subordinate to duty – are regarded as essential limitations of individual
freedom. Hegel's basic criticism is that the categorical imperative is a replication of
the instrumental rationality through which we master nature: a logic of causal
manipulation and the subjection to an external authority are common to both. Both

34. Cf. Kierkegaard and Derrida's discussions of Abraham and Isaac. Søren Kierkegaard, Fear and
Trembling (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006). Jacques Derrida, The Gift of Death.
345

ways of relating to the object internalise a conception of the other – nature without
and nature within – as antagonist, making the assumption that the only possible
relationship between self and world is one of mastery, domination, and control.
Presumptive Dualism
Hegel's central objection is to Kant's establishment of a presumptive dualism

between self and world, which he considers to be a fundamental error that deforms
the relationship between the two. Hegel's basic point is that, by treating this
dualism as fundamental, as something that precedes our relation to the world, the
self is forced to mediate its relation to the world through reason – and this casts us
into a series of ethical and epistemological binds from which there is no escape.
We can illustrate the nature of the epistemological bind into which we are
cast with reference to the introduction to the Phenomenology, where Hegel is
trying to make us anxious about the idea of epistemology as first philosophy. Here,
in reference to theoretical reason, i.e., to the faculty of the understanding, the
problem is that from the moment that we become sceptics, as soon as we doubt the
validity of our knowledge of the external world, we find ourselves in trouble.
Hegel writes:
If cognition is the instrument for getting hold of absolute being, it is obvious that the use of
an instrument on a thing certainly does not let it be what it is for itself, but rather sets out
to reshape and alter it. If, on the other hand, cognition is not an instrument of our activity
but a more or less passive medium through which the light of truth reaches us, then again
we do not receive the truth as it is in itself, but only as it exists through and in this
medium. Either way we employ a means which immediately brings about the opposite of
its own end; or rather, what is really absurd is that we should make use of a means at all.35
Hegel is trying to unsettle Kant's epistemology by demonstrating that

treating knowledge (theoretical reason) as a medium through which we navigate
the world presupposes a foundational dualism between the subject and object: a

35. G.W.F. Hegel, Phenomenology of Spirit, trans. A.V. Miller (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977),
§73.
346

dualism that casts us into a series of paradoxes. The first is that the idea of
knowledge as an instrument generates the very opposite of what it intends: if
knowledge is an instrument then it must alter the object, and by altering the object
it creates a categorial synthesis, thus leaves the object behind. The second is that if
we treat knowledge as a passive medium through which the world reaches us, then
we do not know the world as it is in itself, but only as it exists in and through this
medium; this generates a gap between the knower and what they hope to know.36
The issue is the language of instrumentality, and the mistake is to think of

knowledge as a medium. The root of the problem is that epistemology is borne out
of fear: out of a fear of error we step back from the knowledge that we already
have and institute the subject-object split; but it is the fear of error that is the error.
This fear generates a series of responses that deepen the separation between self
and world, with no way back.37
This is the logic applied to ethical reason in the Spirit essay. Here, in the
terms of practical reason, the problem is that from the instant that we perceive the
world to be hostile to us, that our relations to the world must be mediated by
reason, we establish ourselves a false independence that adversely affects our
relations to ourselves, to others, and to the natural world. From our position of
false independence we project outside of our shared lived experience with others
and submit ourselves to an ideal, which deforms internal relations of life because
moral law, the idea of the good, or God, does not exist.
The Separate Logics of Love and Law

36. This epistemological bind is pithily captured in the following rhyme:
'But for these and the rest, the greatest distress
trapped in a philosophers hell
For even the best, there's infinite regress
Which means you never can tell'
of Spirit The New School. New York City. 27th September (2006):
http://bernsteintapes.com/lectures/Hegel/08PhenomenologyIntroB.mp3.
347

Against the mediated relation between self and world implied by a
commitment to understanding human beings as subjects, Hegel contrasts living
relations with others. And these relations are modelled on the experience of love.
This discussion is crucial in the development of his notion of Sittlichkeit (ethical
life), which is understood in contrast to the formal, rule-governed approach of
Kantian Moralität (moral law); where properly ethical relations are ones
proceeding from the knowledge of love rather than from the authority of reason.
Essentially Hegel is heralding a fundamental discontinuity between ethics and
justice, the idea that there is an inequality between the logics of love and law: that
the two are separate orders.38
Hegel regards Kantian ethics, Moralität, to operate according to a logic of

law, which is at issue when a higher court is called upon to adjudicate between
competing claims from opposing parties. This adjudication requires a common
authority, such as that of Reason or the state, where parties concerned either
identify themselves as subject to this authority, or are forced to subject to it. The
logic of law is a logic of mediation, where subjects of the law mediate their
relations to themselves and one another with reference to a common authority.
Hegel regards this logic to be a form of external command, where the law is
grounded in a double movement beyond the concrete particular, whereby the
particular is subsumed and controlled by an authority that stands above it: an
authority such as transcendent reason, or 'God.'
It is in this light that Hegel reads the teachings of Jesus. The central idea of
the Spirit essay is to demonstrate that there is a logic of ethical experience in early
Christianity that can be read as a guide to ethical conduct immanent to human
experience rather than transcendent to it. Against the objective models of positive
legislation of Judaism and Kantianism, where the self mediates its relation to the
world through an 'objective' law, by demonstrating that human need trumps

38. Derrida makes a similar argument in his Force of Law essay. Jacques Derrida, “Force of Law:
The Mystical Foundation of Authority,” in Deconstruction and the Possibility of Justice, ed.
Rosenfeld and Carlson Cornell (London: Routledge, 1992).
348

religious command, Hegel claims that Jesus introduces something totally foreign:
the subjective.
Over against commands which required a bare service of the Lord, a direct slavery, an
obedience without joy, without pleasure or love, i.e., the commands in connection with the
service of God, Jesus set their precise opposite, a human urge and so a human need.39
This is because Jesus focussed not on becoming a good subject of a transcendent

Other (Reason or God), but on responding to the human need of the finite singular
being. He replaced law with love.
In contrast, Kant insists that 'love is not to be understood as a feeling' but

'must rather be thought as the maxim of benevolence (practical love), which results
in beneficence.'40 Kant thus asserts the sovereignty of both the law and the subject
over that of love, a move later shadowed in the work of both Habermas and
Linklater. Although Hegel does not deny the necessity of law, he holds that 'the
law is later than life and is outranked by it:' a key move through which he reverses
Kant's conception of the relationship between love and morality, as discussed
above.41
Subverting Kant's account of the relation, for Hegel love is the feeling of
ethical life (Sittlichkeit) in its natural form. Whereas (moral) law is a kind of
practical reasoning that abstracts from context-specific particularity, involving the
deployment of reasons and arguments, in loving relations the law loses its form. In
other words, love is a living relation to reality that makes the (moral) law
superfluous. Hegel illustrates this difference with regard to the religious command
'Thou shalt not kill:'
The command "Thou shalt not kill" [Matthew v.21-22] is a maxim which is recognized as
valid for the will of every rational being and which can be valid as a principle of a
universal legislation. Against such a command Jesus sets the higher genius of
reconcilability (a modification of love) which not only does not act counter to this law but
makes it wholly superfluous; it has in itself a so much richer, more living, fullness that so
poor a thing as a law is nothing for it at all. In reconcilability the law loses its form, the

39. G.W.F. Hegel, “The Spirit of Christianity and Its Fate,” 206,209.
40. Immanuel Kant, The Metaphysics of Morals, 243-244,449.
41. G.W.F. Hegel, “The Spirit of Christianity and Its Fate,” 230.
349

concept is displaced by life; but what reconcilability thereby loses in respect of the
universality which grips all particulars together in the concept is only a seeming loss and a
genuine infinite gain on account of the wealth of living relations with the individuals
(perhaps few) with whom it comes into connection. It excludes not a reality but only
thoughts and possibilities.42
For Hegel the essence of Christianity lies in this 'reconciliation,' where the
law 'loses its' form and 'the concept is displaced by life.' Reconciliation is not
achieved conceptually here, such as through the affirmation of a common
humanity, but is achieved through love, through action that makes the law
superfluous. The loving relation is congruous with both the law and the inclination:
it is their synthesis; one that express an attunement to our ethical immediacy,
dissolving the need for law.
An Immanent Ethical Logic
To reiterate, Hegel is not denying the necessity of law, but is arguing that
love and law are mutually implicated, although they operate according to different
logics. However, in contrast to Kant, and also Habermas and Linklater, it is
ultimately love that is more binding than law, and it is the person’s participation in
the dynamic of ethical life that constitutes an ethical and emancipatory relationship
between self and world.43 By demonstrating that ethical life is lived independently
of moral laws, and that acting freely and ethically does not involve assuming the
perspective of an ethical subject but simply an attunement to practical experience,
Hegel 's critique of Kantian rationalism is supplemented by an immanent doctrine
of ethics.
For Hegel, what Jesus demonstrates practically is that our first question when
we see someone who is hungry should not be 'do they deserve food,' but to
recognise that they are hungry means to recognise that they need food, full stop:
the logic of ought has no role in ethical life. The notion of 'ought' is related to the
idea of moral law, and belongs to a mediated relation between self and world; to

42. Ibid., 215-16.
43. Ibid., 230.
350

act ethically what we need is not to obey the law, but to love thy neighbour. Ought
only enters into consideration in relations of authority: you ought to obey because
it is your duty, or because you will be punished if you do not.
Here relations between self and other are not external relations between
subjects bridged mechanically by notions of common interest or moral law, but
operate according to the logic of unity-in-difference, a logic that we discussed in
the previous chapter in relation to the idea of mutual exposure and co-dependent
arising, where the central idea is that my selfhood and freedom is essentially
related to the character of my relations with others.
Hegel's basic thought here is that we cannot harm others without ethically
harming ourselves; to act against some other person is not to break some
transcendent law, but to act against our own life. This sees him drawing a
distinction between punishment and what he calls 'fate,' which appears whenever
life is injured. The working of fate commences 'when the trespasser feels the
disruption of his own life [... and] The deficiency is recognised as a part of
himself.'44 While punishment is 'the effect of a transgressed law' that is enforced by
something alien, an external power that is opposed to the self, fate is experienced
as something internal to the person, taking the form of guilt or shame. Whereas
punishment presupposes a figure that inflicts the pain of punishment (and the fear
of punishment is fear of Him) in fate, the fear is not the fear of an alien being but
the fear of 'the power of life made hostile.'45 The appearance of 'fate' thus discloses
the fact that we are fundamentally connected to each other: a phenomenological
demonstration of the re-cognitive structure of self-consciousness.46

44. Ibid.
45. Ibid., 231.
46. Harris's commentary on 'fate,' community & forgiveness is worth reproducing here: 'Fate is the
understandable shape in which absolute Spirit finally emerges. Hegel speaks of "God appearing"
only when the community understands its own function of forgiveness. Until then, "God" (as a
subject-name) identifies only a necessary "transcendental illusion." Fate we must always reverence;
but rational beings do not worship the Big Bang. But when we arrive at the consciousness that "God
is Love," we are recognizing a divinity whose very being is constituted by our recognition. Nature
forgives nothing. There is no "spirit of forgiveness" anywhere except in human self-consciousness.
That is what God's necessary "Incarnation" conceptually signifies; and "nothing in fate is changed
by it" - any more than Fate could be changed by Zeus. H.S. Harris, Hegel’s Ladder, vol. 2: The
Odyssey of Spirit (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1997), 540.
351

Deeper insight into the dynamic of ethical life, our connectedness and the
operation of fate, can be gained by applying the notion of love and fate to murder.
In this context, the significance of murder is not so much that it is a negation of
life; killing one life is not killing all life, and it does not sever my connection to
that other, at least not fully. Instead, this transgression effects the diremption of life
through a violent act of two-ing. In other words, by transforming life into an
enemy, the destruction of life in this transgression undermines the conditions of my
own life. In characteristically eloquent prose Hegel writes:
Only through a departure from that united life which is neither regulated by law nor at
variance with law, only through the killing of life, is something alien produced.
Destruction of life is not the nullification of life but its diremption, and the destruction
consists in its transformation into an enemy [i.e., the murderer thinks he has killed his
victim. But he has only turned life into an enemy, only produced a ghost to terrify him]. It
is immortal, and, if slain, it appears as it is terrifying ghost which vindicates every branch
of life and lets loose its Eumenides. The illusion of trespass, its belief that it destroys the
other's life and thinks itself enlarged thereby, is dissipated by the fact that the disembodied
spirit of the injured life comes on the scene against the trespass, just as Banquo who came
as a friend to Macbeth was not blotted out when he was murdered but immediately
thereafter took his seat, not as a guest at the feast but as an evil spirit. The trespasser
intended to have do with another's life, but he has only destroyed his own, for life is not
different from life, since life dwells in the single Godhead. In his arrogance he has
destroyed indeed, but only the friendliness of life; he has perverted life into an enemy. It is
the deed itself which has created a law whose domination now comes on the scene; this
law is the unification, in the concept, of the equality between the injured, apparently alien,
life and the trespasser's own forfeited life. It is now for the first time that the injured life
appears as a hostile power against the trespasser and maltreats him as he has maltreated the
other. Hence punishment as fate is the equal reaction of the trespasser's own deed, of a
power which he himself has armed, of an enemy made an enemy by himself.47
The disruption of my own life through the appearance of fate means that I
must recognise the prior transgression as my own, and acknowledge my own
answerability for it. By recognising my fate through guilt or shame, I face up to my
own responsibility for my transgression, and can then attempt to atone for my
transgression and reconcile with the other by seeking their forgiveness. There is no
external authority here: my transgression reveals that I am already situated within
an ethical community where I am bound together with others with whom I co-
participate within a community of fate: the trespass reveals the whole.

47. G.W.F. Hegel, “The Spirit of Christianity and Its Fate,” 229-30.
352

While the subjective, formal, freedom that I have by virtue of being an
individual ensures that I am able to deny this 'originary debt' to the other and cling
on to my own independence as a subject, or perhaps to suppose that the other
deserved whatever fortune became of him and to thereby eschew my responsibility
for his situation, this only establishes for myself a false independence. Causing
injury to another, and subsequently disavowing or ignoring my answerability to
them, considering my actions just or permissible, leaves me bound to my prior
subjectivity and constitutes an alienation from my own existence as a self-
actualising being. Similarly, hate is not a rejection of love but its inversion. Hating
someone, a person or even a group, does not deny my connection with them;
neither does it dissolve that community, it only perverts them. Hate is a tearing
apart, a terrible distortion of 'the between' that both perverts the hater and is
destructive of the self.
More serious than hate is indifference. Indifference to others, feeling no guilt

for wrong-doing, or no compulsion to help those in need, amounts to a rejection of
love, not hate. It is therefore narcissism that is the ultimate failure of love.
Narcissism is an individual and social pathology that is worse than hate. My
subjective freedom as an individual to deny my originary debt, to transgress the
law, to act out of caprice or to hate – in short, to avoid participation in my
community of fate – is, for Hegel, not a full appropriation of my freedom as a self-
actualising being. However, reconciling with the other by acknowledging my
answerability for my transgression, facing up to my responsibility, seeking
forgiveness and subsequently being let back into the fold represents the fullest
appropriation of my freedom. Love is the model of this reconciliation: 'in love fate
is reconciled,' and it is this conception of freedom that serves as Hegel's normative
standard.48 Through my reconciliation, in love, I transcend my prior subjectivity
and am no longer bound to my prior fate: reconciliation in love is a liberation.

48. Ibid., 231.
353

Moralität and Sittlichkeit
Ethical life, experienced as love, both underwrites and transcends the law; it
may even be set against it. Such is the case with Antigone. Against the conscious
written law of the state, i.e., Creon's decree that, as a traitor of the state, Polynices'
body be left out in the open for the vultures, Hegel regards Antigone as the
personification of the unwritten ethical law that is society's unwritten foundation.49
In direct contrast to Habermas's moral cognitivism Hegel writes:
True ethical law is the unwritten, inerrant, unalterable divine law spoken of in the
Antigone. It is not anything that an individual can hope either to criticize or to justify, and
certainly not in terms of mere self-consistency.50
Antigone's conscientious disobedience of Creon's decree is seen as righting the

one-sidedness of the 'thought of' human law. Creon's edict is driven by the need to
punish Polynices and to deter any future sedition; yet this is incompatible with
Antigone's love for her brother and her conviction that, despite his transgression,
he deserves the respect of a proper burial.
The Mutual Implication of Moralität and Sittlichkeit
In his commentary of the Phenomenology Harris argues that Antigone's

personification of the unwritten law is not just referring to the particularity of
familial relations, but to the broader ethical identity of the members of 'the whole
Greek world over which Zeus holds sway,' an identity extending beyond the
confines of the specific polis.51 Creon then represents the 'thought of' human law
that is realised by self-consciousness and built on top of this unwritten law, a law
that generates its own commitments and obligations.52 The tragedy consists in the

49. This ethical law corresponds with ethical life (Sittlichkeit) rather than moral law (Moralität).
50. G.W.F. Hegel, Phenomenology of Spirit, 550n437.
51. H.S. Harris, Hegel’s Ladder, 168.
52. For an illuminating extended commentary on Hegel's Antigone see Kimberley Hutchings,
Hegel and Feminist Philosophy (Cambridge: Blackwell, 2003), 96. Also Kimberley Hutchings and
Tuija Pulkkinen, eds. Hegel’s Philosophy and Feminist Philosophy: Beyond Antigone?
354

fact that Antigone and Creon can only act out their one-sided conviction in their
own right rather than recognise the rightness and mutual implication of the
opposing perspectives and achieve a reconciliation therefrom; the written law of
the state and Antigone's personification of the unwritten law of moral conviction
are thus tragically entwined because each can only act out one side of the synthetic
unity that would constitute truly ethical behaviour.
Demonstrating that love is not simply mere emotion, Hegel's point is that
ethical society needs the recognition of the mutual dependency of both
perspectives. He is not following the Humean or Smithean view that ethics are
based simply on the intuition, on feelings: his position is that it is the unity of
intuition and reason that is the ground of ethics. Ethical relations are not simply
individual preferences grounded in the intuition, they also have a conceptual
element: the 'thought of' human law. This 'thought of' law must be grounded in an
underlying ethical life, the extension of which is not correlative with the extension
of human law, a reconciliation or unification under the concept, because without
this underlying ethical life, the 'thought of' human law is simply an imposition on
those subject to it. This position, we shall see, has profound implications for an
ethical and emancipatory approach to world politics.
Although this ethical position does contain a relative aspect, it does not
subjectivise value. Ethics are not relative in the sense that anything goes, but
relative in the sense that ethical concepts are not universal, but are historically
grounded in the mores and practices that constitute ethical life. In the Philosophy
of Right (1820), Hegel's 'mature' work that builds on his earlier work by applying
his philosophical system to the actualisation of freedom in the world – to the
objective structures of right that represent the social conditions of human freedom,
institutions such as the family, civil society and the ethical state – Hegel formulates
the divergent logics of love and law through his distinction between Moralität and
Sittlichkeit.
355

Moralität and Sittlichkeit in Linklater's CIRT
Linklater discusses Hegel's distinction in his The Transformation of Political

Community, where he writes:
Moralität is the approach to ethics which assumes that the solitary individual can use
autonomous reason to discover the normative foundations of a cosmopolitan society. It
abstracts individuals from concrete settings and credits them with innate powers for
apprehending universal moral truths. Sittlichkeit refers to the social institutions and norms
which precede the individual and lend shape to the subject's moral life.53
Linklater's treatment of this distinction centres around his attempt to reconcile

universality and particularity by balancing the ethical claims of universality with
the claims of the (nation-state) community to difference, self-determination, and
exclusion.54 He understands Sittlichkeit to be 'central to Hegel's attempt to defend
state sovereignty from a cosmopolitan critique,' and affirms Hegel's notion of
Sittlichkeit to be both a 'bold formulation of the nature of social morality' and 'a
rich explanation of the diverse forms of political community.' 55 Nonetheless,
unsurprisingly given his foundational commitment to the ethical subject, Linklater
repeats the dialectical strategy employed in Men and Citizens where rationalism
and historicism are sublated into a synthesis that simply reasserts the sovereignty
of ethical reason: an affirmation that betrays both a limited understanding of the
nature of ethical life and of Hegel's account of the relation between ethical life and
moral law.56
According to Linklater, the importance of the distinction between Moralität

and Sittlichkeit revolves around the centrality of either rational deliberation or the
reliance on custom and convention at the heart of social and political life.57 He
makes two key mistakes here: firstly, reducing ethical life to customs and
conventions, and secondly, supposing that either rational deliberation or ethical
life are central to social and political life, rather than recognising that the two are

54. Ibid., 55.
55. Ibid., 52.
56. Ibid.
57. Ibid.
356

mutually and inexorably implicated. As we have just seen, against the privilege
that Linklater ascribes to ethical reason, it is the mutual implication of ethical life
and ethical reason that constitutes Antigone's tragedy. While Creon's refusal to
bury Polynices is in accord with the 'thought of' human law (forbidding traitors a
proper burial), and overrides the Thebian custom (of burying the dead under
normal circumstances), the significance of this action is not just that it constitutes a
simple contravention of a local, particularist morality, but because it contravenes
an unwritten ethical law: it goes against what is right; what Douzinas refers to as
the law as dike (justice) as opposed to the law as reason and nomos.58
As Hegel writes: 'Ethical disposition consists in sticking steadfastly to what

is right, and abstaining from all attempts to move or shake it, or derive it.'59 He
goes on to explain in a footnote that:
Ethical law is implicit in communal living. It is not grounded on arbitrary individual

decrees, which can be simply disregarded. It is what all men in the community accept as
their standard, and that without question, and what they do not in anyway see as foreign or
alien.60
This ethical law, the 'unwritten, inerrant' law that is felt as love, and which
underwrites ethical life, is not the same as the 'thought of' moral law. Nor does it
simply consist of 'customs and conventions,' to be transcended by a rational
morality. Ethical society is dependent on the dialectical interaction of both.61
The Dominion of Moral Law

58. Costas Douzinas, “Law’s Birth and Antigone’s Death: On Ontological and Psychoanalytical
Ethics,” Cardozo Law Review 16, no. 3-4 (1995): 1325–62.
60. Ibid., 549-550n436.
61. While Antigone and Creon have different points of view on the matter of Polynices's burial, the
matter is not reducible to their contrasting perspectives: the facts that Antigone is Polynices's sister,
and Creon is the head of state are largely inconsequential. Rather, it revolves around the justice of
the Creon's decree. As Hegel explains 'Alteration of the point of view is not contradiction; for what
we are concerned with is not the point of view, but the object and the content, which ought not to be
self-contradictory.' Ibid., §437.
357

We saw in Part 1 that the basic theme uniting Men and Citizens,
Transformation and Linklater's later work on the harm principle is the normative
ideal of universal moral inclusion, where universality was conceived as the
universal responsibility to engage in dialogue. The problem, we claimed, was that
this defence of universalism against anti-foundationalism involved the projection
of an ethical subject, a strategy that conflates the ontological difference between
human beings and the being of human beings (conceived as ethical subjectivity).
Hence it should cause little surprise to learn that, while he affirms the social nature
of morality, he effectively treats ethical life as an anachronism that is subordinate
to the sovereignty of moral reason.
Linklater's position here mirrors that of Habermas, who considers himself a

'communicative Kantian;' the communicative aspect reflecting his dialogical or
communicative turn away from Kant's monological conception of practical (moral)
reason. Although claiming that 'for all its affinities with Kant's moral theory,
discourse ethics is rather different,' Habermas nonetheless explains that discourse
theory 'takes its orientation for an intersubjective interpretation of the categorical
imperative from Hegel's theory of recognition but without incurring the cost of
dissolution of morality in ethical life:' the implication is that rational morality,
moral law, is superordinate to the lived character of ethics.62
Linklater is correct to recognise that Moralität brings a reflective orientation

to Sittlichkeit, and that it plays a central role in 'promoting the decisive transition
from unreflective to reflective social moralities,' but he is wrong to treat this as a
linear progression from a customary morality to a reflective one rather than one
aspect of a dialectical interaction.63 It is his foundational commitment to the notion
of an ethical subject that is the cause of this error. This commitment allows him to
read the transcendence of Sittlichkeit by Moralität as a Kantian form of
transcendence rather than a Hegelian one. While this distinction was discussed in

62. Jürgen Habermas, “Morality and Ethical Life: Does Hegel’s Critique of Kant Apply to
Discourse Ethics,” in Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action (Cambridge, Mass.: The
MIT Press, 1992), 203. Jürgen Habermas, Justification and Application: Remarks on Discourse
Ethics, 1n24.
358

the previous chapter, the difference is that the Kantian form of transcendence
involves moral law rising above ethical life, while the Hegelian form involves the
mutual implication of ethical life and moral law, where moral law is immanent
within ethical life and manifests itself through the dialectical transformation of
ethical life, but cannot simply rise above it.64
In contrast to Habermas and Linklater's reading, Hegel's version of ethical

society requires not the exclusion or transcendence of ethical life but recognition of
the mutual dependence and dialectical interaction of ethical life and moral law
where, due to the essentially limited nature of reflective rationality, precedence is
ultimately given to ethical immediacy: to the operation of conscientious activity
that proceeds from the knowledge of love. As Moyar has recently noted 'the free
conscience is the pivotal concept in [Hegel's] view of modern ethics and politics.'65
It is the activity of the conscience that is the moving and justifying principle for the
continuing development of human freedom; Hegel's focus thus falling sharply on
the activity of liberation.66
Hegel's emphasis on the relation between freedom and conscientious activity

develops Schiller's objection to Kant.67 The famous controversy between Kant and
Schiller is over the role of duty and inclination.68 For Schiller, our attitude to

64. For more on the notion of Sittlichkeit see sections §§142-64, §§182-8, §§194-5, §§201-2,
§§205-8 and §§255-8 of the Philosophy of Right, which discusses ethical life and its articulation in
the moments of family, civil society, and the state. See also Allen W. Wood, Hegel’s Ethical
Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 195-203. and Frederick C. Beiser, Hegel
(London: Routledge, 2005), 233-39; Terry Pinkard, “Virtues, Morality and Sittlichkeit: From
Maxims to Practices,” European Journal of Philosophy 7, no. 2 (1999): 217-39.
65. Dean Moyar, Hegel’s Conscience (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 23.
66. Hegel is taking cues from the development of free religious conscience in the Protestant
Reformation, and he thought that the authority of individual self-consciousness could only come
into its own with the displacement of traditional religious authority. In his Lectures on the
Philosophy of History he claims that the Reformation was the decisive moment in European history
for setting into motion the development of modern freedom. The Reformation introduced into the
world what Hegel calls 'free spirit,' 'the idea of an inner disposition to will the ethical without an
internalised fear of religious authority.' Ibid., 23-24.
67. On the relation between Kant, Schiller and Hegel see Dieter Henrich, “Ethics of Autonomy,” in
The Unity of Reason: Essays on Kant’s Philosophy, ed. Richard Velkey (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard
68. The disagreement is neatly surmised in Schiller's infamous epigram, much discussed in the neo-
Kantian literature:
'Gladly I serve my friends, but alas I do it with pleasure
Hence I am plagued with doubt that I am not virtuous.
359

morals had to be different to that presented by Kant, and he emphasised the role of
the sensuous, emotive side of human nature, and the cultivation of ethical
inclinations, in contrast to Kant's insistence that moral actions are ones that follow
from a dutiful respect for the moral law. What Schiller was attempting to show is
that, in a free human being, duty has to descend and become inclination, while
inclination has to ascend so that a natural inclination is developed for the content
of duty; in order that, acting out of inclination rather than rational respect for the
moral law, the free human being does what is right for the whole of mankind.
Although defending Kant against Schiller, Gerold Prauss argues that the
dispute highlights the fact that Kant overlooks a third source of motivation besides
inclination and duty; that is, love.69 As Rudolf Steiner puts it: '[i]f we look for the
roots of moral Intuitions in human nature, if we look for the actual impulse, the
ethical motivation in those moral Intuitions, we find love;' this love, he continues
'absorbs into itself the moral Intuitions, and we are moral human beings in so far as
we love our duty, in so far as duty has become something that arises out of the
human individuality itself as an immediate force.'70
In Hegel this all relates to the idea of conscientious activity. First arising in
his discussion of the activity of the conscience in the Phenomenology (§§632-671),
the conscience is understood as the finding of an appropriate response in a given
situation: 'it is in and through the activity of conscience that the knowledge of love
is actualised in the world,' the activity of the conscience represents 'the resurfacing
of the knowledge of love.'71

For that there is no other advice: you must try to despise them,
And then do with aversion what duty commands you.'
Cosmopolitans might read 'friends' here as pertaining to circle of moral concern beyond our
compatriots. Friedrich Schiller, Werke. Nationalausgabe, vol. 1-42 (Weimar: Böhlau, 1943), 357.
Quoted by Frederick C. Beiser, A Lament, Friedrich Schiller: Playwright, Poet, Philosopher,
Historian (Bern: Peter Lang, 2007), 237.; For a discussion see Herbert James Paton, The
Categorical Imperative: A Study in Kant’s Moral Philosophy (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1948), 47.; Henry E. Allison, Kant’s Theory of Freedom (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1990), 180-184,275n3. Frederick C. Beiser, A Lament.
69. Henry E. Allison, Kant’s Theory of Freedom, 275n3.; Gerold Prauss, Kant Über Freiheit Als
Autonomie (Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 1983), 240-77.
70. Rudolf Steiner, Fruits of Anthroposophy (London: Ruldolf Steiner Press, 1986), 59.
71. Alice Ormiston, Love and Politics: Re-Interpreting Hegel, 55-56.
360

It is this activity of the conscience, the actualisation of the knowledge of love

in the world, that Alice Ormiston demonstrates is the basis of Hegel's politics. The
very logic of the Philosophy of Right, she shows, is meant to affirm the knowledge
of love, upon which it is based.72 The logical development of the will – from the
immediate ethical unity of the family to civil society and to the ethical state – as
well as the logical arguments that Hegel presents to convince reflective rationality
of the truth of the political principles articulated in the Philosophy of Right are
predicated upon 'the inner certainty that is acquired through the experience of
love.'73 Hegel's arguments concerning welfare, for instance, depend on more than
just abstract right, they require the actual recognition by individuals of their own
and other's finitude, of their shared vulnerability: it is love that makes this
recognition possible. It is love that allows us, at the level of intuition, 'to feel our
commonality with others and to see the injustices of a system that creates such
inequality.'74 It is only on the basis of this recognition that Hegel’s concept of
'morality' subsequently helps to rationally justify the prior response of love.75
By affirming the sovereignty of ethical reason over ethical life, Linklater not
only distorts Hegel's characteristic form of transcendence, where freedom is
associated with the activity of the conscience and the overcoming of any given
subjectivity, but in supposedly standing above the perspective of ethical
immediacy Linklater also denies himself a powerful evaluative tool with which to
engage in critical social theory. Per contra Linklater, rather than representing a
conservative or atavistic approach to ethics, Hegel's approach to ethical life, as
modelled on the experience of love, represents both a more primordial aspect of
our ethical experience, an aspect that Linklater's approach overlooks, and a
powerful tool for CIRT.76

72. Ibid., 71.
73. Ibid., 73.
74. Ibid., 78.
75. Ibid.
76. In a similar vein, Neuhouser argues that the concept of 'life' in Hegel's early philosophy can be
deployed as an evaluative tool to identify forms of social pathology. Frederik Neuhouser, “Hegel on
Life, Freedom, and Social Pathology” (Paper presented at the Philosophies of Right: Philosophical
Conceptions of Right from German Idealism to Critical Theory, New York, 2011).
361

The Lived Character of Ethics
In short, there is much more to the idea of ethical life than is reflected in
Linklater's treatment of Sittlichkeit; specifically the model of social relations
provided by the experience of love.77 While Linklater concurs with Hegel that the
standpoint of morality represents a higher form of freedom because it raises us
above the simple acceptance of norms and customs, and leads to the principle of
individuality that characterises modernity, Hegel quite rightly insists that this
perspective is itself inexorably entwined with ethical life, and that it is the
operation of ethical life that drives 'the moral point of view' forwards. While more
rationally based moral understandings and principles represent a higher form of
self-conscious freedom than do simple customs and norms, these moral principles
are themselves only developed and overcome through the operation of ethical life.
This does not entail rejecting moral rationalism, but recognising its pernicious
effects and limitations, and ultimately supplementing it.78
As we have seen from our discussions in Chapters 6 and 7, this

supplementation amounts to a view of the individual, thought as self-conscious
subject, overcoming the limitations of object-oriented consciousness and becoming
attuned to a practical relation to reality and the recognition of our shared
participation in a community of fate. This involves an attunement to the experience
of others becoming a deeper part of the fabric of our self-understandings and
informing the way that we relate to ourselves, to others, and the natural world.

77. Indeed, it seems that our discussion of Linklater's treatment of the relation between Moralität
and Sittlichkeit affirms Walker's (brief) criticism of Transformation where he claims: 'in each and
every case Linklater's strategy is to take what he thinks is useful and then discard the rest. And what
is useful is always some sort of argument for a greater universalization, and what can be discarded
is the tattered residue of particularity.' R.B.J. Walker, “The Hierarchicalization of Political
Community,” Review of International Studies 25, no. 1 (1999), 152.
78. 'Although Hegel has quite often been taken to be rejecting Kantian, "individualistic" morality in
favour of something else – "social ethics," accepting one's community's norms, or some such view –
more recent work has argued that in fact he is best seen as extending Kant's "rationalist" morality
by critiquing it and supplementing it, but not rejecting it. This interpretation seems to me entirely
correct.' Terry Pinkard, “Virtues, Morality and Sittlichkeit: From Maxims to Practices,” 222.
362

Borrowing an argument of Heidegger's, it involves engaging in resolute solicitous
being-with, a form of conscientious activity that not only appropriates our freedom
as existential condition, but frees ourselves up for being-with others, and leads to
an entirely immanent form of transcendence: freedom as the crossing of love.
It is this prioritisation of our ethical immediacy that is the central point of the
distinction between Moralität and Sittlichkeit. Derrida makes similar point in
Glas.79 There he notes that the transition from Moralität to Sittlichkeit, from Part
Two to Part Three of the Philosophy of Right, is intended to reflect the transition
from Judaism to Christianity in the Spirit essay: from a religion based on command
and duty to a religion based on love and freedom.80 The idea of Sittlichkeit is thus
better understood – not as parochial ethical particularism, an anachronistic morality
of custom and conventions to be transcended by ethical reason – but as an attempt
to reflect an existential condition of ethical immediacy, a condition modelled on
the experience of love. The supplementary role given to moral reason over a
practical relation to reality is demonstrated in Hegel's discussion of the conscience
in the Phenomenology. Although superseded by chapters on religion and absolute
knowing, the activity of the conscience transcends the standpoint of reflective
rationality and represents the completion of the Phenomenology at the level of
personal experience, i.e., conscientious activity is the highest form of the activity
of individual human consciousness.
The Activity of the Conscience
As we saw previously, the activity of the conscience is understood as the

finding of an ethical response in a given situation. It bears testament to the
antecedent experience of love since it is in the conscience that reason and being are
united; conscientious activity is not the dutiful activity of morality, but neither is it
pure intuition. It is in the conscience that law no longer exists in an abstract form,

79. Jacques Derrida, Glas.
80. Ibid., 33a-93a. See also Simon Critchley, Ethics, Politics, Subjectivity: Essays on Derrida,
Levinas and Contemporary French Thought (London: Verso, 1999), 6.
363

standing over sensuous being as something alien that commands it. Rather, through
conscientious activity, law and being are united and expressed through the
individual person. Here ethical action is not action that follows a rational
calculation (or even discussion) of our duties, but is conscientious action in a
contingent context that expresses something universal. If we see someone
drowning, we jump in and save them: we just act. This action is not mediated by
moral reason, reasons do not exist. This is ethical immediacy: moral reasons and
validations of that action come later. For instance, if asked why we jumped in to
save the person we might retrospectively justify our action in the form of a maxim
by saying that, if it were us drowning then we would want someone to save us; yet
we must recognise that this is a retroactive justification of an experience that tells
us something more fundamental about the structure of our life with others.
It is of course possible for us to feel indifferent towards another in need, or

perhaps to consider their suffering to be deserved – but neither position will
absolve us of our personal responsibility if we fail to act. This is an important
point: it is not simply the case that acts of conscience should be considered
supererogatory and be lauded, as is the tendency with perspectives that affirm the
sovereignty of the ethical subject, but it is to hold that there is a fundamental
responsibility, an originary debt to the other, and that our existence as separate
entities, as ethical subjects for instance, is based upon an abstraction that denies
such a debt. We tend not to recognise this.
The problem is that as soon as we start to think in terms of rights and duties
associated with ethical subjectivity, as soon as we start to rely on our moral reason,
we are already in trouble. This frame of mind leads to an essential limitation on
what we think we owe to others, and we tend to mediate these relations with
reference to some overarching norm or rule, which we might dutifully observe.
However, arguments regarding duty have only a limited purchase: they only serve
to bolster or modify prior commitments.81 Philosophy is simply not that powerful,

81. To borrow Bernstein's metaphor, there is no use saying to the parent of a suicide bomber 'your
son ought not to blow up other people,' because once that primitive notion of empathy is gone, there
is little point arguing with them philosophically. J.M. Bernstein, “Early Theological Writings,”
364

pointing out logical mistakes or inconsistencies in the beliefs that people hold is
not going to make them change their position dramatically; philosophy only gives
non-sceptics and non-fanatics internal reasons to think that they are rationally
justified in holding the beliefs that they do: it is the scepticism or fanaticism that is
the barrier and, in ethical discourse, affirming the sovereignty of reason over love
is more likely to encourage that scepticism rather than eliminate it.
Shakespeare illustrates as much in Othello. As a soldier Othello simply

cannot stand the feeling of vulnerability that his all-encompassing love for
Desdemona brings; he simply cannot bear his exposure to her, and his dependence
makes life intolerable for him. This leads him into a desperate quest for 'ocular
proof' of her love for him; yet what would such proof look like? Iago plants a
terrible thought into Othello's head: that while it cannot be proved, Desdemona's
love can surely be falsified; infidelity would provide Othello with solid proof that
she does not love him. Othello's anxiety – feelings that accompany his unstable
subjectivity – drives him to seek evidence of Desdemona's infidelity, and the
tragedy begins its course to its murderous conclusion. Othello is a tragic
demonstration that overemphasising the role of reason over love can turn even
intimate lovers into distant strangers.82
That we expect people to be other-regarding and compassionate can be

demonstrated by the recent censoring of Chinese society after a two-year old girl
was hit by two different vehicles and ignored by passers-by. After being run over
by a van, more than a dozen people walked or cycled past her before she was hit by
a second truck. In the ensuing public uproar, Chinese society was reproached for a
'moral numbness' due to the incredible display of public apathy towards a seriously
injured child in extreme danger.83 The episode holds a perverse mirror up to the

Lectures on Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit The New School. New York City. 13th September
(2006): http://bernsteintapes.com/lectures/Hegel/04EarlyTheologicalWritingB.mp3.
82. This illustration is Giles Fraser's: Giles Fraser, “You’ve Got to Respect Sceptics,” The
Guardian Friday 29th June. (2012). For a discussion see Stanley Cavell, The Claim of Reason:
Wittgenstein, Skepticism, Morality, and Tragedy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 451-96.
83. See Ben Blanchard, “Chinese Girl Dies in Hit-and-Run That Sparked Outrage,” Reuters,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/21/us-china-girl-idUSTRE79K0HM20111021 (accessed
12/03/2012.
365

parable of the Good Samaritan in which Jesus illustrates the injunction to love thy
neighbour. 84 Although the parable focusses on commending the Samaritan's
compassion, it can also be read as an indictment of both the priest and the Levite
who both cross the road in order to pass by the 'half dead man.' Read in this way,
both the parable and the Chinese episode function as a negative illustration of
Hegel's use of love as an image of human connectedness. In both cases, there was a
fundamental ethical responsibility to the other on the parts of the priest, the Levite,
and the Chinese public, and in both cases all failed in their responsibility.
There are of course mediating factors. The priest, who is supposed to be

ritually clean, could not tell if the man were a 'neighbour;' if he were a non-Jew,
the priest risked defilement, while if he were dead he could not come within four
cubits of the man without incurring the humiliating and lengthy process of
restoring ritual purity. Similarly, people in China are hesitant to help those in
distress out of fear of being blamed themselves. However, we are right to
reprehend those responsible for allowing these concerns to mediate the immediate
ethical responsibility of the priest to the half-dead man, and the Chinese public to
the little girl; allowing these concerns to mediate their relation to reality represents
a distortion of an underlying ethical life. The error in both cases is that these
factors were allowed to mediate the lived character of ethics. While there is no
external authority to punish the Chinese public, the Levite, or the priest, all have to
face up to their fate, experienced here as shame. A shame that is the proper
response to the lack of love, from the denial of their mutual implication and an
abrogation of their ethical responsibility for the other.
Conclusions
Through our discussion of the relationship between love and morality we

have seen that Kant casts a long shadow over contemporary ethical thought. There
are good reasons for this. Clearly Kant's moral rationalism is an important
contribution to our understanding of ethics. Nonetheless, we will recall that the

84. (Luke 10: 25-37)
366

claim was made in Chapter 6 that, despite being the most strident of Kant's critics,
Hegel's engagement with Kant is an essentially constructive critique with the aim
of developing his own Kantianism; accordingly our aim here has not been to reject
Kantian ethics, rather to demonstrate how Hegel completes it. Although Hegel's
criticism of Kantian ethics is certainly not new, Hegel's insights into the nature of
ethical life are often overlooked, and the tendency of twentieth century left-
Hegelian thought has been to read him as a philosopher of the concept, a reading
which obscures his most powerful insights.85 We have demonstrated this to be true
in the cases of both Habermas and Linklater with reference to their prioritisation of
Kantian Moralität.
The problem in both cases is that this simply asserts the sovereignty of the
ethical subject, leading to a dualism between self and world that we have sought to
demonstrate is profoundly misguided. In contrast, the position taken here is that, in
order to live up to the ethical and emancipatory ideals of CIRT, we need to eschew
this duality and follow the moves made in post-Kantian German idealism away
from the foundational commitment to the individual thought as ethical subject to a
conception of the human being as the being that has the potential for self-conscious
subjectivity.86 This not only entails a shift in our understanding of freedom, as
discussed in the previous chapter, but also in our understanding of the nature of
ethical relations.
Ethical relations, as they have been presented here, are not simply relations
of ethical subjects that proceed according to maxims that have been subjected to
the test of universalisability, whether that ratiocination is seen to be an individual
exercise (Kant) or a collective, communicative one (Habermas, Linklater). Rather,
they consist in the concrete interaction of conscientious self-conscious subjects

85. There are of course notable exceptions to this. Dean Moyar's recent Hegel's Conscience is a
good example. Dean Moyar, Hegel’s Conscience.
86. There are clearly similarities here with Linklater's account of emancipation as the historical
actualisation of the ethical subject. However, recalling our discussions from the previous chapter,
self-conscious subjectivity differs significantly from Linklater's treatment of this as a Kantian form
of subjectivity. Moreover, the problem is with Linklater's treatment of ethical subjectivity as a
foundational commitment. We will return to a discussion of our relation to Linklater in the
Conclusion.
367

proceeding from the knowledge of love. This is not to deny the need for ethical
reason or the postulation of moral laws. It does however insist that we recognise
that properly ethical relations must operate according to a different logic: a logic of
love, and that it is ultimately action that follows from the knowledge of love that
leads to a genuine reconciliation with the other, not the exercise of discursive
reason – as implied in Linklater's defence of universalism.
There is a further problem with deploying an argument based on the

affirmation of Moralität at the cosmopolitical level. We have seen that the exercise
of moral reason operates according to the logic of law, where a higher court is
called upon to adjudicate between competing claims between opposing parties.
This requires either an identification with a common authority or enforced
compliance; no such authority currently exists in world politics. The underlying
assumption behind Linklater's defence of universalism is that moral reason can
provide such an authority, yet we have been questioning the ethical and
emancipatory credentials of such a position. While most international political
actors recognise the binding authority of norms such as state sovereignty, or
peremptory norms against gross human rights violations such as genocide, the
authority of these norms have followed from humanity's experience of their
violation: from our prior transgressions. Our collective responses to such violations
reveal that we are already situated in a universal human community, albeit one
limited to the collective rejection of such transgressions rather than a stronger
sense of community that may be required to tackle the problems that humanity
faces as a species (such as thos discussed in the Introduction).
These examples might then lend further credence to Hegel's insistence on the
mutual dependency of moral law and ethical life. Without reiterated demands for
the recognition of human rights from those who have theirs violated, it would be
easier to decry universal human rights as Western impositions on non-Western
cultures. But these universal norms seem to be grounded in a nascent but
developing international ethical life; they are not impositions. We might then
venture to contend that rather than overextending our abstractive capabilities by
368

projecting ethical subjectivity on others in order that we may reach a consensus
regarding shared principles of coexistence, that Hegel's argument for the mutual
dependency of ethical life and ethical law can lend support to the argument that we
must also be concerned with cultivating a more cosmopolitan form of international
ethical life; indeed that this might need to come first. We shall defend such an
argument in the Conclusion.
369
Conclusions.
Political and Theoretical Contexts
We saw in the Introduction that several writers have suggested that, given
increasing global interdependence, we sit at the twilight of the Westphalian system,
confronting a material actuality that is drawing us into a struggle to define the
character of globalisation: a struggle between the development of a more
democratic cosmopolis that could be characterised by greater collective human
responsibility, where sovereignty might be subordinated to global interdependence,
or one where we remain increasingly ensnared in the naked pursuit of power and
wealth.1 We learnt, however, that the principle of state sovereignty has had an
enormous and lasting effect, not only on the objective structuring of human
political and social relations, but also on our political imagination; both of which
have conspired to produce a vision of politics that would be contained within the
state.2
In light of these material transformations, we affirmed Behr's call for more

universalistic trajectories of ontological inquiry for contemporary (global) politics
and ethics. Ontology, we explained, is a form of philosophical inquiry into
existence: into what exists, and into the nature of existence. Yet, beyond the
disciplining effect that the principle of state sovereignty has had on political

1. Fred R. Dallmayr, Small Wonder: Global Power and Its Discontents (Oxford: Rowman &
Littlefield, 2005), 55. Barry K. Gills, “Introduction,” in The Global Politics of Globalization:
“Empire” Vs “Cosmopolis”, ed. Barry K. Gills (London: Routledge, 2007).
2. R.B.J. Walker, Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory (Cambridge:
CONCLUSIONS: Love, Ethics, and Emancipation

thought and practice, standing as further obstacles to the initiation of more
universalistic forms of ontological inquiry in world politics is the fact that attempts
to bring ontological reflection into international theory have largely been facile,
concerned only with 'things that exist' in international relations (as opposed to the
being of that entity which encounters such entities as 'objects'); furthermore, the
overwhelming trajectory of thought since the eighteenth century has been geared
towards recognising the particularity of philosophical (ontological and
epistemological) interests.
These claims were illustrated in Chapter 1: the first with reference to recent
meta-theoretical debates in international theory, and the second with relation to
two influential 'normative' approaches to international theory, those of Rawls and
Frost. Both Rawls and Frost assert the particularity of their claims, and attempt to
evade controversial philosophical questions by taking dominant practices and
institutions associated with the sovereign state as their ethical foundations. Their
attempts at evasion, however, were ultimately unsuccessful, since we are led to ask
whether we can consider such ethical foundations to have an 'objective' existence,
what it means to take such foundations as objective, and what it tells us about the
being of that entity that encounters such entities as 'objects.'
Left-Hegelian Thought
It was in this context that we introduced Hegel, for whom freedom serves as
the normative standard by which institutions and practices such as the sovereign
state are to be judged. According to this view, the 'objectivity' of institutions and
practices remains conditional upon the relation between these practices and the
being that encounters them as 'objects.' Put differently, the 'objectivity' of
institutions such as the state is conditional upon the extent to which they contribute
to the self-actualisation of the human being as a free being. Our contention was
that this foundational Hegelian commitment to human freedom, an ontological
commitment to the human being as a free being, might represent a more
371

universalistic ontological foundation for contemporary (global) ethics and politics,
applying to human beings qua human beings rather than to human beings qua
political subjects of dominant institutions such as the state.
It is worth reminding ourselves that this was a meta-theoretical engagement

with Rawls and Frost. We were not necessarily rejecting their normative claims,
but arguing that for their approaches to be considered 'good theories,' their ethical
foundations are in need of further evaluation.3 In other words, that we should only
accept their normative claims as binding on the condition that their respective
foundations serve to contribute to human freedom, that the basic structures of a
modern constitutional democracy (Rawls), or the practices of global civil society
and the system of sovereign states (Frost) contribute to the historical actualisation
of the human being as a free being.
It was for this reason that we identified with the left-Hegelian tradition of
thought. Motivated by an ontological commitment to the human being as a free
being, left-Hegelians, from Marx all the way down to contemporary critical
theorists and critical international theorists, have engaged in social inquiry with the
aim of foregrounding the possibilities for emancipatory change of the status quo.
After a discussion of the relation between critical theories and critical international
theories, where we outlined the two main paths of enquiry (historical/sociological
and normative/philosophical) into CIRT since the early 1980s, we defended the
view that the relevance of critical international theory is likely to grow and the
claim that Andrew Linklater's thought represents the most powerful, persuasive,
and promising version of CIRT.
Linklater's Dualist Rationalist Emancipatory

Cosmopolitanism.

3. As Neufeld explains 'International meta-theory [...] seeks an answer to the question: "what
constitutes good theory with regard to world politics?"' Mark A. Neufeld, The Restructuring of
International Relations Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 2.
372

By not treating dominant institutions as 'objective' ethical foundations, but
adopting a broad, philosophically, historically, and sociologically informed
vantage on these institutions instead, Linklater represents a marked improvement
on both Rawls and Frost. Nonetheless, we suggested that he might fall foul of the
same mistake made by Rawls, Frost, and the critical realists: that is, to rely on a
shallow ontology of 'things' as his ontological foundation, as opposed to a fuller
ontology of the human being as a free being.
With a view to substantiating such a claim, Chapter 2 initiated a

philosophical analysis of the philosophical/normative defence of Linklater's critical
international theory, which we often referred to simply as his 'emancipatory
cosmopolitanism.' Our central claim was that this is underwritten by a foundational
commitment to the human being conceived as ethical subject. To establish this, we
engaged in a meta-theoretical analysis of some of Linklater's key works: we
analysed his conception of emancipation, which is presented as the historical
actualisation of the ethical subject, the process by which the material conditions
that negate the full appropriation of ethical subjectivity are themselves
progressively negated, and his defence of moral universalism, where universality is
conceived as the universal responsibility to engage in dialogue. Both of these, we
argued, are underwritten by a foundational commitment to ethical subjectivity.
Our contention was that this foundational commitment represents a

conflation of what Heidegger identifies as the ontological difference between
entities and the being of entities (conceived as ethical subjectivity), which reveals
Linklater's submission to a form of metaphysical dualism: an ontological dualism
where ethical subjectivity amounts to the essential being of human beings
(although it manifests itself historically), and an epistemological dualism where the
individual conceived as ethical subject (i.e., the post-conventional discourse agent)
is treated as if it had a mind-independent existence, independent of the subject's
(Linklater's) claim to know it. Such an argument is metaphysical because it
presumes to apply to human beings qua human beings (human beings 'as such')
373

and to human beings as a whole, and is dualist because it rests on a foundational
split between subject and object.
As a result, Linklater's universalism, his emancipatory cosmopolitanism,

arises out of an always already posited meaning of being (as the historical
actualisation of ethical subjectivity) and its derivative structuring of a ground (what
the human being is: an ethical subject/post-conventional discourse agent) upon
which basis any claims to universality proceed. Our complaint was that this
overvalues one human potentiality (ethical subjectivity), and leads to an
emancipatory cosmopolitanism that is based upon relations between human beings
qua ethical subjects. Here, ethical and emancipatory relations are essentially
reduced to relations between 'intransitive objects' (i.e., ethical subjects), which is
morally deficient because moral recognition is extended only to ethical subjects.4
Moreover, we argued in Chapter 3 that Linklater's commitment to moral
universalism neglects the role of emancipatory praxis: the significance of practical
engagement with others, and the processes through which we become ethical
subjects, both of which are grounded in human freedom. Our conclusion was that
this is a contradictory and inappropriate basis for an ethical and emancipatory
cosmopolitanism, and that Linklater's emancipatory cosmopolitanism might then
fail by its own standards.
A Non-Dualist Praxeological Emancipatory Cosmopolitanism
Part 1 thus made the case that more universalistic forms of ontological
inquiry were required for contemporary (global) politics and ethics, and established
that the central weakness of Linklater's critical approach to international theory lay
in his foundational (ontological and epistemological) commitments to subjectivity
and objectivity. These commitments, we suggested, indicated both a limited
philosophical ontology of the human being, and a shallow conception of human

4. It is worth noting that moral recognition is not the same as moral concern. Whereas moral
recognition is extended to those who can, and/or are willing, to engage in dialogue, there is no basis
whatsoever to question the universality of moral concern in Linklater's account.
374

freedom. This led us to the conclusion that, although CIRT professes a high degree
of reflexivity regarding the relation between subject and object, its focus lies on the
role that theorising plays in the recreation of social reality and the emancipatory
purposes of theory, rather than with the implications of any underlying
commitments to ethical subjectivity, or claims to know any mind-independent
objects, for our modes of being in the world.
Having identified Heidegger and Hegel as two powerful challenges to

foundational commitments to subjectivity and objectivity, and with the aim of
improving on Linklater's essentially rationalist cosmopolitanism, we suggested
that both Heidegger and Hegel could help us develop an alternative praxeological
cosmopolitanism; one that might overcome the deficit of moral universalism. We
thus proceeded into Parts 2 and 3 with the research question:

Part 2
The central aims of Part 2 were to deepen the ontological foundations (in the
fuller sense of the term) of CIRT, and to begin our task of developing a richer
account of human freedom upon which an alternative emancipatory
cosmopolitanism might be based. Our claim was that, by eschewing a foundational
commitment to subjectivity and focussing instead on an existential analytic of
human existence, Heidegger's fundamental ontology could help us develop a more
universalistic ontological foundation for contemporary (global) politics and ethics.
In contrast to Rawls, Frost and Linklater, whose foundational ethical commitments
to 'objects' such as the state or the ethical subject led to normative claims that
applied only to human beings qua subjects of dominant political institutions, or
qua ethical subjects, Heidegger's existential analytic of human existence provides
375

us with a more universalistic ontological foundation, applying to human beings
qua human beings.
After establishing that Heidegger offers a much deeper account of human

existence and sociality than those departing from notions of 'subjectivity' or even
'intersubjectivity,' we argued in Chapter 4 that a more universalistic approach to
contemporary (global) politics and ethics must involve resisting the
(characteristically dualist) temptation to regard our own interpretation of the being
of beings as the only interpretation, and therefore to forgo an approach to politics
and ethics that is predicated on some universal foundation (such as an ethical
subject). Instead, the condition of an ethical and emancipatory politics, we argued,
is that it is predicated on what Heidegger calls 'resolute solicitous being-with,'
which is to be characterised by an 'intensification of one's cognitive and affective
capabilities' and a de-centred receptivity to the existence of others as others.5
Having surveyed Heidegger's existential analytic of human existence and his

general ontology of Being in Chapter 4, Chapter 5 explored some of the
implications for a regional ontology of the human being. Endorsing Olafson's
proposal that we conceive human beings as essentially 'world-relating creatures'
rather than ethical subjects, we then argued what this might mean for our
understandings of freedom, politics and ethics. Through Heidegger's engagement
with Kant's conception of freedom, we established that, before it is associated with
any form of subjectivity (ethical subjectivity, or the political subjectivity associated
with citizenship, for instance) freedom must be recognised, not as the property of
an individual, but as the existential condition of world disclosure: as the Abgrund
of the ontological difference.
Towards the end of Chapter 5 we saw that Heidegger's demonstration that

existence is coexistence, that relationality is antecedent to individuality, effectively
heralds a fundamental discontinuity between ethics and politics; while politics is
the process of projecting and contesting interpretations of the being of beings as a

376

whole, ethics concerns an open, receptive relation to the other as other.
Consequently, the problem with foundationalist approaches such as Linklater's is
that, by treating ethical subjectivity as a foundational ethical commitment, a
(subjective) interpretation of the being of human beings that is projected as a
general ontology of human being, they effectively present their politics as an
ethics, raising it above political contestation. For this reason we resounded calls
from the likes of Nancy and Derrida for a 'politics of singularity' to displace the
'politics of subjectivity' that we argued characterised Linklater's emancipatory
cosmopolitanism.
Part 3
Since one of the central weaknesses of Heidegger's account of resolute

solicitous being-with lies in his failure to give an account of the interpersonal
conditions of freedom and individuality, one of our reasons for turning to Hegel
was to refine our argument with the aid of his account of inter-human recognition.
With a view to demonstrating the nature of Hegel's completion of Kant's critical
project, this task was initiated in Chapter 6 through a discussion of the subject-
object relation from Kant and Hegel. We were particularly interested in Hegel's
reworking of Kant's treatment of (ethical and epistemological) subjectivity into
self-conscious subjectivity, Hegel's departure from Kant's foundational
commitment to subjectivity, and the nature of his disassociation of subjectivity
from individuality.
We determined that the achievement of self-conscious subjectivity involves

recognising that the subject-object split is not foundational, but derivative,
occurring within consciousness, and is overcome through an open, receptive
(phenomenological) relation to the mind-independent real, a relation discussed by
Hegel with reference to the experience of love. Insisting that this not be
misinterpreted as overly sentimental, we ascertained that 'love' is best understood
as an openness of self to other, and an attunement to the practical experience of the
377

mind-independent real by a mature personality cognisant of the limitations of
reflective rationality. Misrecognising the nature of self-conscious subjectivity as a
Kantian form of subjectivity, we argued, leads to deleterious implications for our
mode of being in the world, contributing to diremption, reification and de-
reification. These implications are consequent of a conception of the self as
foundational subject that stands in a transcendent and assimilatory relation to the
entities of its experience, entities that include other human beings.
Shifting focus from the philosophical (ontological and epistemological)

aspect of self-conscious subjectivity in Chapter 6, Chapter 7 attended to the
emancipatory aspect through a discussion of Hegel's account of the master and
slave. We established that this passage of the Phenomenology provides a model of
the re-cognitive structure of self-consciousness and the interruptive condition of
subjectivity. Or, put differently, it provides a demonstration that, as self-conscious
beings, we are fundamentally exposed to the existence of others for the character
of our freedom and our individuality - an exposure that is disclosed
phenomenologically through the experience of love. In light of this re-cognitive
structure of self-consciousness, we introduced another aspect of human freedom:
freedom as the transcendence of any given subjectivity through the interaction of
self and world.
In contrast to the Kantian conception of freedom as autonomous self-

direction, this form of freedom is best understood as an entirely immanent form of
transcendence, a process of transgressing any prior determination of a self.
Emancipation is then understood as a process of beings in their becoming, which,
following Nancy, we referred as the 'crossing of love.' We then argued that the
achievement of self-conscious subjectivity involves cultivating an attunement to
the existence of others, a receptivity that becomes part of a deeper fabric of our
self-understandings and ultimately informing the way that we relate to ourselves
and to others. We represented this with the notion of a shared participation in a
community of fate - an affective, cognitive attunement to the inter-personal and
378

cooperative conditions of our own (subjective) freedom and self-hood that
augments Heidegger's account of resolute solicitous being-with.
Having outlined the philosophical and emancipatory aspects of Hegel's

argument in Chapters 6 and 7, Chapter 8 focussed on the ethical aspect. Our central
aim here was to resuscitate and foreground the importance of ethical life
(Sittlichkeit) in an ethical and emancipatory politics, especially relative to the
importance of universalistic moral reason. For Hegel love is the feeling of ethical
life (Sittlichkeit) in its natural form, and following Hegel and Frankfurt, we argued
that love is a source and limit on the will and should be considered to be the
ultimate ground of practical rationality. Demonstrating that Habermas and
Linklater mistreat the notion of ethical life (Sittlichkeit) by ultimately treating it as
subordinate to moral law (Moralität), we established that ethical society requires
the recognition of the mutual implication of moral rationality and ethical life.
Since the exercise of moral reason operates according to the logic of law,
requiring the subjection to a common authority that is absent in world politics, our
contention was that there is a fundamental problem with the deployment of
Moralität at the cosmopolitical level. While the underlying assumption of
Linklater's emancipatory cosmopolitanism is that a shared commitment to ethical
subjectivity can provide such an authority, we have questioned the ethical and
emancipatory credentials of such a position. Having contended that ethical life
both underwrites and transcends the law, and that the ethical logic of love operates
in the absence of authority, we concluded by arguing that an ethical and
emancipatory approach to contemporary (global) politics and ethics must be based
upon the cultivation and extension of ethical life at a cosmopolitical level: the
development of a cosmopolitan ethos of love.
Vivifying Sittlichkeit: a Cosmopolitan Ethos of Love
379

While this is to concur with the conclusion to Men and Citizens that
progressive change in world politics involves the development of a nascent
international ethical life and a more rational form of international political life, it
does take issue with Linklater's more recent claim in The Problem of Harm, in
which he states that what he calls 'moral emotions' 'might be more useful in
shaping ethical ideas rather than in trying to understand how radical change may
occur at a global level.'6 Our complaint here is that Linklater underestimates the
full ethical and emancipatory significance of ethical praxis: circumscribed by his
foundational commitment to ethical subjectivity, he is unable to incorporate the
other two aspects of human freedom we have been discussing into his
emancipatory cosmopolitanism. With a view to clarifying the nature of our own
contribution, and shedding light on the nature of the shortcomings of Linklater's,
we can draw a distinction between cosmopolitan justice and a cosmopolitan ethos.
Cosmopolitan Justice / Cosmopolitan Ethos
We will recall from Chapter 5 that Heidegger distinguishes between ethics

and ethos, where the latter denotes an abode or dwelling place. Ethics, from the
Greek (hē) ēthikē (tekhnē)'(the science of) morals,' rely on the existence an ethical
subject, whereas 'ethos,' deriving from the Greek ēthos, 'nature' or
'disposition' relates to a habit of character, a spirit that is manifested in the actions
that such an ethos inspires. This distinction between ethics and ethos is also
reflected in Hegel's distinction between Moralität and Sittlichkeit, and our
advocacy of a cosmopolitan ethos of love clearly relates to the latter.
Largely characterised by the emphasis placed on moral universalism and

the development of universal norms of coexistence that might command the
consent of all those who stand to be affected by them, Linklater's emancipatory

6. Andrew Linklater, Men and Citizens in the Theory of International Relations, 2nd ed.
(Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 1990), 195. Andrew Linklater, The Problem of Harm in World
Politics, vol. 1 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 231.
380

cosmopolitanism is one primarily motivated by the ideal of justice.7 While this
remains an important aspect of an emancipatory cosmopolitanism, Linklater's
foundational commitment to ethical subjectivity undermines the significance of an
emancipatory cosmopolitan ethos.8 This leads to a neglect of the importance of
praxis (the deficit of moral universalism), an overemphasis on the significance of
moral rationality, and a reductive emancipatory cosmopolitanism.
Our distinction between a cosmopolitan justice and a cosmopolitan ethos

builds on Paul Ricoeur's distinction between justice and love.9 Despite containing
no explicit reference to Hegel, Ricoeur's suggestion that justice and love are
dialectically entwined is both illuminating and Hegelian in its theme. Insisting that
justice and love are not dichotomous, and neither should they be confused, with
one being reduced to the other, Ricoeur argues that the two exist in a creative
tension: between the poetics of love and the prose of justice, between a logic of
superabundance and a logic of equivalence.10 Ricoeur's insight is that the logics of
justice and love exist together in a way that makes a more responsible human life
possible.11 For Ricoeur, love is a medium of exchange between two people that
goes beyond the level of command (law). Although the law, the universal above
and beyond the two (the domain of justice), is a restraint against that which
destroys the possibility of this relation, love is a gift that both goes beyond and
sustains the law. Ultimately then, love comes before justice and makes justice
possible.12
Although both love and law are required for ethical society, we argued in
Chapter 8 that a logic of love is more appropriate in the absence of a common
authority. While we can try to foist a common authority onto others, ultimately this
can only lead to the establishment of the conditions of cooperation, preventing

7. Andrew Linklater, The Transformation of Political Community: Ethical Foundations of the Post-
Westphalian Era (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1998), 96.
8. We will clarify our relation to Linklater's emancipatory cosmopolitanism shortly.
9. Paul Ricoeur, “Love and Justice,” in Paul Ricoeur: The Hermeneutics of Action (Thousand Oaks:
Sage, 1996).
10. Ibid., 23-37.
11. Ibid., 31.
12. Norman Wirzba and Bruce Ellis Benson, Transforming Philosophy and Religion: Love’s
Wisdom (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2008), 5.
381

communities from disintegrating, rather than developing them. Although an
emancipatory cosmopolitanism needs both, given that a key aim of
cosmopolitanism is to overcome the duality of 'the domestic' and 'the global,' to
create more inclusive forms of communities and foster more universalistic forms of
common identification, love, compassion, and emancipatory praxis must come
first.
While more just relations can contribute to the development of such a

cosmopolitanism, the active transcendence of a condition of mutual disinterest, of
mutual antipathy, the achievement of a renewed and richer recognition of our
mutual dependence, and the development of heightened forms of mutuality and
solidarity, are things which cannot simply be based upon principles derived
through practical reason: it requires the development of more loving relations,
relations through which a more genuine human 'we' might emerge.
Our Praxeological Emancipatory Cosmopolitanism
Before we outline what we consider to be our original contribution to critical

international theory, and offer some examples of how our emancipatory
cosmopolitanism might be deployed, we will first outline some of the limitations of
our argument and clarify our relation to Linklater.
Limitations of Our Argument
The objections that we have raised to Linklater's CIRT, especially our claim
that it rests on a foundational commitment to ethical subjectivity, are important to
our argument and our own emancipatory cosmopolitanism has been developed in
response to these perceived shortcomings. However, our claims have been made
through a meta-theoretical analysis of his work and there are limitations to this
form of argument.
382

For instance, Linklater does not explicitly defend a commitment to ethical

subjectivity, and so our claims are necessarily inferential and are, therefore,
fallible. Beyond the inferential analysis of his conceptions of emancipation and
moral universality, our claim that Linklater's emancipatory cosmopolitanism is
predicated on a foundational commitment to the ethical subject was bolstered by an
analysis of Habermas in Chapter 3; but Linklater is not Habermas, and there are
differences between the two. 13 It is not patently clear, for instance, whether
Linklater wholly subscribes to Habermas's moral cognitivism and he is much more
sensitive to the concerns of 'postmodernism' and the challenges made to ethical
universalism than is Habermas.14 For these reasons, our argument may be errant.
Nonetheless, we maintain that there is ample evidence to conclude otherwise.

Much of this was provided in our close reading of Men and Citizens and
Transformation in Chapter 2, but also in our discussion of his essay The
Achievements of Critical Theory in Chapter 3. While affirming the challenges to
positivism and the immutability thesis, we questioned the ethical and emancipatory
credentials of Habermas's reconstruction of historical materialism and development
of a discourse theory of morality, both of which are crucial to Linklater's
philosophical, praxeological, and sociological analyses – and both are underwritten
by a foundational commitment to ethical subjectivity and the ethical subject.
Another shortcoming is that we have necessarily curtailed our engagement

with Linklater's work. Although we have broached his praxeological and
sociological arguments, our focus lay on the philosophical/normative aspect of his
CIRT. Besides the fact that Linklater has been impressively prolific, and his output
covers a broad ambit that we cannot hope to do justice to given our constraints, our
justification for this focus is that Linklater's emancipatory cosmopolitanism serves

13. For an explanation of differences between the two, and the weaknesses of Linklater's
deployment of Habermas see Martin Weber, “Engaging Globalization: Critical Theory and Global
Political Change,” Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 27, no. 3 (2002): 301-25.
14. See the section on 'Dialogue and Discourse' in Transformation, especially his discussion of the
feminist critique of discourse ethics, and his search for common ground between Lyotard and
Habermas. Andrew Linklater, The Transformation of Political Community, 87-100,93-95,96-98.
383

as the philosophical defence of his subsequent praxeological and sociological
analyses; any weaknesses in the philosophical/normative defence of his CIRT will
therefore be carried over. Nonetheless, given Linklater's insistence on the 'tripartite
structure' of any critical theory, save for the praxeological/sociological aspects of
our argument that are outlined below, our attempt to develop an emancipatory
cosmopolitanism on more convincing meta-theoretical foundations remains
incomplete according to Linklater's standards. This is an area for further work.
Our Relation to Linklater's CIRT
Our engagement with Linklater has obviously been a critical one; our
concern to outline the central weaknesses and shortcomings of his emancipatory
cosmopolitanism and develop our own has involved using his work as a critical
foil. While we stick by our criticisms, and insist that our own departs from his in
significant ways, our method of argumentation might ultimately be misleading, and
perhaps even at times, a little unfair; we can afford to be more conciliatory in
concluding our argument.
Linklater's emancipatory cosmopolitanism is a very real contribution to

international theory; we stand by the view that it represents the most persuasive
and powerful approach to international theory available. Moreover, we self-
consciously identify with the aspirations of CIRT and consider our argument to be
a contribution to the project of which Linklater has played a central part. Without
drastically overestimating our own abilities (or Linklater's for that matter), there is
a parallel running between our relation to Linklater's critical project and Hegel's to
Kant's.
As we explained in Chapter 6, there is an unfortunate tendency to

overemphasise the differences between Kant and Hegel, since 'Hegel's critique of
Kant, along with those of the entire post-Kantian German idealist movement, is
essentially a constructive critique that aims to work out and complete Kant's
384

critical project. ‘Despite criticising Kant on nearly every page of his writings,
Hegel's engagement with Kant is not a rejection of Kantianism, but part of the
development of his own Kantianism.'15
Similarly here, despite our criticisms of Linklater's work on nearly every

page, we are not rejecting Linklater's CIRT, but developing it; our ardent criticisms
does not deny our deference. Linklater must be commended for reminding the
discipline of the deeper philosophical and normative purpose of international
theory and for placing normative ideas and prospects for emancipatory change at
the heart of the research agenda in IR. His defence of a left-Hegelian approach to
international theory against alternatives is sound, as are his criticisms of neo-
realism, positivism, and the immutability thesis (as discussed in Chapter 3).
Moreover, his insistence on the 'tripartite structure' of any critical theory provides a
strong rebuttal against criticisms that emancipatory change is hopelessly idealistic
or naïve, and his later historical/sociological analyses of emancipatory political
change, as well as his praxeological arguments in Transformation that connect up
with the international society approach to international theory, all demonstrate that
an ethical and emancipatory approach to world politics can be realistic and
realisable. These are all important contributions that should be built upon, not
rejected.
Beyond the Foundationalist / Anti-foundationalist Divide?
However, running parallel to Rawls's and Frost's normative approaches to

international theory, the force of Linklater's argument rests on our acceptance of a
commitment to ethical subjectivity as an 'objective' ethical foundation. Such an
assumption is unwarranted.
We demonstrated the epistemological insufficiency of treating the individual

human being as ethical subject in Chapters 1 and 6, where we discussed Hegel's

15. Tom Rockmore, Kant and Phenomenology (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011), 212.
385

non-dualist approach to knowledge, according to which our interpretation of the
being of human beings is a mind-dependent construction. From this point of view,
the problem with foundationalist approaches to ethics and politics is that their
universalism rests upon a conflation of what Heidegger identifies as the ontological
difference between the mind-independent existence of entities and our mind-
dependent interpretations of their being (as ethical subjects, for instance). By
treating a commitment to ethical subjectivity as a foundational commitment,
foundationalist approaches to politics and ethics misrepresent their (subjective)
interpretation of the being of human beings as objective, treating the ethical subject
(or anther interpretation of the being of human beings) as if it had a mind-
independent existence.
Our philosophical evaluation of such a foundational commitment to ethical

subjectivity was initiated in our discussion of recent departures in critical theory in
Chapter 3. Our discussion there aimed to highlight the general tendency to move
increasingly further away from a foundational commitment to the ethical subject.
One of the central arguments developed was that the foundational commitment to
the ethical subject led to the privileging of moral theory over emancipatory praxis:
the side-lining of politics by morality (the deficit of moral universalism). This
argument was made primarily with reference to Foucault's notion of travail
éthique.16 Following Heidegger, Foucault aimed to draw attention to the fact that a
foundational commitment to ethical subjectivity, acting as if we were always
already ethical subjects, neglects the process of moral self-formation - the process
through which we become an ethical subject, a process that is grounded in human
freedom.
In light of this we endorsed Brincat's deployment of Honneth's theory of

recognition, which focussed on the interpersonal aspect of human freedom. Such a
move is promising because the project of emancipation is no longer only connected
to the establishment of the conditions for the exercise of ethical subjectivity, but
locates it within relations of inter-subjectivity: 'within the experiences of the

16. Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality, trans. Robert Hurley, vol. 2: The Use of Pleasure
(New York: Vintage, 1985), 27.
386

'dominated' themselves rather than civilising processes that take place 'above
them.'17 Nonetheless, following Odysseos's and Nancy's Heideggerian arguments,
we departed from Brincat's and Honneth's reliance on relations of 'intersubjectivity'
because this is unable to provide an adequate account of the relational nature of
individuality: the fact that relationality is antecedent to subjectivity, or, that
existence is coexistence.
The Achievements of Ethical Subjectivity
Anti-foundationalists rightly challenge foundationalist ethical or political

commitments (to ethical subjectivity for instance), arguing that these commitments
can potentially lead to violent and exclusive responses to difference. However, due
to their commitments to 'irony' or to radical autonomy, they often fail to recognise
that ethical subjectivity, and the political conditions within which it might be
exercised, are very real historical achievements.
We clearly need commitments to ethical subjectivity. We want to feel that

our decisions are our own. Acting 'as if we were' ethical subjects and being treated
'as if we were' ethical subjects empowers us to aspire to this level of responsibility
and autonomy: notional commitments to ethical subjectivity encourage individuals
to become free and responsible. Moral reason encourages us to adopt a level of
critical distance from our immediate existences and it helps shed light on the
essential limitations of our particularist communities. It enjoins us to challenge the
irrationalism and parochialism of nationalist ideologies and the exclusivity of self-
regarding forms of communitarianism, and offers us a forceful way of challenging
questionable institutions and practices – such as the self-defeating nature of drives
for power and influence in international affairs (of which Linklater's analysis of
Waltz's structural realism is a cogent example). Acting 'as if we were' ethical

2011), 312,314-315.
387

subjects most certainly does lead to the achievement of higher levels of self-
determination; ethical subjectivity helps bring the free being into being.
Indeed, we underlined the importance of our ability to 'act as if' we were

ethical subjects in Chapters 5 and 7 in relation to Kant's conception of freedom,
and Hegel's account of the master and slave. In regards the former, we saw that
Kant's resolution to the third antinomy between freedom and causality was to posit
the necessity of an uncaused cause (transcendental freedom). Although we cannot
experience this transcendental freedom, Kant argues in the second Critique that we
must act as if this transcendental thesis were true; to act otherwise would deny us
the ability to consider ourselves (and therefore act as) responsible agents. Despite
the epistemic possibility that we might well be deluded, for Kant there is a
practical necessity of acting as if we had cosmological freedom, otherwise we
simply could not act.18
Similarly with Hegel, in Chapter 7 we saw that both master and slave enter
the struggle for recognition with the desire for absolute independence; it is their
desire for freedom from all conditionality, their desire for subjectivity, that draws
them into the struggle in the first place. The individuals that face each other make
claims of freedom on one another, and resolve to treat each other 'as if they were'
ethical subjects to avoid the ensuing struggle between life and death. Importantly
though, this mutual recognition between 'subjects' is simply a way of mediating the
fact that they are fundamentally dependent on each other for their freedom, and
hence their subjective freedom is only ever a relative independence.
This is the central strength of Linklater's rationalist emancipatory

cosmopolitanism: he provides us with a potent defence of one aspect of human
freedom. Just like our meta-theoretical engagement with Rawls and Frost did not
lead to a rejection of their normative claims, but to an insistence that their

18. In a metaphysics lecture Kant is quoted as saying: 'Freedom is practically necessary – man must
therefore act according to an idea of freedom, otherwise he cannot act. That does not, however,
prove freedom in the theoretical sense.' Henry E. Allison, Idealism and Freedom: Essays on Kant’s
Theoretical and Practical Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 133-34.
388

foundational ethical commitments be subjected to further evaluation before we
accept their normative claims as binding, we are arguing that Linklater's normative
claims must be conditional upon the extent to which ethical subjectivity contributes
to human freedom; to be judged according to a more comprehensive account of
this normative ideal, such as ours.
'Overcoming' Linklater's Rationalist Emancipatory Cosmopolitanism
It is because we recognise with Linklater that ethical subjectivity is an

historical achievement, and that a logic of mutual equivalence is an important
aspect of an emancipatory cosmopolitanism, that we are not rejecting his
emancipatory cosmopolitanism. Reflecting Heidegger's famous call for an
'overcoming' of metaphysics (discussed in Chapter 4), we are arguing that
cosmopolitanism must be predicated on a more persuasive, more universalistic,
meta-theoretical foundation: that is to say, on a fuller ontological account of the
human being as a free being, to be accompanied by an epistemology that does not
conflate the 'ontological difference' or overlook the distinction between
mind/world and mind-independent real.
The problem with working from dualist premises is that ontological

commitments are concealed or treated as if they were neutral or universal.
Rhetorically, this method of argumentation is powerful but philosophically it might
be disingenuous and, in any case, it does not stand up to much scrutiny. Hence
despite recognising the achievements of ethical subjectivity (in this sense we are
more Hegelian than Heideggerian), we hope to have demonstrated that treating it
as a foundational commitment, or as if it were the apex of human maturity
(Kohlberg, Habermas, Linklater), is profoundly mistaken.
This way of thinking does not correspond to our experience (Emerson); it

misrepresents the essentially connected nature of our personalities (Hegel,
Emerson); it distorts our understandings of the world by objectifying the entities of
389

our experience (Heidegger, Hegel, Scheler, Lem); by establishing the self as
transcendent, knowing, and assimilatory in its relations to the entities that it
experiences, it adversely affects the nature of the relation between self and world
(the problem with Kant and Fichte; Frye, Buber); it precludes the possibility of a
genuine encounter with the other (Nancy); and it alienates us from the depth
phenomena of our existence - our experiences of ourselves as self-actualising
beings, of our positive freedom gained through the transcendence of any given
subjectivity (the crossing of love), and from our experiences of authentic
community - communities in which we are not subjects relating to other subjects.
For all these reasons a foundational commitment to the ethical subject is
profoundly misguided, epistemologically, ontologically, and ethically.
Furthermore, and more pertinent to an emancipatory politics, this way of

thinking undermines the two other aspects of human freedom that we have sought
to shed light on: freedom as existential condition of world-disclosure and freedom
as the transcendence of subjectivity, where any given subjectivity is transcended in
ethical and emancipatory praxis. For this reason, as it stands, being reliant on a
foundational commitment to ethical subjectivity, there is an essential tension
between Linklater's commitment to the development of more ethical and
emancipatory human relations and his philosophical defence of this position. This
is why we have argued that we are constitutively unable to build an emancipatory
cosmopolitanism from dualist premises, and why we need to overcome Linklater's
rationalist emancipatory cosmopolitanism with a praxeological emancipatory
cosmopolitanism. Herein lies our original contribution to critical international
theory.
Conclusions: Our Contribution to Critical International

Theory
Responding to Behr's call for the development of more universalistic

trajectories of ontological inquiry for contemporary politics and ethics, and having
390

identified with the left-Hegelian tradition of thought, our original contribution to
critical international theory has been to argue that it must be predicated, not on any
foundational commitments to subjectivity or objectivity, but on a fuller ontological
foundation: on an ontology of being, and of human being in particular. After
highlighting the essential weaknesses and contradictions latent within the most
compelling advocate of this approach to international theory, our move has been to
establish a 'critical' approach to international theory on a more persuasive and
universalistic meta-theoretical foundation. Our hope is that this represents a
contribution to a more adequate ethical and emancipatory approach to
contemporary (global) politics and ethics.
We offered an epistemological defence of this praxeological universalism

through Hegel's phenomenological constructivist approach to knowledge. In
contrast to the dualist approach, where the subject-object split occurs between
mind and world, and the object is treated as if it had a mind-independent 'objective'
existence, Hegel's approach to knowledge regards the subject-object split as
derivative, rather than foundational, and occurring within consciousness. This
called for a further distinction to be drawn between mind/world and mind-
independent real, where entities have a mind-independent existence, but their
being, which is dependent upon human understanding, and therefore on the activity
of 'mind' (Geist), does not.
Our contention was that this epistemological aspect of our argument can help
us move beyond the foundationalist/anti-foundationalist schism in normative
theory. In contrast to the foundationalist approach, we recognise that our
interpretation of the being of beings is a mind-dependent interpretation of a reality
that we wish to construct, and thus does not have a mind-independent existence;
consequently, that an ethical and emancipatory politics cannot be predicated on an
interpretation of the being of human beings that is projected as a universal
ontology of human being. In contrast to the anti-foundationalist approach however,
we realise that we can give better or worse accounts of the being of human beings,
391

accounts that are to be evaluated according to the normative ideal of more ethical
and emancipatory relations between human beings.
This brings us to the ontological aspect of our meta-theoretical argument,

which has aimed to develop a fuller, more universalistic understanding of the
nature of the human being as a free being. This has been an essentially
philosophical exercise that amounts to an attempt to contribute to the development
of a more adequate account of the human being as mind-dependent cognitive
object.
Since every human being that we encounter is first and foremost an entity
that has a mind-independent existence that we must presume exceeds our
understanding or interpretation of them, we have argued that relations to others are
best conceived as relations to singularities, relations that do not reduce the other to
simply a particular case of the human species, but relations that aspire to treat them
as singular irreplaceable beings. Building on this premise, we have also sought to
contribute other non-subjectivist accounts of the being of human beings. These
accounts are not mutually exclusive: they all capture aspects of the being of human
beings. Moreover, while they do not deny our ability to 'act as if' we were subjects,
they do amount to a recognition that such an activity is essentially a fugitive way
of understanding the self.
Firstly, following Heidegger, in Chapter 4 we defended a view of human

beings as ek-sistents: as beings that interpret Being, and which exist essentially as
potentiality rather than ground (as implied by 'subjectivity'). Following Olafson,
we built on this in Chapter 5, where we defended the view of the human being as a
world-relating creature, whose world relation represents the proximal fact of their
existence, and which they cannot simply transcend when they adopt a position of
subjectivity. Finally, in Part 3 we defended the view of the human being as the
being with potential for self-conscious subjectivity, the achievement by a mature
personality of a form of cognition that overcomes the limitations of object-oriented
392

forms of consciousness, which is characterised by an open, receptive attunement to
the existence of others, and to the disclosure of the mind-independent real.
Our argument that our interpretations of the being of human beings are mind-
dependent constructions means that an ethical and emancipatory politics cannot be
based upon some universal ground, a shared subjectivity, but must be premised
instead on a universal relation: an affective and receptive relation to the mind-
independent real where 'the other' can appear to us in their full singularity. Having
argued that freedom is not a property that drives our actions, but is appropriated in
praxis with others, and that what it means to be a free human being is to engage in
resolute solicitous being-with others, we concluded that an ethical and
emancipatory politics does not simply amount to the establishment of the political
conditions for the exercise of subjectivity, but must go beyond this.
Indeed, our fuller account of human freedom and the being of human beings
allow us to go beyond Linklater's praxeological arguments, which are seemingly
confined to the obligations of states to engage in different modes international
society to promote higher levels of universality and difference, or to project the
achievements of national citizenship out onto the sphere of international
19
relations. While not opposing Linklater's suggestions, our emancipatory
cosmopolitanism calls for a deeper and more demanding approach to an ethical and
emancipatory approach to contemporary (global) politics and ethics. Given the
material transformations of world politics outlined in the Introduction, it is
important that we make this move.
Our praxeological arguments are not just aimed at states and their agents, but
should also be received as a galvanising call to human beings qua human beings to
fully appropriate our own freedom by acting in ethical and emancipatory ways
towards others that we encounter. We might then return to our discussion of Bob
Francis and the Commonwealth minister's constituents from the Introduction and
ask again: what does it tell us about the being of those beings that encounter

19. Andrew Linklater, The Transformation of Political Community, 181,211-212.
393

refugees as others to be excluded? Does their prerogative as political subjects (as
citizens of the Australian state) to exclude others amount to an exercise of their
freedom as human beings? Does an ethical relation simply consist in their state's
non-contravention of cosmopolitan norms? In light of our previous discussions, the
answer to both is clearly a resounding 'no.'
Applying Our Argument
One of the problems highlighted with Wight's ontological argument about the
relation between structure and agency is that, although he shows that ontology
matters, it is not clear how social practice is affected by this realisation, both
analytically and normatively.20 We should avoid such a mistake. Moreover, our
fuller account of human freedom allows us to look beyond Habermas's and
Linklater's deployment of the normative ideal of universal communication as an
evaluative tool for critical social theory and a guide for ethical and emancipatory
praxis.
Based upon our argument for the vivification of an international ethical life,
we will now discuss three key implications of our argument. These allow us to
adopt critical stances on cosmopolitan norms, institutions, and identities, and they
relate to love as a guide for praxis, love as an evaluative tool for critical social
theory, and love as a way of cultivating a common human identity.
It is worth noting at the outset that we are not arguing against Linklater in
what follows; Linklater's rationalist emancipatory cosmopolitanism and ours are
not mutually exclusive. Indeed, unsurprisingly, there is much overlap with
Linklater's concerns. However, Linklater's foundational commitments deny him
powerful philosophical and motivational resources for an ethical and emancipatory
cosmopolitanism, and our emancipatory cosmopolitanism can inform international
practice in ways that Linklater's cannot. In contrast to Linklater's rationalism, our

20. Corneliu Bjola, “Agents, Structures, and International Relations: Politics as Ontology By Colin
Wight,” International Studies Review 9(2), no. 2 (2008): 316-18.
394

applications of our argument all proceed from an affirmation of our ethical
immediacy, from the essentially lived character of ethics, and from a relation to the
other as singularity rather than subject.
Love and Praxis
Our praxeological approach to an emancipatory politics enjoins us to resist or

overcome mediated relations between self and other, recognising that our
independence is only ever a relative independence and soliciting us to disconnect
from the organic community into which we are born, from our inherited places in
the global order of things, in the name of a higher universality.21 In the context of
world politics this might involve acting in ways that generate forms of solidarity
beyond traditional communities, across lines that traditionally divide people. It
might involve attempting to dissolve perceptions of mutual enmity or diffusing
hostility between collective entities through trust building initiatives, for instance.22

21. See for instance Žižek's article on the purpose and meaning of the E.U. as an application of this
logic. He writes: 'Christ's "scandalous" words from Luke point in the direction of a universality
which ignores every social hierarchy: "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and his
mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters – yes even his own life – he cannot be my
disciple" (14:26). Family relations stand here for any particular ethnic or hierarchic social link that
determines our place in the global order of things. The "hatred" enjoined by Christ is therefore not
the opposite of Christian love, but its direct expression: it is love itself that enjoins us to
"disconnect" from our organic community into which we were born, or, as St Paul put it, for a
Christian, there are neither men nor women, neither Jews nor Greeks. No wonder that, for those
fully identified with a particular way of life, the appearance of Christ was perceived as ridiculous or
traumatic.' Slavoj Žižek, “I Have a Dream,” The Guardian 4th February (2011).
22. A recent anti-war initiative, 'Israel Loves Iran,' launched by Tel Aviv resident Ronny Edry and
his wife Michal Tamirm is a heartening example of such a venture. See www.israelovesiran.com;
Elizabeth Flock, “‘Israel Loves Iran’ Anti-War Initiative Takes Off,” The Washington Post. 19th
March 2012, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/israel-loves-iran-anti-war-
initiative-takes-off/2012/03/19/gIQA1qWXNS_blog.html (accessed 20th June 2012). Ruth
Margalit, “Israel Loves Iran (on Facebook),” The New Yorker. March 23rd, 2012
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2012/03/israel-loves-iran-on-facebook.html
(accessed 20th June 2012).
Indeed, given that Muhammad was a descendant of Ishmael, himself a son of Abraham (and half
brother of Isaac), Israel and Iran may be seen as branches from the same trunk; relations between
them might then prove to be an interesting example of Hegel's argument for the reconciliation in
love of differentiated spheres of life that have split from an underlying unity. See (Genesis 12:4-7;
13:12-18; 15:1-21; 17:1-22; 21:1-14; 25:19-26; 26:1-6; 35:9-12); (Sura 19:54; Sura 37:83-109 cf.
Genesis 22:1-19)
395

It also encourages us to actively participate in ethical life (domestic and
global) with the aim of ameliorating injustices, which might involve the
vindication of acts of conscience. As a recent article on the activities of the hacker
collective Anonymous succinctly states, 'in more naïve times, one might naturally
prefer a law-bound state deciding which power abuses should be reined in and
which information exposed. But these are no longer naïve times.'23 In a decade that
saw the normalisation of policies of lawless detention, torture, extraordinary
rendition, targeted assassinations, along with the instigation of wars of
questionable legitimacy or legality, and a persistent refusal to bring those now or
formerly in power, in both public and private sectors, to account for their
transgressions, and political systems that increasingly favour the rich and powerful,
it is unsurprising that there is growing public mistrust of authority and increasing
suspicion that those with formal authority cannot be trusted to decide what wrongs
should be righted, what social ills should be addressed, what information should be
shared, or what actions are in the best interests of either of their own constituents
or those of a broader humanity.24
In light of these developments it should be unsurprising that individuals

acting collectively in networks and organisations such as Anonymous, Wikileaks,
or Sea Shepherd feel that they are able to make decisions based on the activity of
their own consciences and act on them with greater legitimacy than those
occupying positions in traditional structures of authority. These developments are
at once disconcerting and hopeful, and in their positive mode they are examples of
engaged, ethical, and emancipatory praxis.
Another, more pressing and disturbing example of love as a potential guide

for ethical and emancipatory praxis relates to an ongoing situation in Western
Burma.25 The Rohingya, a stateless people who have lived in Burma for at least 60

23. Yochai Benkler, “Hacks of Valour: Why Anonymous is Not a Threat to National Security,”
Foreign Affairs, 4th April 2012 http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137382/yochai-
benkler/hacks-of-valor. (accessed April 4, 2012).
24. Several of these examples are Benklers, several my own. Ibid.
25. See Moshahida Sultana Ritu, “Ethnic Cleansing in Myanmar,” New York Times, 12th July 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/13/opinion/ethnic-cleansing-of-myanmars-rohingyas.html
396

years (and perhaps centuries), have faced torture, neglect and repression since
Burma's independence from Britain in 1948. They are denied even the possibility
of citizenship by the country's constitution. Following recent unrest in Arakan
state, the Burmese are now trying to push them out of the country all together.
Rohingya people have been driven off their land, raped, beaten and starved to
death, and forced to flee to Bangladesh where they have simply been turned back
to Burma – the Burmese President Thein Sein even recently submitted a proposal
to the UN to have approximately all 800,000 Rohingya resettled in a third
country.26
Acts of love and compassion enjoin us to reconcile perceived differences

between self and other, to extend our trust and to take other's interests as our own,
in a process that is transformative of both; Bangladeshis who hid Rohingya
refugees from the authorities in their homes are lustrous examples. An ethical and
emancipatory response to this situation does not simply call for the establishment
of mutually agreeable principles of coexistence, nor does it call for the separation
of these communities; for even if all the Rohingya were resettled, those who forced
them to leave their lands would remain snared in their own hateful, xenophobic
subjectivity. Rather, our argument is that an ethical and emancipatory response
requires a revolution in the spirit or the ethos that governs such relations: a
revolution with the ultimate aim of reconciling these bitter divisions, reconciliation
that would constitute transcendence for both Rohingya and for other ethnic
Burmese.

(accessed 12th July 2012, 2012). and Benedict Rogers, “Is Burma Ready to Embrace Diversity?,”
Democratic Voice of Burma. 7th August, 2012 (accessed 12/08/2012).
26. Human Rights Watch, “The Government Could Have Stopped This,” Human Rights Watch. 1st
August (2012).
397

Love as Evaluative Tool27
Clearly actions do not occur outside of a social and historical context and
human freedom operates, at least partially, through social institutions and practices.
For this reason these institutions and practices should be subject to our own
standards of ethics and freedom; those that block or undermine the conditions of
our own freedom, or hamper fully ethical relations with others, are not fully
rational and should be subject to reform. This normative standard represents the
second practical application of our commitment to love as a cosmopolitan ethos:
love as a basis of critique.
Offering a cosmopolitan ethos of love as an evaluative tool for critical social

theory involves committing to the critique and transformation of practices and
institutions that pervert the dynamic of ethical life (Sittlichkeit). It provides us with
a normative standard with which to indict forms of ethical habituation, institutions
and practices, for being obstacles to a full appropriation of that which makes us
human: the depth phenomena of our existence – our experiences of freedom, our
self-actualisation, and our participation in different communities.
One obvious target for such criticism would be the exclusivity of the
nation-state, since it relies on the exclusion of non-citizens in order to safeguard
the protections that it can provide its own subjects, often forcibly and violently.
Yet criticism would also be extended to other material and ideational structures
that foster divisions between people, alienate self from other, and stand as
obstacles to fully free and ethical relations between people. As well as the state,
poverty and extreme inequality are examples of the latter, while exclusive religions
or political ideologies that suppose self-regarding traditional communities and their
institutional expressions to be natural and eternal (structural realism, for instance)
or those which treat particularist identities as singular, exclusive and superordinate

27. Frederick Neuhouser makes a related argument for using Hegel's characteristic understanding of
freedom, which Neuhouser refers to as 'social freedom' as an evaluative tool for critical social
theory. See Frederik Neuhouser, Foundations of Hegel’s Social Theory: Actualizing Freedom
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000); Frederik Neuhouser, “Hegel on Life, Freedom,
and Social Pathology” (Paper presented at the Philosophies of Right: Philosophical Conceptions of
Right from German Idealism to Critical Theory, New York, 2011).
398

to the extension of empathy and solidarity across cultural boundaries, can also be
subject to critique.
Material and Ideational Practices of Indifference
Affirming love as a cosmopolitan ethos also invites criticism to be directed

towards material and ideational practices that generate and sustain forms of
indifference towards others. We saw in Chapter 7 that a radical degree of co-
responsibility arises on account of our being bound together in a community of
fate. This co-responsibility does not compromise the autonomy of the individual -
every person remains fully responsible for his or her own actions - but, as for
Scheler, this co-responsibility must lead to a form of a radical questioning:
When another person commits an act of hate or violence, the questions implied in
solidarity are how such acts are possible and how have I participated in creating a world
wherein such acts are possible. The existence of hate necessarily implies that I have not
loved enough.28
The central idea is that social space is always constituted ethically and
normatively, it is a space in which human beings are formed or deformed, freed or
oppressed, through the structures in which we interact with others. Within this
space we cannot ethically harm another without ethically harming ourselves, and
others cannot be harmed without ourselves bearing co-responsibility for that
harm.29
In light of this, material and ideational practices that disavow this radical
co-responsibility and foster feelings of indifference towards others, or discourage
us from feeling obliged to those beyond our immediate circle of concern, confining

28. Max Scheler. Gesammelte Werke. Edited by Maria Scheler and Manfred S. Frings., Bonn:
Bouvier Verlag, 1986., II,526. Zachary Davis and Anthony Steinbock, Max Scheler, Winter 2011
ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
(http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2011/entries/scheler/, 2011).
29. J.M. Bernstein, “Early Theological Writings,” Lectures on Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit
The New School. New York City. 13th September (2006):
http://bernsteintapes.com/lectures/Hegel/03EarlyTheologicalWritingA.mp3.
399

our attentive care only to our local groups – towards compatriots or towards fellow
believers – are liable to censure. As are more individualistic social ideologies such
as libertarian ideas of absolute individual responsibility, extending even to those
cosmopolitanisms predicated on the idea of the individual as subject, where the
subject has to be moved into action in order to comply with universal duties or
obligations that have been theoretically derived.
No Stale Fraternity
Advocating the role of love in responding to our current actuality should

not then be considered a romantic idealism inappropriate to the public realm and
hopelessly diluted when applied to world politics, but rather as an argument
concerning the appropriate response to the singular others that we encounter in our
day-to-day existences; one that compels us to act in spite of our limited ability to
do so wholly effectively and alleviate these conditions. It should be thought of as
an antidote to the temptation to over-rationalise our responses to migrants,
refugees, the global poor, or towards those with whom we perceive a relation of
enmity, since this over-rationalisation often leads to a practical paralysis due the
overwhelming nature of the response (such as the case in the alleviation of global
poverty): an alienation from the other that results in our acquiesces to their
detainment in detention facilities (such as in the case of migrants or asylum
seekers); or the sanctioning of their inhumane treatment (such as in cases of the
torture or extra-judicial killings of 'enemy non-combatants'). While this is a first
order ethical concern, it is also politically relevant since, through the recognition of
life as life in its separated yet connected forms, love 'upholds life in its manifold
differences' and thus 'constitutes the vehicle of future cognitive determination
between the philosophical, the political and the economic, and there from, the
active promise of future polity.'30

30. Richard Beardsworth, “A Note to a Political Understanding of Love in Our Global Age,”
Contretemps (2006), 8.
400

It should also be clear that this is not a pacifying and conciliatory vision of
human relations. Love does not lead to the preaching of a stale fraternity, nor does
it ignore the existence of relations of power and exploitation: rather, it demands
that 'the injustice and cowardice of power must be denounced and, in their turn,
negated.'31 Loving is risky, it involves linking ourselves to the interests of another,
'exposing oneself to another's vicissitudes,' and it manifests itself as struggle.32 Yet
it is love that constitutes perhaps the deepest phenomena of our existences, and we
have argued that it represents the highest appropriation of our freedom. This makes
it an integral, yet hitherto neglected, part of any emancipatory politics - a crucial
and central aspect of an emancipatory cosmopolitanism.

31. Jean-Luc Nancy, Hegel: The Restlessness of the Negative (Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press, 2002), 62.
32. Harry G. Frankfurt, “Taking Ourselves Seriously and Getting it Right” (Paper presented at the
Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Stanford University, 2004), 195.
401
Bibliography
Aboulafia, Mitchell. Transcendence: On Self-Determination and
Cosmopolitanism., Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2010.
Adorno, Theodor. Negative Dialectics., London: Routledge, 1990.
———. Hegel: Three Studies., Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1993.
Adorno, Theodor W., and Max Horkheimer. Dialectic of Enlightenment., London:
Verso, 1986.
Agamben, Giorgio. Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life., Stanford:
Stanford University Press, 1998.
———. The Open: Man and Animal., Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004.
———. State of Exception., Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005.
Agamben, Giorgio, Alain Badiou, Daniel Bensaid, Wendy Brown, Jean-Luc
Nancy, Jacques Ranciere, Kristin Ross, and Slavoj Žižek. Democracy in
What State?, New York: Columbia University Press, 2011.
Allison, Henry E. Kant's Theory of Freedom., Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1990.
———. Idealism and Freedom: Essays on Kant's Theoretical and Practical
Philosophy., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities., London: Verso, 1991.
Appiah, Kwame Anthony. The Ethics of Identity., Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 2005.
———. Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers., London: Allen Lane,
2006.
Archibugi, Daniele, (ed.) Debating Cosmopolitics. London: Verso, 2003.
Archibugi, Daniele, and David Held, (eds.) Cosmopolitan Democracy: An Agenda
for a New World Order. Cambridge: Polity, 1995.
Archibugi, Daniele. The Global Commonwealth of Citizens: Toward Cosmopolitan
Democracy., Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008.
Arendt, Hannah. The Human Condition., Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1999.
Aristotle. Metaphysics. Translated by W.D. Ross., Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1924.
———. The Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by David Ross., Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2009.
Asher, Allan. 2012. The Lies We Feed Ourselves to Paint Refugees as Villains.
The Punch. 27th August. http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/The-lies-we-
feed-ourselves-to-paint-refugees-as-villains/ [accessed 28th August].
Ashley, Richard K. “Political Realism and Human Interests.” International Studies
Quarterly 25 (1981): 204-36.
———. “The Geopolitics of Geopolitical Space: Toward a Critical Social Theory
of International Politics.” Alternatives 12, no. 4 (1987): 403-34.
———. “Untying the Sovereign State: A Double Reading of the Anarchy
Problematique.” Millennium-Journal of International Studies 17, no. 2
(1988): 227-62.
Ashley, Richard K. and Walker, R.B.J. “Introduction: Speaking the Language of
Exile: Dissident Thought in International Studies.” International Studies

Quarterly 34, no. 3 (1990): 259-68.

———. “Reading Dissidence / Writing the Discipline: Crisis and the Question of
Sovereignty in International Studies.” International Studies Quarterly 34, no.
3 (1990): 367-416.
Ashton, Paul, Toula Nicolacopoulos and George Vassilacopoulos (eds.) The Spirit
of the Age: Hegel and the Fate of Thinking. Melbourne: re.press, 2008.
Avineri, Shlomo. “The Problem of War in Hegel's Thought.” Journal of the
History of Ideas 22, no. 4 (1961): 463-74.
———. Hegel's Theory of the Modern State., Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1974.
Badiou, Alain. “What is Love?” In Sexuation, edited by Renata Salecl, Durham:
Duke University Press, 2000.
———. In Praise of Love., London: Serpent's Tail, 2012.
Baker, Gideon. Politicising Ethics in International Relations: Cosmopolitanism as
Hospitality., London: Routledge, 2011.
Bambach, Charles. “Athens and Jerusalem: Rosenzweig, Heidegger, and the
Search for an Origin.” History and Theory (2005):
Barber, Benjamin. Jihad Vs. Mcworld., New York: Balentine Books, 1996.
Barnes, Stephen. “Emerson: Death and Growth.” Paper presented at the Society for
the Advancement of American Philosophy, Las Vegas, 2001.
Gills, Barry K., (ed.) The Global Politics of Globalization: "Empire" Vs.
"Cosmopolis". London: Routledge, 2007.
Bartelson, Jens. A Genealogy of Sovereignty., Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1995.
———. Visions of World Community., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2009.
Bayman, Henry. The Secret of Islam: Love and Law in the Religion of Ethics.,
Berkeley: North Atlantic Books, 2003.
Beals, Corey. Levinas and the Wisdom of Love: The Question of Invisibility.,
Waco: Baylor University Press, 2007.
Beardsworth, Richard. Derrida and the Political., London: Routledge, 1996.
———. “Futures of Spirit: Hegel, Nietzsche, and Beyond.” edited by Tillotam
Rajan and Arkady Plotnitsky, New York: SUNY Press, 2004.
———. “The Future of Critical Philosophy and World Politics.” Millennium-
———. “A Note to a Political Understanding of Love in Our Global Age.”
Contretemps (2006):
———. “Cosmopolitanism and Realism: Towards a Theoretical Convergence?”
Millennium-Journal of International Studies 37, no. 1 (2008): 69-96.
———. Cosmopolitanism and International Relations Theory., Cambridge: Polity
Press, 2011.
———. “Political Vision in the Discipline of International Relations.” Millennium-
———. “Response to Chris Brown's Review of Cosmopolitanism and
International Relations Theory.” Journal of International Political Theory 8,
no. 1-2 (2012): 116-17.
———. 2012. Assessing Cosmopolitan Theory in World Politics. e-International
Relations. http://www.e-ir.info/2012/05/27/assessing-cosmopolitan-theory-
403

in-world-politics/ [accessed 25/06/2012].

Behr, Hartmut. A History of International Political Theory: Ontologies of the
International., Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.
Beiser, Frederick C. The Cambridge Companion to Hegel., Cambridge: Cambridge
———. Hegel., London: Routledge, 2005.
———. A Lament. Edited by Paul E. Kerry., Friedrich Schiller: Playwright, Poet,
Philosopher, Historian. Bern: Peter Lang, 2007.
Beitz, Charles R. Political Theory and International Relations., Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1979.
Benhabib, Seyla. “The Utopian Dimension in Communicative Ethics.” New
German Critique 35 (1985): 83-96.
———. Critique, Norm, and Utopia: A Study of the Foundations of Critical
Theory., New York: Columbia University Press, 1986.
———. Situating the Self: Gender, Community and Postmodernism in
Contemporary Ethics., Oxford: Polity, 1992.
———. The Claims of Culture: Equality and Diversity in the Global Era.,
Princeton.: Princeton University Press, 2002.
Benhabib, Seyla and Dallmayr, Fred. The Communicative Ethics Controversy.,
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1990.
Benjamin, Andrew. The Plural Event: Descartes, Hegel, Heidegger., London:
Routledge, 2007.
Benkler, Yochai. 2012. Hacks of Valour: Why Anonymous is Not a Threat to
National Security. Foreign Affairs.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137382/yochai-benkler/hacks-of-
valor. [accessed April 4, 2012.].
Benner, Patricia. “The Quest for Control and the Possibilities of Care.” In
Heidegger, Coping, and Cognitive Science: Essays in Honour of Hubert L.
Dreyfus, edited by Mark Wrathall and Jeff Malpas, Cambridge, MA: The
MIT Press, 2000.
Bennett, Jane. The Enchantment of Modern Life: Attachments, Crossings, and
Ethics., Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001.
———. Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things., Durham, N.C.: Duke
Bernstein, J.M. “Phenomenology of Spirit. Sense-Certainty.” Lectures on Hegel's
Phenomenology of Spirit The New School. New York City. 10th October
(2006): http://bernsteintapes.com/lectures/Hegel/11Sense-CertaintyA.mp3.
———. “Phenomenology of Spirit. Sense-Certainty.” Lectures on Hegel's
(2006): http://bernsteintapes.com/lectures/Hegel/12Sense-CertaintyB.mp3.
———. “The Very Angry Tea Party.” New York Times. 13th June., 2010.
———. “Phenomenology of Spirit. Force and Understanding.” Lectures on
Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit The New School. New York City. 18th
October (2006):
http://bernsteintapes.com/lectures/Hegel/13ForceandUnderstandingA.mp3.
October (2006):
404

http://bernsteintapes.com/lectures/Hegel/14ForceandUnderstandingB.mp3.
October (2006):
http://bernsteintapes.com/lectures/Hegel/15ForceandUnderstandingC.mp3.
October (2006):
http://bernsteintapes.com/lectures/Hegel/16ForceandUnderstandingD.mp3.
———. “Phenomenology of Spirit. Lordship and Bondage.” Lectures on Hegel's
Phenomenology of Spirit The New School. New York City. 8th November
(2006): http://bernsteintapes.com/lectures/Hegel/19MasterSlaveA.mp3.
———. “Phenomenology of Spirit. Lordship and Bondage.” Lectures on Hegel's
Phenomenology of Spirit The New School. New York City. 8th November
(2006): http://bernsteintapes.com/lectures/Hegel/20MasterSlaveB.mp3.
———. “Phenomenology of Spirit. Self-Consciousness.” Lectures on Hegel's
Phenomenology of Spirit The New School. New York City. 1st November
(2006): http://bernsteintapes.com/lectures/Hegel/17SelfConsciousnessA.mp3.
———. “Phenomenology of Spirit. Self-Consciousness.” Lectures on Hegel's
Phenomenology of Spirit The New School. New York City. 1st November
(2006): http://bernsteintapes.com/lectures/Hegel/18SelfConsciousnessB.mp3.
———. “The Causality of Fate: Modernity and Modernism in Habermas.” Praxis
International 4 (1988): 407.
———. Recovering Ethical Life: Jürgen Habermas and the Future of Critical
Theory., London: Routledge, 1995.
———. “Confession and Forgiveness: Hegel's Poetics of Action.” In Beyond
Representation: Philosophy and Poetic Imagination, edited by Richard
Eldridge, 34–65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
———. “Hegel's Ladder: The Ethical Presuppositions of Absolute Knowing.”
Dialogue 39 (2000): 808-18.
———. “Love and Law: Hegel's Critique of Morality.” Social Research: An
International Quarterly 70, no. 2 (2003): 393-431.
———. “Negative Dialectic as Fate: Adorno and Hegel.” In The Cambridge
Companion to Adorno, edited by Tom Huhn, 19-50. Cambridge: Cambridge
———. “Early Theological Writings.” Lectures on Hegel's Phenomenology of
Spirit The New School. New York City. 13th September (2006):
http://bernsteintapes.com/lectures/Hegel/03EarlyTheologicalWritingA.mp3.
http://bernsteintapes.com/lectures/Hegel/04EarlyTheologicalWritingB.mp3.
http://bernsteintapes.com/lectures/Hegel/05EarlyTheologicalWritingC.mp3.
http://bernsteintapes.com/lectures/Hegel/06EarlyTheologicalWritingD.mp3.
———. “Introduction.” Lectures on Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit The New
405

School. New York City. 9th September (2006):

http://bernsteintapes.com/lectures/Hegel/01IntroA.mp3.
———. “Introduction.” Lectures on Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit The New
School. New York City. 9th September (2006):
http://bernsteintapes.com/lectures/Hegel/02IntroB.mp3.
———. “An Interview With J.M. Bernstein.” The New York Times, 2011.
———. “Phenomenology of Spirit. Introduction.” Lectures on Hegel's
Phenomenology of Spirit The New School. New York City. 27th September
(2006):
http://bernsteintapes.com/lectures/Hegel/07PhenomenologyIntroA.mp3.
(2006):
http://bernsteintapes.com/lectures/Hegel/09PhenomenologyIntroC.mp3.
(2006):
http://bernsteintapes.com/lectures/Hegel/10PhenomenologyIntroD.mp3.
Phenomenology of Spirit The New School. New York City. 27th September
(2006):
http://bernsteintapes.com/lectures/Hegel/08PhenomenologyIntroB.mp3.
———. “Axel Honneth, the Pathologies of Individual Freedom: Hegel's Social
Theory (Review).” Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews (2010):
———. “Conscience and Transgression: The Persistence of Misrecognition.”
Bulletin of the Hegel Society of Great Britain 29 (1994): 55-70.
Bernstein, Richard J. The Restructuring of Social and Political Theory., Oxford:
Basil Blackwell, 1976.
———. Beyond Objectivism and Relativism: Science, Hermeneutics, and Praxis.,
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1983.
———. The New Constellation: The Ethical-Political Horizons of
Modernity/Postmodernity., Cambridge: Polity Press, 1991.
Bhaskar, Roy. Scientific Realism and Human Emancipation., London: Verso,
1986.
———. Philosophy and the Idea of Freedom., Oxford: Blackwell, 1991.
———. Dialectic: The Pulse of Freedom., London: Verso, 1993.
———. A Realist Theory of Science., London: Verso, 1997.
———. The Possibility of Naturalism., London: Routledge, 1998.
Bjola, Corneliu. “Agents, Structures, and International Relations: Politics as
Ontology By Colin Wight.” International Studies Review 9(2), no. 2 (2008):
316-18.
Blanchard, Ben. 2011. Chinese Girl Dies in Hit-and-Run That Sparked Outrage.
Reuters. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/21/us-china-girl-
idUSTRE79K0HM20111021 [accessed 12/03/2012].
Blond, Louis P. Heidegger and Nietzsche: Overcoming Metaphysics., London:
Continuum, 2010.
Bloom, Allan. “The Ladder of Love.” In Plato's Symposium, Chicago: Chicago
406

Blunden, Andy. 2007. The Missing Mediation in Pragmatic Interpretations of

Hegel. http://home.mira.net/~andy/works/missing-mediation.htm [accessed
29th June 2012].
Bohman, James. “Critical Theory.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
edited by Edward N. Zalta, 2012.
Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Life Together: A Discussion of Christian Fellowship., New
York: Harper Row, 1954.
Booth, Ken. “Security and Emancipation.” Review of International Studies 17, no.
4 (1991): 313-26.
———. “Security in Anarchy: Utopian Realism in Theory and Practice.”
International Affairs 63, no. 3 (1991): 527-45.
———. “A Reply to Wallace.” Review of International Studies 23, no. 3 (1997):
371-77.
———. “Emancipation.” In Critical Security Studies and World Politics, edited by
Ken Booth, 181-87. Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 2005.
———. Theory of World Security., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Booth, Ken, (ed.) Critical Security Studies and World Politics. Boulder: Lynne
Rienner, 2005.
———. Realism and World Politics. London: Routledge, 2011.
Booth, Ken, and Timothy Dunne, (eds.) Worlds in Collision: Terror and the
Future of Global Order. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2002.
Booth, Ken, and Timothy Dunne, (eds.) Terror in Our Time. London: Routledge,
2012.
Booth, Ken, Timothy Dunne, and Michael Cox, (eds.) How Might We Live? Global
Ethics in a New Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Booth, Ken, and Steve Smith, (eds.) International Relations Theory Today.
Cambridge: Polity, 1995.
Boucher, David, (ed.) The British Idealists. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1997.
———. Political Theories of International Relations: From Thucydides to the
Present., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Boucher, David, and Paul. J. Kelly. The Social Contract From Hobbes to Rawls.,
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994.
Boucher, David and Andrew Vincent,. British Idealism and Political Theory.,
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2000.
Bourdieu, Pierre. Outline of a Theory of Practice., Cambridge: Cambridge
———. The Logic of Practice., Cambridge: Polity, 1990.
Bourdieu, Pierre, and Peter Collier. The Political Ontology of Martin Heidegger.,
Cambridge: Polity, 1991.
Bourke, Joanna. What it Means to be Human: Reflections From 1791 to the
Present., London: Virago, 2011.
Bowie, Andrew. Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Von Schelling. Edited by Edward N.
Zalta., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2010 Edition).
2010.
Brassett, James and Dan Bulley. “Ethics in World Politics: Cosmopolitanism and
Beyond?” International Politics 44 (2007): 1-18.
Braver, Lee. A Thing of This World: A History of Continental Anti-Realism.,
407

Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 2007.

Breazeale, Daniel., and Tom Rockmore. Fichte, German Idealism, and Early
Romanticism., Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2010.
Brincat, Shannon. “Hegel's Gesture Towards Radical Cosmopolitanism.” Journal
of Critical Globalisation Studies 1, no. 1 (2009): 47-65.
———. “Negativity and Open-Endedness in the Dialectic of World Politics.”
Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 34, no. 4 (2009): 455.
———. “Reclaiming the Utopian Imaginary in IR Theory.” Review of
International Studies 35, no. 03 (2009): 581-609.
———. “An Interview With Andrew Linklater.” Global Discourse 1, no. 1 (2010):
———. “Book Review: Critical Theory and World Politics: Citizenship,
Sovereignty and Humanity By Andrew Linklater.” Global Discourse 1, no. 1
(2011):
———. “Towards a Social-Relational Dialectic for World Politics.” European
Journal of International Relations 17, no. 4 (2011): 679-703.
———. “Towards an Emancipatory Cosmopolitanism: Reconstructing the
Concept of Emancipation in Critical International Relations Theory.” Ph.D.
Thesis, University of Queensland, 2011.
———. “The Future Trajectory of the Emancipatory Project in Critical IR
Theory.” Conference for International Studies (OCIS IV) (2010):
———. “Hegel, Emancipation and Critical International Theory.” Paper presented
at the Australasian Political Science Association, Brisbane, 2008.
Brincat, Shannon, Laura Lima, João Nunes, (ed.) Critical Theory in International
Relations and Security Studies: Interviews and Reflections. London:
Routledge, 2012.
Brook, Angus. The Early Heidegger and Ethics: The Notion of Ethos in Martin
Heidegger's Early Career., Saarbrücken: VDM, 2009.
Brooks, Thom. “Hegel's Theory of International Politics: A Reply to Jaeger.”
Review of International Studies 30, no. 01 (2004): 149-52.
Brown, Chris. “The Modern Requirement? Reflections on Normative International
Theory in a Post-Western World.” Millennium-Journal of International
Studies 17, no. 2 (1988): 339-48.
———. International Relations Theory: New Normative Approaches., New York:
Columbia University Press, 1992.
———. “'Turtles All the Way Down': Anti-Foundationalism, Critical Theory and
International Relations.” Millennium-Journal of International Studies 23, no.
2 (1994): 213-36.
———. “International Political Theory and the Idea of World Community.” In
International Relations Theory Today, edited by Ken Booth and Steve Smith,
90-109. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995.
———. “Universal Human Rights: A Critique.” The International Journal of
Human Rights 1, no. 2 (1997): 41-65.
———. “"Our Side"? Critical Theory and International Relations.” In Critical
Theory and World Politics, edited by Richard Wyn Jones, Boulder, CO:
Lynne Rienner, 2001.
———. Understanding International Relations., Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan, 2001.
———. Sovereignty, Rights and Justice: International Political Theory Today.,
408

Cambridge: Polity Press, 2002.

———. “Situating Critical Realism.” Millennium-Journal of International Studies
35, no. 2 (2007): 409-16.
———. “The Development of International Relations Theory in the United
Kingdom: Traditions, Contemporary Perspectives and Trajectories.”
International Studies 46, no. 1-2 (2009): 221-37.
———. “The 'Practice Turn,' Phronesis and Classical Realism: Towards a
Phronetic International Political Theory?” Millennium-Journal of
Brown, Chris, Terry Nardin and Nicholas Rengger, (eds.) International Relations
in Political Thought: Texts From the Ancient Greeks to the First World War.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Buber, Martin. Between Man and Man., London: Routledge, 2002.
———. I and Thou., London: Continuum, 2004.
Buck-Morss, Susan. Hegel, Haiti, and Universal History., Pittsburg: University of
Pittsburgh Press, 2009.
Bulchwater, Andrew, (ed.) Hegel and the Possibility of Global Justice. Berlin:
Springer, 2012.
Bull, Hedley. The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. 3 ed.,
Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2002.
Burggreave, Roger. The Wisdom of Love in the Service of Love: Emmanuel
Levinas on Justice, Peace, and Human Rights., Milwaukee: Marquette
Burke, Anthony. Beyond Security, Ethics and Violence: War Against the Other.,
London: Routledge, 2006.
Burns, S. Thompson. Global Justice and the Politics of Recognition., Basingstoke:
Palgrave, 2004.
Butler, Judith. Subjects of Desire: Hegelian Reflections in Twentieth-Century
France., New York: Columbia University Press, 1999.
———. “Longing for Recognition: Commentary on the Work of Jessica
Benjamin.” Studies in Gender and Sexuality 1, no. 3 (2000): 271-90.
Butler, Judith, Ernesto Laclau, and Slavoj Žižek. Contingency, Hegemony,
Universality: Contemporary Dialogues on the Left., London: Verso, 2000.
Campbell, D., and M.J. Shapiro, (eds.) Moral Spaces: Rethinking Ethics and World
Politics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1999.
Campbell, David. National Deconstruction: Violence, Identity, and Justice in
Bosnia., Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press, 1998.
———. “Why Fight? Humanitarianism, Principles, and Post-Structuralism.”
———. Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of
Identity., Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1998.
———. “The Deterritorialisation of Responsibility: Levinas, Derrida, and Ethics
After the End of Philosophy.” In Moral Spaces: Rethinking Ethics and World
Politics, edited by D. Campbell, and M.J. Shapiro, Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota Press, 1999.
———. “Beyond Choice: The Onto-Politics of Critique.” Journal of Human
Rights 19, no. 1 (2005): 127-34.
Campbell, David and Shapiro, Michael J. “Introduction: From Ethical Theory to
409

Ethical Relation.” In Moral Spaces: Rethinking Ethics and World Politics,

edited by David Campbell and Michael J. Shapiro, Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota Press, 1999.
Candler, P.M., and C. Cunningham. Transcendence and Phenomenology.,
Norwich: Scm Press, 2007.
Candrakīrti. Introduction to the Middle Way: Chandrakirti's Madhyamakavatara.,
Boston: Shambhala Publications, 2002.
Caputo, John D. “Husserl, Heidegger, and the Question of a "Hermeneutic"
Phenomenology.” Husserl Studies 1 (1984): 157-78.
———. Against Ethics: Contributions to a Poetics of Obligation With Constant
Reference to Deconstruction., Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2005.
Cardinal, Roger. “Romantic Travel.” In Rewriting the Self: Histories From the
Renaissance to the Present, edited by Roy Porter, London: Routledge, 1997.
Carr, Edward Hallet. The Twenty Years' Crisis., London: Macmillan, 1981.
Carter Mullen, Deborah. Beyond Subjectivity and Representation: Perception,
Expression, and Creation in Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Merleau-Ponty.,
Lanham: University Press of America, 1999.
Cavell, Stanley. The Claim of Reason: Wittgenstein, Skepticism, Morality, and
Tragedy., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Cavelty, Myriam Dunn. “The Militarisation of Cyber Security as a Source of
Global Tension.” Strategic Trends Analysis (2012):
Charvet, John. A Critique of Freedom and Equality., Cambridge: Cambridge
Chernoff, Fred. “Scientific Realism as a Meta-Theory of International Politics.”
International Studies Quarterly 46 (2002): 189-207.
———. “Critical Realism, Scientific Realism, and International Relations
Theory.” Millennium-Journal of International Studies 35, no. 2 (2007): 399-
407.
———. “The Ontological Fallacy: A Rejoinder on the Status of Scientific Realism
in International Relations.” Review of International Studies 35 (2009): 371-
95.
Cheung, C.F. “Between Myself and Others: Towards a Phenomenology of the
Experience of Love.” Paper presented at the Identity and Alterity:
Phenomenology and Cultural Traditions, Hong Kong, 24th May 2005.
Christians, Clifford, and Michael Traber. Communication Ethics and Universal
Values., Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1997.
Çıdam, Çiğdem. “Antonio Negri's Radical Critique of Contemporary Capitalism:
Invoking Love, Revolutionizing Politics and Theorizing Democracy.” Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of Political Science Association,
Washington DC, 2010.
Cochran, Molly. “International Ethics as Pragmatic Critique: Confronting the
Epistemological Impasse of the Cosmopolitan / Communitarian Debate.”
PhD Thesis, London, 1996.
———. Normative Theory in International Relations: A Pragmatic Approach.,
Cohen, Robin and Robert Fine. “Four Cosmopolitan Moments.” In Conceiving
Cosmopolitanism: Theory, Context, Practice, edited by Steven Vertovec and
Robert Cohen, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
410

Cohen, Steven and Robin Vertovec, (ed.) Conceiving Cosmopolitanism: Theory,

Context, and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.
Coker, Francis William. Organismic Theories of the State: Nineteenth Century
Interpretations of the State as Organism Or as Person. Vol. (101), Brooklyn:
AMS press, 1910.
Collingwood, R.G., and D. Boucher. The New Leviathan: Or Man, Society,
Civilization and Barbarism., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Connolly, William. The Ethos of Pluralization., Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press, 1995.
———. “Suffering, Justice, and the Politics of Becoming.” In Moral Spaces:
Rethinking Ethics and World Politics, edited by D. Campbell, and M.J.
Shapiro, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1999.
———. Why I Am Not a Secularist., Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press,
1999.
Coole, Diana and Frost, Samantha, (ed.) New Materialisms: Ontology, Agency,
Politics. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 2010.
Coward, Martin. “Jean-Luc Nancy.” In Critical Theorists and International
Relations, edited by Jenny Edkins and Nick Vaughan-Williams, London:
Routledge, 2009.
Cox, Robert W. “Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International
Relations Theory.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 10, no. 2
(1981): 126-55.
———. “Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: An Essay in Method.”
Millennium: Journal of International Studies 12, no. 2 (1983): 162-75.
———. Production, Power, and World Order: Social Forces in the Making of
History. Vol. 1, New York: Columbia University Press, 1987.
———. Approaches to World Order., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1996.
———. The New Realism: Perspectives on Multilateralism and World Order.,
Tokyo: United Nations University Press, 1997.
———. “Civil Society At the Turn of the Millennium: Prospects for an Alternative
World Order.” Review of International Studies 25, no. 1 (1999): 3-28.
———. “The Way Ahead: Toward a New Ontology of World Order.” In Critical
Theory and World Politics, edited by Richard Wyn Jones, Boulder, CO:
Lynne Rienner, 2001.
———. “Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations.” In Antonio Gramsci:
Contemporary Applications, edited by James Martin, London: Routledge,
2002.
Craig, Campbell. Glimmer of a New Leviathan: Total War in the Realism of
Niebuhr, Morgenthau, and Waltz., New York: Columbia University Press,
2003.
Crisp, Roger, and Michael A. Slote. Virtue Ethics., Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1997.
Critchley, Simon. The Ethics of Deconstruction: Derrida and Levinas., Oxford:
Blackwell, 1992.
———. Ethics, Politics, Subjectivity: Essays on Derrida, Levinas and
Contemporary French Thought., London: Verso, 1999.
———. The Faith of the Faithless: Experiments in Political Theology., London:
411

Verso, 2012.
Cunningham, Conor. Genealogy of Nihilism: Philosophies of Nothing and the
Difference of Theology., London: Routledge, 2002.
Dahlstrom, Daniel O. “Thinking of Nothing: Heidegger's Criticism of Hegel's
Conception of Negativity.” In A Companion to Hegel, edited by Stephen
Houlgate and Michael Baur, 519-37. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011.
Dallmayr, Fred R. Twilight of Subjectivity: Contributions to a Postindividualist
Theory of Politics., Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1981.
———. “Ontology of Freedom: Heidegger and Political Philosophy.” Political
Theory 12, no. 2 (1984): 204-34.
———. Polis and Praxis: Exercises in Contemporary Political Theory.,
———. “Introduction.” In The Communicative Ethics Controversy, edited by
Seyla Benhabib and Fred Dallmayr, Cambridge MA: The MIT Press, 1990.
———. Between Freiburg & Frankfurt: Towards a Critical Ontology., Amherst:
University of Massachusetts Press, 1991.
———. Life-World, Modernity and Critique: Paths Between Heidegger and the
Frankfurt School., Cambridge: Polity Press, 1991.
———. G.W.F.Hegel: Modernity and Politics., Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield,
1993.
———. The Other Heidegger., Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1995.
———. Beyond Orientalism: Essays on Cross-Cultural Encounter., New York:
SUNY Press, 1996.
———. Alternative Visions: Paths in the Global Village., Oxford: Rowman &
Littlefield, 1998.
———. “Heidegger on Macht and Machenschaft.” Continental Philosophy Review
34, no. 3 (2001): 247-67.
———. Dialogue Among Civilizations: Some Exemplary Voices., Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2002.
———. “Cosmopolitanism: Moral and Political.” Political Theory 31, no. 3
(2003): 421-42.
———. Small Wonder: Global Power and Its Discontents., Oxford: Rowman &
Littlefield, 2005.
———. “Empire Or Cosmopolis: Civilisation At the Crossroads.” In The Global
Politics of Globalization: "Empire" Vs. "Cosmopolis", edited by Barry K.
Gills, London: Routledge, 2007.
———. “On Love With Distinction.” Dao 7, no. 1 (2008): 5-8.
———. The Promise of Democracy: Political Agency and Transformation.,
Albany: SUNY Press, 2010.
———. “Nikolas Kompridis. Critique and Disclosure: Critical Theory Between
Past and Future. (Review).” Notre Dame (2009):
Dallmayr, Fred R., and Peter R. Moody. Non-Western Political Thought., Notre
Dame: University of Notre Dame, 1997.
Davis, Zachary and Steinbock, Anthony. Max Scheler. Edited by Edward N. Zalta.
Winter 2011 ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2011/entries/scheler/, 2011.
Deibert, Ronald J. “Black Code Redux: Censorship, Surveillance, and the
Militarisation of Cyberspace.” In Digital Media and Democracy: Tactics in
412

Hard Times, edited by Megan Boler, Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press,
2008.
Deligiorgi, Katerina, (ed.) Hegel: New Directions. Chesham: Acumen, 2006.
Derian, James Der, and Michael J. Shapiro. International / Intertextual Relations:
Postmodern Readings of World Politics., Lexington, Mass.: Lexington
Publishers, 1989.
Derrida, Jacques. “The Ends of Man.” Philosophy and Phenomenological
Research 30, no. 1 (1969): 31-57.
———. Limited Inc., Evanston, Il.: Northwestern University Press, 1977.
———. Writing and Difference., Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978.
———. Margins of Philosophy., Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982.
———. “Deconstruction and the Other.” In Dialogues With Contemporary
Continental Thinkers: The Phenomenological Heritage, edited by Richard
Kearney and Paul Ricoeur, 107–26. Manchester: Manchester University
Press, 1984.
———. Glas., Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1990.
———, “Letter to a Japanese Friend.” In A Derrida Reader: Between the Blinds,
edited by Peggy Kamuf, 269-76. New York: Columbia University Press,
1991.
———. Of Spirit: Heidegger and the Question., Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1991.
———. “Force of Law: The Mystical Foundation of Authority.” In Deconstruction
and the Possibility of Justice, edited by Rosenfeld and Carlson Cornell,
———. The Other Heading: Reflections on Today's Europe., Bloomington, In.:
Indiana University Press, 1992.
———. “Nietzsche and the Machine: An Interview With Jacques Derrida By
Richard Beardsworth.” Journal of Nietzsche Studies 7 (1994): 7-66.
———. Specters of Marx: The State of the Debt, the Work of Mourning, and the
New International., London: Routledge, 1994.
———. The Gift of Death., Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.
———. Deconstruction in a Nutshell: A Conversation With Jacques Derrida.,
New York: Fordham University Press, 1997.
———. Monolingualism of the Other, Or, the Prosthesis of Origin. Translated by
Patrick Mensah., Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998.
———. Of Grammatology. Translated by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak., Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998.
———. Adieu to Emmanuel Levinas. Translated by Michael Nass and Pascale-
Anne Brault., Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999.
———. On Cosmopolitanism and Forgiveness., London: Routledge, 2001.
———. Negotiations: Interventions and Interviews, 1971-2001. Edited by E.
Rottenberg., Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2002.
———. “Autoimmunity: Real and Symbolic Suicides. A Dialogue With Jacques
Derrida.” In Philosophy in a Time of Terror: Dialogues With Jürgen
Habermas and Jacques Derrida, edited by Giovanna Borradori, Chicago:
Chicago University Press, 2003.
———. Dissemination. Translated by Barbara Johnson., London: Continuum,
2004.
413

———. For What Tomorrow: A Dialogue., Stanford: Stanford University Press,

2004.
———. Positions., London: Continuum, 2004.
———. On Touching, Jean-Luc Nancy., Stanford: Stanford University Press,
2005.
———. Rogues: Two Essays on Reason., Stanford: Stanford University Press,
2005.
———. The Politics of Friendship. Translated by George Collins., London: Verso,
2005.
———. “Violence and Metaphysics.” In Emmanuel Levinas: Levinas,
Phenomenology and His Critics, edited by Claire Elise Katz and Clara Trout,
———. The Animal That Therefore I Am. Translated by David Wills., New York:
Fordham University Press, 2008.
Devetak, Richard. “Critical Theory.” In Theories of International Relations, edited
by Andrew Linklater Scott Burchill, et al., London: Macmillan, 1996.
Dillon, Michael. Politics of Security: Towards a Political Philosophy of
Continental Thought., London: Routledge, 1996.
Dilthey, Wilhelm. Die Jugendgeschichte Hegels Und Andere Abhandlungen Zur
Geschichte Des Deutschen Idealismus., Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1990.
Douzinas, Costas. “Law's Birth and Antigone's Death: On Ontological and
Psychoanalytical Ethics.” Cardozo Law Review 16, no. 3-4 (1995): 1325–62.
Doyle, Michael W. “Liberalism and World Politics.” American Political Science
Review 80, no. 4 (1986): 1151-69.
———. “Liberalism and International Relations.” In Kant and Political
Philosophy: The Contemporary Legacy, edited by Ronald Beiner and
William James Booth, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996.
Dreyfus, Hubert. Being-in-the-World: A Commentary on Heidegger's Being and
Time., Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1991.
Dudley, Will. Hegel, Nietzsche, and Philosophy: Thinking Freedom., Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Dunne, Timothy, Michael Cox, and Ken Booth, (eds.) The Eighty Years Crisis,
1919-1999. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Dunne, Timothy, Milja Kurki, and Steve Smith. International Relations Theories:
Discipline and Diversity., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Edkins, Jenny. Poststructuralism and International Relations: Bringing the
Political Back in., Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1999.
———. “Humanitarianism, Humanity, Human.” Journal of Human Rights 2, no. 2
(2003): 253-58.
———. “Exposed Singularity.” Journal for Cultural Research 9, no. 4 (2005):
359-86.
Edkins, Jenny, Veronique Pin-Fat, and Michael J. Shapiro, (eds.) Sovereign Lives:
Power in Global Politics. London: Routledge, 2004.
Edkins, Jenny Veronique Pin-Fat, Nalini Persram, (ed.) Sovereignty and
Subjectivity. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1999.
Elden, Stuart. “Rethinking the Polis: Implications of Heidegger's Questioning the
Political.” Political Geography 19, no. 4 (2000): 407-22.
414

———. Speaking Against Number: Heidegger, Language, and the Politics of

Calculation., Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2006.
Elias, Norbert. What is Sociology?, New York: Columbia University Press, 1978.
———. The Civilising Process: State Formation and Civilisations. Vol. 2
Translated by E. Jephcott., Oxford: Blackwell, 1982.
———. The Civilising Process: Sociogenetic and Psychogenetic Investigations.
Vol. 1, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2000.
Emad, Parvis. “Heidegger on Schelling's Concept of Freedom.” Man and World 8,
no. 2 (1975): 157-74.
Emerson, Ralph Waldo. Selections From Ralph Waldo Emerson. Edited by
Stephen W. Whichner., Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1960.
Erskine, Toni. “‘Citizen of Nowhere’ Or ‘the Point Where Circles Intersect’?
Impartialist and Embedded Cosmopolitanisms.” Review of International
Studies 28, no. 3 (2002): 457-78.
———. “Qualifying Cosmopolitanism? Solidarity, Criticism, and Michael
Walzer's View From the Cave.” International Politics 44, no. 1 (2007): 125-
49.
———. Embedded Cosmopolitanism: Duties to Strangers and Enemies in a World
of 'Dislocated Communities'., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Esposito, Robert. Communitas: The Origin and Destiny of Community. Translated
by Timothy Campbell., Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2010.
Etzioni, Amitai. From Empire to Community: A New Approach to International
Relations., Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.
Falk, Richard. “The Making of Global Citizenship.” In The Condition of
Citizenship, edited by Bart van Steenbergen, London: Sage, 1994.
Farias, Victor. Heidegger and Nazism., Philadelphia University Press: Temple
Farirfield, Paul. “Habermas, Kohlberg, and the Myth of Expertise.” Eidos 11, no.
1-2 (1993): 77-91.
Fine, Robert and Robin Cohen. “Four Cosmopolitan Moments.” In Conceiving
Cosmopolitanism: Theory, Context, and Practice, edited by Steven Vertovec
and Robin Cohen, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.
Flock, Elizabeth. 2012. ‘Israel Loves Iran’ Anti-War Initiative Takes Off. The
Washington Post. 19th March.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/israel-loves-iran-anti-
war-initiative-takes-off/2012/03/19/gIQA1qWXNS_blog.html [accessed 20th
June 2012].
Forster, Michael N. Hegel's Idea of a Phenomenology of Spirit., Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1998.
Foucault, Michel. The History of Sexuality. Vol. 2: The Use of Pleasure Translated
by Robert Hurley., New York: Vintage, 1985.
———. The History of Sexuality. Vol. 3. The Care of The Self Translated by
Robert Hurley., New York: Vintage, 1986.
———. “The Ethic of Care for the Self as a Practice of Freedom: An Interview
With Michel Foucault on January 29, 1984.” In The Final Foucault, edited
by James Bernauer and David Rasmussen, trans. J.D. Gauthier, Cambridge,
MA: The MIT Press, 1988.
———. The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality. Edited by Colin Gordon
415

Graham Burchell, Peter Miller., Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991.

———. Security, Territory, Population: Lectures At the Collège De France 1977-
78., Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.
Franco, Paul. Hegel's Philosophy of Freedom., New Haven: Yale University Press,
1999.
Frankfurt, Harry G. Necessity, Volition, and Love., Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1999.
———. The Reasons of Love., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
———. Taking Ourselves Seriously and Getting it Right., Stanford: Stanford
———. “Taking Ourselves Seriously and Getting it Right.” Paper presented at the
Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Stanford University, 2004.
Fraser, Giles. “You've Got to Respect Sceptics.” The Guardian, Friday 29th June
2012.
Frede, Dorothea. “The Question of Being: Heidegger's Project.” In The Cambridge
Companion to Heidegger, edited by Charles Guignon, Cambridge:
Frost, Mervyn. “The Role of Normative Theory in IR.” Millennium-Journal of
———. Ethics in International Relations: A Constitutive Theory., Cambridge:
———. “A Turn Not Taken: Ethics in IR At the Millennium.” Review of
———. “Mervyn Frost Replies to Peter Sutch’s ‘Human Rights as Settled Norms:
Mervyn Frost and the Limits of Hegelian Human Rights Theory’.” Review of
———. Constituting Human Rights: Global Civil Society and the Society of
Democratic States., London: Routledge, 2002.
———. Global Ethics: Anarchy, Freedom and International Relations., London:
Routledge, 2009.
Frye, Northrop. The Double Vision: Language and Meaning in Religion., Toronto:
University of Toronto Press, 1991.
Fukuyama, Francis. The End of History and the Last Man., New York: Harper
Perennial, 1993.
Fuller, Thomas. “Wary Neighbors Turn Into Partners in a Quickly Developing
Southeast Asia.” The New York Times. July 6th., July 6th 2012.
Gabriel, Markus, and Slavoj Žižek. Mythology, Madness and Laughter:
Subjectivity in German Idealism., London: Continuum, 2009.
Gadamer, Hans-Georg. Hegel's Dialectic: Five Hermeneutical Studies., New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1982.
———. Reason in the Age of Science., Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1983.
———. “Back From Syracuse?” Critical Enquiry 15, no. 2 (1989): 427-30.
———. Heidegger's Ways., New York: SUNY Press, 1994.
———. “Subjectivity and Intersubjectivity, Subject and Person.” Continental
Philosophy Review 33, no. 3 (2000): 275-87.
———. Truth and Method., London: Continuum, 2004.
———. Philosophical Hermeneutics., Berkeley: University of California Press,
2008.
416

Gaddis, John Lewis. “International Relations Theory and the End of the Cold
War.” International Security 17, no. Winter (1992): 5-58.
Gaita, Raimond. A Common Humanity: Thinking About Love and Truth and
Justice., London: Routledge, 2002.
Ganis, Richard. The Politics of Care in Habermas and Derrida., Plymouth:
Lexington, 2011.
Gaon, Stella. “Pluralizing Universal "Man": The Legacy of Transcendentalism and
Teleology in Habermas's Discourse Ethics.” Review of Politics 60 (1998):
685-718.
Gauchet, Marcel. The Disenchantment of the World: A Political History of
Religion. Translated by Oscar Burge., Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1999.
Geertz, Clifford. The Interpretation of Cultures., London: Hutchinson, 1975.
Gemes, Ken, and Simon May. Nietzsche on Freedom and Autonomy., Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2009.
George, Jim. Discourses of Global Politics: A Critical (Re)Introduction to
International Relations., Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1994.
George, Jim and David Campbell. “Patterns of Dissent and the Celebration of
Difference: Critical Social Theory and International Relations.” International
Studies Quarterly 34 (1990): 269-93.
Geras, Norman. “The View From Everywhere.” Review of International Studies
25, no. 1 (1999): 157-63.
Germain, Randall D., and Michael Kenny. The Idea of Global Civil Society:
Politics and Ethics in a Globalizing Era., London: Routledge, 2005.
Gillespie, Michael Allen. Hegel, Heidegger and the Ground of History., Chicago:
Gilligan, Carol. In a Different Voice., Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
1993.
Gills, Barry K. “Introduction.” In The Global Politics of Globalization: "Empire"
Vs. "Cosmopolis", edited by Barry K. Gills, London: Routledge, 2007.
Gökay, Bulent, and R.B.J. Walker. 11 September 2001 War, Terror and
Judgement., London: Routledge, 2003.
Gordon, Peter E. Continental Divide: Heidegger, Cassirer, Davos., Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 2010.
Gordon, Peter Eli. Rosenzweig and Heidegger: Between Judaism and German
Philosophy., Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003.
Gorner, Paul. Twentieth Century German Philosophy., Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2000.
Gramsci, Antonio. Prison Notebooks., New York: Columbia University Press,
2011.
Guignon, Charles B. “Introduction.” In The Cambridge Companion to Heidegger,
Guignon, Charles B., (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Heidegger. Cambridge:
Guyer, Paul. “Thought and Being: Hegel's Critique of Kant's Theoretical
Philosophy.” edited by Frederik Beiser, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1993.
Guzzoni, Ute. “Do We Still Want to be Subjects?” In Deconstructive
417

Subjectivities, edited by Simon Critchley and Peter Dews, New York: SUNY
Press, 1996.
Haacke, Jürgen. “Theory and Praxis in International Relations: Habermas, Self-
Reflection, Rational Argumentation.” Millennium-Journal of International
Studies 25, no. 2 (1996): 255-89.
Haar, Michel. “The Question of Human Freedom in the Later Heidegger.” The
Southern Journal of Philosophy Supplement 28, no. 1 (1989): 1-16.
———. Heidegger and the Essence of Man. Translated by W. McNeill., New
York: SUNY Press, 1993.
Habermas, Jürgen. Communication and the Evolution of Society. Translated by
Thomas McCarthy., Boston: Beacon, 1979.
———. Theory of Communicative Action. Vol. 1. Reason and the Rationalization
of Society, Cambridge: Polity Press, 1986.
———. “Work and Weltanschauung: The Heidegger Controversy From a German
Perspective.” Critical Inquiry 15, no. 2 (1989): 431-56.
———. “Discourse Ethics: Notes on a Programme of Philosophical Justification.”
In The Communicative Ethics Controversy, edited by Seyla Benhabib and
Fred Dallmayr, Cambridge MA: The MIT Press, 1990.
———. “Justice and Solidarity: On the Discussion Concerning Stage 6.” In The
Moral Domain: Essays in the Ongoing Discussion Between Philosophy and
the Social Sciences, edited by Thomas E. Wren, Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT
Press, 1990.
———. The Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory., Cambridge, MA:
The MIT Press, 1998.
———. Knowledge and Human Interests., Boston: Beacon Press, 1972.
———. Theory of Communicative Action. Vol. 2: Lifeworld and System: A
Critique of Functionalist Reason, London: Heinenmann, 1989.
———. The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity: Twelve Lectures., Cambridge,
Mass.: The MIT Press, 1990.
———. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action., Cambridge, Mass.: The
MIT Press, 1992.
———. “Morality and Ethical Life: Does Hegel's Critique of Kant Apply to
Discourse Ethics.” In Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action,
Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1992.
———. Justification and Application: Remarks on Discourse Ethics., Cambridge:
Polity Press, 1993.
———. Postmetaphysical Thinking: Philosophical Essays., Cambridge, MA: The
MIT Press, 1994.
———. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law
and Democracy. Translated by William Rehg., Cambridge: Polity Press,
1996.
———. “From Kant to Hegel and Back Again–The Move Towards
Detranscendentalisation.” European Journal of Philosophy 7, no. 2 (1999):
129-57.
———. Philosophy in a Time of Terror: Dialogues With Jürgen Habermas and
Jacques Derrida., Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003.
Hadreas, Peter J. A Phenomenology of Love and Hate., Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007.
Hall, Phil. 2008. Solaris: Higher Sentience Communicates Through Love, Not
418

Vivisection. http://xuitlacoche.blogspot.com/2008/07/solaris-higher-
sentience-communicates.html [accessed 14/06/2012].
Hamilton, Gary. “Looking for Luca - the Mother of All Life.” New Scientist 2515
(2005):
Hardimon, Michael. Hegel's Social Philosophy: The Project of Reconciliation.,
Harris, H.S. Hegel's Development: Towards the Sunlight 1770-1801., Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1972.
———. Hegel's Ladder. Vol. 2: The Odyssey of Spirit, Indianapolis: Hackett,
1997.
———. Hegel's Ladder. Vol. 1: A Commentary on Hegel's Phenomenology of
Spirit, Indianapolis: Hackett, 1997.
Hegel, G. W. F. Vorlesungen Über Rechtsphilosophie (Lectures on the Philosophy
of Right). Edited by K.H. Ilting., Stuttgart: Frommann Verla, 1974.
———. The Philosophy of History., New York: Dover Publications, 2004.
———. Early Theological Writings. Translated by T.M. Knox., Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 1971.
———. “Fragment of a System.” In Early Theological Writings, trans. T.M. Knox,
———. “Fragment on Love.” In Early Theological Writings, trans. T.M. Knox,
———. “The Spirit of Christianity and Its Fate.” In Early Theological Writings,
trans. T.M. Knox, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1971.
———. Phenomenology of Spirit. Translated by A.V. Miller., Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1977.
———. Lectures on the Philosophy of World History. Translated by H.B. Nisbet.,
———. The Jena System, 1804-5: Logic and Metaphysics. Translated by George
di Giovanni., Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1986.
———. Hegel's System of Ethical Life and First Philosophy of Spirit., New York:
SUNY Press, 1988.
———. The Difference Between Fichte's and Schelling's System of Philosophy.,
New York: SUNY Press, 1988.
———. Elements of the Philosophy of Right. Translated by H.B. Nisbet.,
———. Hegel: Political Writings., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
———. “Hegel's Philosophy of Nature: Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical
Sciences (1830), Part Ii (Hegel's Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences)
(Pt. 2).” (2004):
———. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel: Heidelberg Writings: Journal
Publications., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
———. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel: The Science of Logic. Translated by
George di Giovanni., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
Heidegger, Martin. The Question of Being. Translated by William Kluback and
Jean T. Wilde., London: Vision, 1956.
———. Being and Time. Translated by John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson.,
Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 1962.
———. Hegel's Concept of Existence., New York: Harper & Row, 1970.
419

———. Hegel's Concept of Experience., New York: Harper & Row, 1970.
———. “The Anaximander Fragment.” Arion 1, no. 4 (1973): 576-626.
———. What is Called Thinking? Translated by J. Glenn Gray., New York:
Harper Perennial, 1976.
———. The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays. Translated by
William Lovitt., New York: Harper & Row, 1977.
———. Nietzsche. Vol. One: The Will to Power as Art Translated by David
Farrell Krell., London: Routledge, 1981.
———. Schelling's Treatise: On the Essence of Human Freedom., Athens, OH:
Ohio University Press, 1985.
———. Nietzsche. Vol. Two: The Eternal Recurrence of the Same Translated by
David Farrell Krell., San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1991.
———. History of the Concept of Time: Prolegomena. Translated by Theodore
Kisiel., Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1992.
———. “Letter on Humanism.” In Martin Heidegger: Basic Writings, edited by
David F. Krell, New York: Harper Collins, 1993.
———, Martin Heidegger: Basic Writings. New York: Harper Collins, 1993.
———. “On the Essence of Truth.” In Martin Heidegger: Basic Writings, edited
by David F. Krell., New York: Harper Collins, 1993.
———. “The Origin of the Work of Art.” In Martin Heidegger: Basic Writings,
edited by David F. Krell., New York: Harper Collins, 1993.
———. “What is Metaphysics?” In Martin Heidegger: Basic Writings, edited by
David F. Krell., New York: Harper Collins, 1993.
———. Hegel's "Phenomenology of Spirit". Translated by Parvis Emad and
Kenneth Maly., Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1994.
———. Being and Time. Translated by Joan Stambaugh., New York: SUNY
Press, 1996.
———. Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics. Translated by Richard Taft.,
Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1997.
———. Basic Concepts., Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1998.
———. Introduction to 'What is Metaphysics'. Translated by Walter Kaufmann.
Edited by William McNeill., Pathmarks. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1998.
———. An Introduction to Metaphysics. Translated by Gregory Fried and Richard
Polt., New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000.
———. Towards the Definition of Philosophy., London: Continuum, 2000.
———. The Fundamental Concepts of Metaphysics: World, Finitude, Solitude.,
Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2001.
———. The Essence of Human Freedom: An Introduction to Philosophy., London:
Continuum, 2002.
———. The Essence of Truth: On Plato's Cave Allegory and Theaetus., London:
Continuum, 2002.
———. Philosophical and Political Writings. Edited by Manfred Stassen.,
London: Continuum, 2003.
———. The End of Philosophy. Translated by Joan Stambaugh., Chicago:
———. The Phenomenology of Religious Life., Bloomington: Indiana University
Press, 2004.
420

———. “The End of Philosophy and the Task of Thinking.” In Martin Heidegger:
Basic Writings From Being and Time (1927) to the Task of Thinking (1964),
edited by David Farrell Krell, London: Routledge, 2007.
———. Country Path Conversations. Translated by Bret W. Davis., Indianapolis:
Indiana University Press, 2010.
———. “Only a God Can Save Us: The Spiegel Interview (1966).” edited by
Thomas Sheehan, New Jersey: Transaction, 2010.
Held, David. “Cosmopolitan Democracy and the Global Order: A New Agenda.”
In Perpetual Peace: Essays on Kant's Cosmopolitan Ideal, edited by James
Bohman and Mattias Lutz-Bachmann, Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1997.
———. Global Covenant: The Democratic Alternative to the Washington
Consensus., Cambridge: Polity, 2004.
———. Democracy and the Global Order: From the Modern State to
Cosmopolitan Governance., Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995.
———. Introduction to Critical Theory: Horkheimer to Habermas., Cambridge:
Polity, 1990.
———. Political Theory Today., Cambridge: Polity, 1991.
Held, David and McGrew, Anthony. “The End of the Old Order? Globalization
and the Prospects for World Order.” In 'The Eighty Years' Crisis:
International Relations 1919-1999, edited by Tim Dunne Ken Booth, and
Michael Cox, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Held, Virginia. Feminist Morality: Transforming Culture, Society, and Politics.,
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993.
Henrich, Dieter. “Ethics of Autonomy.” In The Unity of Reason: Essays on Kant's
Philosophy, edited by Richard Velkey, trans. Louis Hunt, Cambridge, Mass:
———. Between Kant and Hegel: Lectures on German Idealism., Cambridge.:
Hobson, John M. “Is Critical Theory Always for the White West and for Western
Imperialism? Beyond Westphilian Towards a Post-Racist Critical IR.” In
Critical International Relations Theory After 25 Years, edited by Nicholas
and Ben Thirkell-White Rengger, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2007.
Hodge, Joanna. Heidegger and Ethics., London: Routledge, 1995.
Hoffman, Mark. “Critical Theory and the Inter-Paradigm Debate.” Millennium-
Journal of International Studies 16 (1987): 231-49.
———. “Restructuring, Reconstruction, Reinscription, Rearticulation: Four
Voices in Critical International Theory.” Millennium-Journal of International
Studies 20, no. 2 (1991): 169-85.
Honneth, Axel. The Struggle for Recognition: The Moral Grammar of Social
Conflicts., Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1996.
———. Disrespect: The Normative Foundations of Critical Theory., London:
Polity, 2007.
———. Reification: A New Look At an Old Idea., Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2008.
———. Pathologies of Reason: On the Legacy of Critical Theory. Translated by
James Ingram., New York: Columbia University Press, 2009.
———. The Pathologies of Individual Freedom: Hegel's Social Theory. Translated
421

by Ladislaus Löb., Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010.

———. “Reification: A Recognition-Theoretic View.” Paper presented at the
Tanner Lectures on Human Values, University of California, Berkeley, 2005.
Hopkins, Nick. “Militarisation of Cyberspace: How the Global Power Struggle
Moved Online.” The Guardian, Monday 16 April 2012.
Horkheimer, Max. “Traditional and Critical Theory.” In Critical Sociology:
Selected Readings, edited by P. Connerton, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1978.
———. Critical Theory., New York: Seabury Press, 1982.
———. Critical Theory: Selected Essays., London: Continuum, 1997.
Houlgate, Stephen. Freedom, Truth and History: An Introduction to Hegel's
Philosophy., London: Routledge, 1991.
———. “The Unity of Theoretical and Practical Spirit in Hegel's Concept of
Freedom.” The Review of Metaphysics 48, no. 4 (1995): 859-81.
Houlgate, Stephen, (ed.) Hegel and the Philosophy of Nature. New York: SUNY
Press, 1998.
Hoy, David, and Thomas McCarthy. Critical Theory., Oxford: Blackwell, 1994.
Human Rights Watch. “The Government Could Have Stopped This.” Human
Rights Watch. 1st August (2012):
Hume, Neil. 2012. Australia Searches for Missing Boat People. Financial Times.
Thursday 30th August. http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/6a87bd78-f270-11e1-
ac41-00144feabdc0.html [accessed 30th August].
Huntington, Samuel P. The Clash of Civilisations and the Remaking of World
Order., New York: Simon & Schuster, 1997.
Hurrell, Andrew. “Kant and the Kantian Paradigm in International Relations.”
Review of International Studies 16 (1990): 183-205.
Husserl, Edmund. Cartesian Meditations: An Introduction to Phenomenology.,
Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1991.
Hutchings, Kimberley. Kant, Critique and Politics., London: Routledge, 1996.
———. International Political Theory: Rethinking Ethics in a Global Era.,
Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1999.
———. “The Nature of Critique in Critical International Relations Theory.” In
Critical Theory and World Politics, edited by Richard Wyn Jones, Boulder,
CO: Lynne Rienner, 2001.
———. Hegel and Feminist Philosophy., Cambridge: Blackwell, 2003.
———. “Speaking and Hearing: Habermasian Discourse Ethics, Feminism and
IR.” Review of International Studies 31, no. 1 (2005): 155-65.
———. “Happy Anniversary! Time and Critique in International Relations
Theory.” In Critical International Theory After 25 Years, edited by Nicholas
Rengger and Ben Thirkell-White, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2007.
———. Time and World Politics: Thinking the Present., Manchester: Manchester
———. Global Ethics: An Introduction., Cambridge: Polity Press, 2010.
Hutchings, Kimberley and Pulkkinen, Tuija, (ed.) Hegel's Philosophy and Feminist
Philosophy: Beyond Antigone? Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.
Hyde, Timothy Alexander David. “Negativity in Hegel and Breakdown in
Heidegger: An Investigation Into the Structures of Finitude in "the Science of
Logic" and "Being and Time".” SUNY Stony Brook, 2005.
422

Hyppolite, Jean. The Genesis and Structure of Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit.,

Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1974.
Inayatullah, Naeem and Blaney, David L. International Relations and the Problem
of Difference., London: Routledge, 2004.
———. “Neo-Modernization? IR and the Inner Life of Modernization Theory.”
European Journal of International Relations 8, no. 1 (2002): 103-37.
Inwood, Michael. A Hegel Dictionary., Oxford: Blackwell, 1992.
———. A Heidegger Dictionary., Oxford: Blackwell, 1999.
Ireton, Sean. Ontological Study of Death: From Hegel to Heidegger., Pittsburgh:
Duquesne University Press, 2007.
The Future of International Relations: Masters in the Making. Edited by Iver B.
Neumann and Ole Waever., London: Routledge, 1997.
Jabri, Vivienne. “Solidarity and Spheres of Culture: The Cosmopolitan and the
Postcolonial.” Review of International Studies 33, no. 4 (2007): 715-28.
Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus. “Foregrounding Ontology: Dualism, Monism, and IR
Theory.” Review of International Studies 34, no. 1 (2008): 129-53.
———. The Conduct of Inquiry in International Relations: Philosophy of Science
and Its Implications for the Study of World Politics., London: Routledge,
2011.
Jackson, Robert. Classical and Modern Thought on International Relations: From
Anarchy to Cosmopolis., Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.
Jacobi, Friedrich. David Hume Über Den Glauben, Oder Idealismus Und
Realismus. Ein Gespräch., Breslau: Gottlieb Löwe, 1787.
Jaeger, Hans-Martin. “Hegel's Reluctant Realism and the Transnationalisation of
Civil Society.” Review of International Studies 28, no. 3 (2002): 497-517.
Jahn, Beate. “One Step Forwards, Two Steps Back: Critical Theory as the Latest
Edition of Liberal Idealism.” Millennium-Journal of International Studies 27
(1998): 613-41.
———. “Kant, Mill, and Illiberal Legacies in International Affairs.” International
Organization 59, no. 1 (2005): 177-207.
———. Classical Theory in International Relations., Cambridge: Cambridge
Janicaud, Dominique. “The Question of Subjectivity in Heidegger's Being and
Time.” In Deconstructive Subjectivities, edited by Simon Critchley and Peter
Dews, Albany: SUNY Press, 1996.
Jones, Richard Wyn, (ed.) Critical Theory and World Politics. Boulder, CO: Lynne
Reiner, 2001.
Joseph, Jonathan. “Philosophy in International Relations: A Scientific Realist
Approach.” Millennium-Journal of International Studies 35, no. 2 (2007):
345-59.
Joseph, Jonathan and Colin Wight, (ed.) Scientific Realism and International
Relations. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.
Joseph, Jonathan, and Wight, Colin. “Scientific Realism and International
Relations.” In Scientific Realism and International Relations, edited by
Jonathan Joseph and Colin Wight, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.
Jurist, Elliot L. Beyond Hegel and Nietzsche: Philosophy, Culture, and Agency.,
Kain, Philip J. Hegel and the Other., New York: SUNY Press, 2005.
423

Kakkori, Leena and Rauno Huttunen. 2007. The Gilligan-Kohlberg Controversy

and Its Philosophico-Historical Roots. Encyclopaedia of Philosophy of
Education [accessed 26th June, 2012].
Kant, Immanuel. Political Writings. Translated by H.B. Nisbet. Edited by H.S.
Reiss., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
———. The Metaphysics of Morals. Edited by Mary J. Gregor., Cambridge:
———. “Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch.” In Kant: Political Writings,
edited by H.S. Reiss, trans. H.B. Nisbet, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1996.
———. Critique of Practical Reason. Edited by Mary J. Gregor., Cambridge:
———. Critique of Pure Reason. Translated by Allen W. Wood and Paul Guyer.
Edited by Allen W. Wood and Paul Guyer., Cambridge: Cambridge
———. Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. Edited by Mary Gregor.,
———. Religion Within the Boundaries of Mere Reason. Translated by Allen
Wood and George di Giovanni., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1998.
———. Toward Perpetual Peace and Other Writings on Politics, Peace, and
History. Edited by Pauline Kleingeld., New Haven: Yale University Press,
2006.
———. “Towards Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch.” In Toward Perpetual
Peace and Other Writings on Politics, Peace, and History, edited by Pauline
Kleingeld, trans. David L. Colclasure, New Haven: Yale University Press,
2006.
———. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals: A German-English Edition.
Translated by Mary Gregor. Edited by Mary Gregor and Jens Timmermann.,
Cambridge: Cambridge, 2011.
Keane, Bernard. 2011. Cost of Detention? $113,000 Per Asylum Seeker. Crikey.
17th August. http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/08/17/detention-centre-cost-of-
asylum-seekers/ [accessed 30th August].
Kearney, Richard. The Wake of Imagination., London: Routledge, 1998.
———. On Stories., London: Routledge, 2002.
Kearney, Richard & Ron Kuipers,. “Evil, Ethics, and the Imagination: An
Interview With Richard Kearney, Part I.” The Other Journal: An Intersection
of Theology and Culture 20 (2012):
Keohane, Robert. “International Institutions: Two Approaches.” International
Studies Quarterly 32, no. 4 (1988): 379-96.
Kierkegaard, Søren. Works of Love. Translated by Hong & Hong., Princeton:
———. Fear and Trembling., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
King, Anthony. The Structure of Social Theory., London: Routledge, 2004.
King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane and Sidney Verba. Designing Social Inquiry:
Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research., Princeton.: Princeton University
Press, 1994.
Knowles, Dudley. Guidebook to Hegel and the "Philosophy of Right"., London:
424

Routledge, 2002.
Kohlberg, Lawrence. “The Claim to Moral Adequacy of a Highest Stage of Moral
Judgement.” Journal of Philosophy 70 (1973): 532-633.
Kojève, Alexandre. Introduction to the Reading of Hegel: Lectures on the
"Phenomenology of Spirit"., New York: Cornell, 1980.
Kolb, David. The Critique of Pure Modernity: Hegel, Heidegger and After.,
Kompridis, Nikolas. Critique and Disclosure: Critical Theory Between Past and
Future., Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 2006.
Kosh, Michelle. Freedom and Reason in Kant, Schelling and Kierkegaard.,
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2006.
Krasnoff, Larry. Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit: An Introduction., Cambridge:
Kratochwil, Friedrich. Rules, Norms and Decisions: On the Conditions of Practical
and Legal Reasoning in International Relations and Domestic Affairs.,
———. “Constructing a New Orthodoxy? Wendt's 'Social Theory of International
Politics' and the Constructivist Challenge.” Millennium-Journal of
———. “History, Action and Identity: Revisiting the "Second" Great Debate and
Assessing Its Importance for Social Theory.” European Journal of
International Relations 12, no. 1 (2006): 5-29.
———. “Looking Back From Somewhere: Reflections on What Remains 'Critical'
in Critical Theory.” In Critical International Relations Theory After 25
Years, edited by Nicholas Rengger and Ben Thirkell-White, Cambridge:
Krause, Keith and Michael C. Williams, (ed.) Critical Security Studies: Concepts
and Cases. London: UCL Press, 1997.
Kurki, Milja. “Causes of a Divided Discipline: Rethinking the Concept of Cause in
International Relations Theory.” Review of International Studies 32, no. 2
(2006): 189-216.
———. “Critical Realism and Causal Analysis in International Relations.”
———. Causation in International Relations: Reclaiming Causal Analysis.,
———. “Critical Realism and the Analysis of Democratisation: Does Philosophy
of Science Matter?” In Scientific Realism and International Relations, edited
by Jonathan Joseph and Colin Wight, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan,
2010.
———. “The Limitations of the Critical Edge: Reflections on Critical and
Philosophical IR Scholarship Today.” Millennium - Journal of International
Studies 40, no. 1 (2011): 129-46.
Kymlicka, Will. Liberalism, Community and Culture., Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1989.
Lama, Dalai. How to Practice: The Way to a Meaningful Life. Translated by
Jeffrey Hopkins., New York: Simon & Schuster, 2002.
Lambier, Josh. “The Organismic State Against Itself: Schelling, Hegel and the Life
of Right.” European Romantic Review 19, no. 2 (2008): 131-37.
425

Lapid, Yosef. “The Third Debate: On the Prospects of International Theory in a

Post-Positivist Era.” International Studies Quarterly 33 (1989): 235-54.
Lauer, Christopher. The Suspension of Reason in Hegel and Schelling., London:
Continuum, 2010.
Laverty, Susann M. “Hermeneutic Phenomenology and Phenomenology: A
Comparison of Historical and Methodological Considerations.” International
Journal of Qualitative Methods 2, no. 3 (2003): 21-35.
Lear, Jonathan. A Philosophical Interpretation of Freudian Psychoanalysis., New
———. Love and Its Place in Nature: A Philosophical Interpretation of Freudian
Psychoanalysis., New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999.
Lebow, Richard Ned. “Texts, Paradigms, and Political Change.” In Realism,
Tragedy, and the Anti-Pelagian Imagination in International Political
Thought, edited by Michael C. Williams, Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2007.
Lem, Stanislaw. Solaris., New York: Berkeley Books, 1982.
Levinas, Emmanuel. Otherwise Than Being, Or, Beyond Essence., Pittsburgh:
Duquesne University Press, 1999.
———. Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority., Pittsburgh: Duquesne
Lewis, C.S. The Four Loves., Boston: Mariner Books, 1960.
Lewis, Michael. Heidegger and the Place of Ethics., London: Continuum, 2005.
Lewis, T., F. Amini, and R. Lannon. A General Theory of Love., New York:
Random House, 2000.
Lin, Hsuan-Hsiang. “Beyond the Debate Between Cosmopolitanism and
Communitarianism: Toward a Hegelian Synthesis.” Paper presented at the
International Studies Association, San Francisco, 2008.
Linklater, Andrew. Beyond Realism and Marxism: Critical Theory and
International Relations., Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 1990.
———. Men and Citizens in the Theory of International Relations. 2nd ed.,
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 1990.
———. “The Problem of Community in International Relations.” Alternatives 14,
no. 2 (1990): 135-53.
———. “The Next Stage in International Relations Theory: A Critical-Theoretical
Point of View.” Millennium-Journal of International Studies 21, no. 1
(1992): 77-98.
———. “What is a Good International Citizen?” In Ethics and Foreign Policy,
edited by Paul Keal, Sydney: Allen and Unwin, 1992.
———. “Community, Citizenship and Global Politics.” Oxford International
Review 5, no. 1 (1993): 6-9.
———. “Liberal Democracy, Constitutionalism, and the New World Order.” In
Charting the Post-Cold War Order, edited by Richard Leaver and James
L.Richardson, 29-38. Boulder, CO: Westview, 1993.
———. “Neo-Realism in Theory and Practice.” In International Relations Theory
Today, edited by Ken Booth and Steve Smith, Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995.
———. “Citizenship and Sovereignty in the Post-Westphalian State.” European
Journal of International Relations 2, no. 1 (1996): 77-103.
———. “Hegel, the State and International Relations.” In Classical Theories of
426

International Relations, edited by Ian Clark and Iver B. Neumann,

Basingstoke: Macmillan Press, 1996.
———. “Rationalism.” In Theories of International Relations, edited by Andrew
Linklater Scott Burchill, et al., 93-118. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan,
1996.
———. “The Achievements of Critical Theory.” In International Theory:
Positivism and Beyond, edited by Ken Booth Steve Smith, and Marysia
Zalewski, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
———. The Transformation of Political Community: Ethical Foundations of the
Post-Westphalian Era., Cambridge: Polity Press, 1998.
———. “The Evolving Spheres of International Justice.” International Affairs 75,
no. 3 (1999): 473-82.
———. International Relations: Critical Concepts in Political Science., London:
Routledge, 2000.
———. “The Changing Contours of Critical International Relations Theory.” In
Critical Theory and World Politics, edited by Richard Wyn-Jones, Boulder:
Lynne Reiner, 2001.
———. “A European Civilising Process?” In International Relations and the
European Union, edited by Christopher Hill and Michael Smith, 367-87.
———. “Dialogic Politics and the Civilising Process.” Review of International
Studies 31, no. 1 (2005): 141-54.
———. “Political Community and Human Security.” In Critical Security Studies
and World Politics, edited by Ken Booth, 113-31. Boulder, CO: Lynne
Reiner, 2005.
———. “Civilizing Processes and International Societies.” In Globalization and
Global History, edited by Barry K. Gills and William R. Thompson, London:
Routledge, 2006.
———. “Cosmopolitanism.” In Political Theory and the Ecological Challenge,
edited by Andrew Dobson and Robin Eckersley, Cambridge: Cambridge
———. “The Harm Principle and Global Ethics.” Global Society 20, no. 3 (2006):
329-43.
———. “Critical Theory.” In International Relations Theory for the Twenty-First
Century: An Introduction, edited by Martin Griffiths, London: Routledge,
2007.
———. Critical Theory and World Politics: Citizenship, Sovereignty and
Humanity., London: Routledge, 2007.
———. “Distant Suffering and Cosmopolitan Obligations.” International Politics
44, no. 1 (2007): 19-36.
———. “Towards a Sociology of Global Morals With an ‘Emancipatory Intent’.”
In Critical International Theory After 25 Years, edited by Nicholas Rengger
and Ben Thirkell-White, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
———. “Grand Narratives and International Relations.” Global Change, Peace &
Security 21, no. 1 (2009): 3-17.
———. “Global Civilizing Processes and the Ambiguities of Human
Interconnectedness.” European Journal of International Relations 16, no. 2
(2010): 155.
427

———. “Moral Progress and World History: Ethics and Global

Interconnectedness.” In Questioning Cosmopolitanism, edited by Stan van
Hooft and Wim Vandekerckhove, London: Springer, 2010.
———. “Citizenship, Community, and Harm in World Politics. Interview With
Shannon Brincat.” In Critical Theory in International Relations and Security
Studies: Interviews and Reflections, edited by Shannon Brincat, Laura Lima,
João Nunes, London: Routledge, 2011.
———. “Process Sociology and International Relations.” The Sociological Review
59 (2011): 48-64.
———. The Problem of Harm in World Politics. Vol. 1, Cambridge: Cambridge
———. “Dialogue, Dialectic and Emancipation in International Relations At the
End of the Post-War Age.” Millennium-Journal of International Studies 23,
no. 1 (1994): 119-31.
Linklater, Andrew and Hidemi Suganami. The English School of International
Relations: A Contemporary Reassessment., Cambridge: Cambridge
Linklater, Andrew and John Macmillan, (ed.) Boundaries in Question: New
Directions in International Relations. London: Pinter, 1995.
Linklater, Andrew and Michael Waller, (ed.) Political Loyalty and the Nation-
State. London: Routledge, 2003.
Longuenesse, Beatrice. Hegel's Critique of Metaphysics., Cambridge: Cambridge
Lukács, Georg. Reification and the Consciousness of the Proletariat., History and
Class Consciousness: Studies in Marxist Dialectics. Pontypool: The Merlin
Press, 1971.
———. The Ontology of Social Being: Hegel., London: Merlin Press, 1978.
Lyotard, Jean-François. “The Other's Rights.” In On Human Rights: The Oxford
Amnesty Lectures, edited by S. Shute and S. Hurley, New York: Basic Books,
1993.
MacIntyre, Alasdair C. Hegel: A Collection of Critical Essays., Notre Dame:
University of Notre Dame Press, 1976.
———. Whose Justice? Which Rationality?, Notre Dame: University of Notre
Dame Press, 1988.
———. A Short History of Ethics: A History of Moral Philosophy From the
Homeric Age to the Twentieth Century., Notre Dame: University of Notre
Dame Press, 1998.
———. After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory., London: Duckworth, 2007.
Macomber, W.B. The Anatomy of Disillusion: Martin Heidegger's Notion of
Truth., Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1967.
Magee, Glenn Alexander. The Hegel Dictionary., London: Continuum, 2010.
Margalit, Ruth. 2012. Israel Loves Iran (on Facebook). The New Yorker. March
23rd. http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2012/03/israel-loves-
iran-on-facebook.html [accessed 20th June 2012].
Margolis, Joseph, and Tom Rockmore. The Heidegger Case: On Philosophy and
Politics., Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1992.
Marshall, Michael. “Life Began With a Planetary Mega-Organism.” New Scientist
2840 (2011):
428

Marx, Karl. Capital: Critique of Political Economy. Vol. 1, London: Penguin,

1976.
———. “Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right.” (2011):
May, Simon. Love: A History., New Haven: Yale University Press, 2011.
McBride, Cillian and Jonathan Seglow. “Recognition: Philosophy and Politics.”
European Journal of Political Theory 8, no. 1 (2009): 7-12.
McCarthy, Thomas. “Kantian Constructivism and Reconstructivism: Rawls and
Habermas in Dialogue.” Ethics 105 (1994): 44-63.
McNeill, William. The Time of Life: Heidegger and Ethos., New York: SUNY
Press, 2006.
Mead, George H. Mind, Self and Society From the Standpoint of a Social
Behaviouralist., Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1934.
Meillassoux, Quentin. After Finitude: An Essay on the Necessity of Contingency.,
Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. Phenomenology of Perception., London: Routledge,
2002.
Michel, Torsten. “Pigs Can't Fly, Or Can They? Ontology, Scientific Realism and
the Metaphysics of Presence in International Relations.” Review of
International Studies 35 (2009): 379-419.
———. “In Heidegger's Shadow: A Phenomenological Critique of Critical
Realism.” Review of International Studies 38 (2012): 209-22.
———. “Shrouded in Darkness: A Phenomenological Path Towards a New Social
Ontology in International Relations.” School of International Relations, Ph.D.
Thesis, St Andrews, 2008.
Michelfelder, Diane P. and Richard E., and Palmer. Dialogue and Deconstruction:
The Gadamer-Derrida Encounter., New York: SUNY Press, 1989.
Milbank, John. Theology and Social Theory: Beyond Secular Reason., Oxford:
Wiley-Blackwell, 2005.
Miller, David and Michael Walzer, (ed.) Pluralism, Justice, and Equality. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1995.
Miller, Elaine P. “'The World Must be Romanticised.': The (Environmental)
Ethical Implications of Schelling's Organic Worldview.” Environmental
Values 14, no. 3 (2005): 295-316.
Moran, Dermot. Introduction to Phenomenology., London: Routledge, 2000.
Morgenthau, Hans J. Scientific Man Vs. Power Politics., Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1946.
———. Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace., New York:
Random House, 1973.
Moseley, Alexander. 2010. 'Philosophy of Love' Internet Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. http://www.iep.utm.edu/love/
Motha, Stewart and Thanos Zartaloudis. “Law, Ethics and the Utopian End of
Human Rights.” Social Legal Studies 12, no. 2 (2003): 234-68.
Moyar, Dean. Hegel's Conscience., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.
Mulhall, Stephen, and Adam Swift. Liberals and Communitarians. 2nd ed.,
Oxford: Blackwell, 1996.
Murphy, Craig. “Critical Theory and the Democratic Impulse: Understanding a
Century-Old Tradition.” In Critical Theory and World Politics, edited by
Richard Wyn Jones, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2001.
429

———. “The Promise of Critical IR, Partially Kept.” In Critical International

Relations Theory After 25 Years, edited by Nicholas Rengger and Ben
Thirkell-White, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Nāgārjuna. The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way: Nāgārjuna's
Mūlamadhyamakakārikā. Translated by Jay L. Garfield., Oxford: Oxford
Nancy, Jean-Luc. The Inoperative Community., Minneapolis: University of
———. The Birth to Presence., Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1993.
———. The Experience of Freedom., Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1994.
———. Being Singular Plural., Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2001.
———. Hegel: The Restlessness of the Negative., Minneapolis: University of
———. The Speculative Remark: One of Hegel's Bon Mots., Stanford: Stanford
———. “Shattered Love.” In A Finite Thinking, 245-74. Stanford: Stanford
———. The Creation of the World Or Globalization., New York: SUNY Press,
2007.
———. Dis-Enclosure: The Deconstruction of Christianity., New York: Fordham
———. The Sense of the World., Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press,
2008.
———. The Truth of Democracy. Translated by Pascale-Anne Brault and Michael
Naas., New York: Fordham University Press, 2010.
———. God, Justice, Love, Beauty: Four Little Dialogues., New York: Fordham
Napper, Elizabeth. Dependent-Arising and Emptiness: A Tibetan Buddhist
Interpretation of Mādhyamika Philosophy Emphasizing the Compatibility of
Emptiness and Conventional Phenomena., Somerville, MA: Wisdom
Publications, 2003.
Neiman, Susan. The Unity of Reason. Rereading Kant., Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1994.
Neufeld, Mark A. The Restructuring of International Relations Theory.,
———. “What's Critical About Critical International Relations Theory?” In
Critical Theory in World Politics, edited by Richard Wyn Jones, Boulder,
Neuhouser, Frederik. “Hegel on Life, Freedom, and Social Pathology.” Paper
presented at the Philosophies of Right: Philosophical Conceptions of Right
from German Idealism to Critical Theory, New York, 2011.
———. Foundations of Hegel's Social Theory: Actualizing Freedom., Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 2000.
Neumann, Iver B. “Self and Other in International Relations.” European Journal of
———. Uses of the Other: "the East" in European Identity Formation.,
Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1999.
Nicolacopoulos, Toula, and George Vassilacopoulos. Hegel and the Logical
430

Structure of Love., Melbourne: re.press, 2011.

Nietzsche, Freidrich. The Gay Science. Edited by Bernard Williams., Cambridge:
Noddings, Nel. Caring: A Feminist Approach to Ethics and Moral Education.,
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984.
Norman, Judith, and Alistair Welchman. The New Schelling., London: Continuum,
2004.
Nussbaum, Martha C. “Kant and Cosmopolitanism.” In Perpetual Peace: Essays
on Kant's Cosmopolitan Ideal, edited by James Bohman, 25-59. Cambridge,
Mass.: The MIT Press, 1997.
———. “Kant and Stoic Cosmopolitanism.” Journal of Political Philosophy 5, no.
1 (1997): 1-25.
Nuzzo, Angelica. Hegel and the Analytic Tradition., London: Continuum, 2010.
NZHerald. 2012. Kiwi Population in Australia Soars. New Zealand Herald. 21st
June.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=698&objectid=10814578&
ref=imthis [accessed 30th August 2012].
Odysseos, Louiza. “Violence After the State? A Preliminary Examination of the
Concept of ‘Global Civil War’.” Paper presented at the Violence Beyond the
State, Torino, Italy, 2007.
———. “Dangerous Ontologies: The Ethos of Survival and Ethical Theorizing in
International Relations.” Review of International Studies 28 (2002): 403-18.
———. “Radical Phenomenology, Ontology, and International Political Theory.”
Alternatives 27 (2002): 372-405.
———. The Subject of Coexistence: Otherness in International Relations.,
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2007.
———. “Martin Heidegger.” In Critical Theorists and International Relations,
edited by Jenny Edkins and Nick Vaughan-Williams, London: Routledge,
2009.
———. “Constituting Community: Heidegger, Mimesis and Critical Belonging.”
Paper presented at the European Consortium for Political Research, Nicosia,
Cyprus, 2006.
Olafson, Frederick A. Principles and Persons; an Ethical Interpretation of
Existentialism., Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1967.
———. Heidegger and the Philosophy of Mind., New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1987.
———. What is a Human Being? A Heideggerian View., Cambridge: Cambridge
———. Heidegger and the Ground of Ethics: A Study of Mitsein., Cambridge:
———. Naturalism and the Human Condition: Against Scientism., London:
Routledge, 2001.
Onuf, Nicholas. World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory and
International Relations., Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press,
1987.
Ormiston, Alice. Love and Politics: Re-Interpreting Hegel., New York: SUNY
Press, 2004.
———. “"The Spirit of Christianity and Its Fate:" Towards a Reconsideration of
431

the Role of Love in Hegel.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 35, no. 3
(2002): 499-525.
Ott, Hugo. Martin Heidegger. A Political Life. Translated by Allan Blunden., New
York: Basic Books, 1993.
Outhwaite, William. Habermas: A Critical Introduction., Stanford: Stanford
Outka, Gene. Agape: An Ethical Analysis., New Haven: Yale University Press,
1977.
Owen, Michael. 2012. Radio 'King' Slammed Over Boatpeople Tirade. The
Australian. June 8th. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-
affairs/immigration/radio-king-slammed-over-boatpeople-tirade/story-
fn9hm1gu-1226388100400 [accessed 30th August 2012].
Palan, Ronen. “Transnational Theories of Order and Change: Heterodoxy in
International Relations Scholarship.” In Critical International Theory After
25 Years, edited by Nicholas Rengger and Ben Thirkell-White, Cambridge:
Paley, John. “Heidegger and the Ethics of Care.” Nursing Philosophy 1, no. 1
(2000): 64-75.
Palmer, Richard E. Hermeneutics: Interpretation Theory in Schleiermacher,
Dilthey, Heidegger, and Gadamer., Evanston, IL: Northwestern University
Press, 1969.
Patomäki, Heikki. After International Relations: Critical Realism and the
(Re)Construction of World Politics., London: Routledge, 2002.
———. “Problems of Democratizing Global Governance.” European Journal of
Patomäki, Heikki and Colin Wight. “After Postpositivism? The Promises of
Critical Realism.” International Studies Quarterly 44 (2000): 213-37.
Paton, Herbert James. The Categorical Imperative: A Study in Kant's Moral
Philosophy., Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948.
Patten, Alan. Hegel's Idea of Freedom., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Pavel, Thomas G. “The Heidegger Affair.” MLN 103, no. 4 (1988): 887-901.
Philpott, Daniel. Revolutions in Sovereignty: How Ideas Shaped Modern
International Relations., Princeton.: Princeton University Press, 2001.
Piaget, Jean. The Moral Judgement of the Child., Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1983.
Piercey, Robert. “Not Choosing Between Morality and Ethics.” The Philosophical
Forum 32, no. 1 (2001): 53-72.
Pin-Fat, Veronique. “(Im)Possible Universalism: Reading Human Rights in World
Politics.” Review of International Studies 26, no. 4 (2000): 663-74.
———. Universality, Ethics, and International Relations., London: Routledge,
2010.
———. “Cosmopolitanism and the End of Humanity.” Paper presented at the
Critical and Cultural Politics Group, Department of International Politics,
Aberystwyth, 29th May 2012.
———. “Cosmopolitanism Without Foundations.” In Politics in the Global Age:
Critical Reflections on Cosmopolitanism, edited by Sonika Gupta, London:
Routledge, 2012.
Pin-Fat, Veronique, Jenny Edkins, and Michael Shapiro, (eds.) Sovereign Lives:
Power in an Era of Globalisation. London: Routledge, 2004.
432

Pinkard, Terry. Hegel's Phenomenology: The Sociality of Reason., Cambridge:

———. “Virtues, Morality and Sittlichkeit: From Maxims to Practices.” European
Journal of Philosophy 7, no. 2 (1999): 217-39.
Pippin, Robert B. Hegel's Idealism: The Satisfactions of Self-Consciousness.,
———. The Persistence of Subjectivity: On the Kantian Aftermath., Cambridge:
———. Hegel's Practical Philosophy: Rational Agency as Ethical Life.,
———. Hegel on Self-Consciousness: Desire and Death in the Phenomenology of
Spirit., Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011.
———. “What is the Question for Which Hegel's Theory of Recognition is the
Answer?” European Journal of Philosophy 8, no. 2 (2000): 55-172.
Pippin, Robert B. and Ottfried Höffe, (ed.) Hegel on Ethics and Politics.
Plato. Plato's Symposium. Translated by Seth Benardete., Chicago: University of
Pogge, Thomas. World Poverty and Human Rights: Cosmopolitan Responsibilities
and Reforms., Cambridge: Polity Press, 2008.
Popper, Karl R. The Open Society and Its Enemies: Hegel and Marx., London:
Routledge, 2003.
Post, Stephen G. “The Tradition of Agape.” In Altruism and Altruistic Love:
Science, Philosophy, and Religion in Dialogue, edited by Underwood Post,
Schloss, Hurlbut, 51-64. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Prasse-Freeman, Elliott. “Human Rights as Pharmakon: The 'Free Burma'
Movement in Global Biopolitics.” Paper presented at the 6th Annual
Interpretive Policy Analysis (IPA) Conference, Cardiff, 2011.
Prauss, Gerold. Kant Über Freiheit Als Autonomie., Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio
Klostermann, 1983.
Price, Richard and Christian Reus-Smit. “Dangerous Liaisons? Critical
International Theory and Constructivism.” European Journal of International
Relations 4, no. 3 (1998): 259-94.
Ranciere, Jacques. Hatred of Democracy., London: Verso, 2006.
Rawls, John. Justice as Fairness: Political Not Metaphysical. Vol. 14(3),
Philosophy & Public Affairs. 1985.
———. A Theory of Justice., Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1999.
———. The Law of Peoples., Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1999.
———. Political Liberalism. Expanded ed., New York: Columbia University
Press, 2005.
Rehg, William. Insight and Solidarity: The Discourse Ethics of Jürgen Habermas.,
Rengger, Nicholas J. Going Critical? Vol. 17(1), Millennium-Journal of
International Studies. 1988.
———. “Negative Dialectic? The Two Modes of Critical Theory in World
Politics.” In Critical Theory in World Politics, edited by Richard Wyn Jones,
Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2001.
———. “Realism, Tragedy, and the Anti-Pelagian Imagination in International
433

Political Thought.” In Realism Reconsidered: The Legacy of Hans

Morgenthau in International Relations, edited by Michael C. Williams,
Rengger, Nicholas J., and Ben Thirkell-White., (ed.) Critical International
Relations Theory After 25 Years. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2007.
Reus-Smit, Christian. “International Relations, Irrelevant? Don't Blame Theory.”
Millennium - Journal of International Studies 40, no. 3 (2012): 525-40.
Ricoeur, Paul. “Love and Justice.” In Paul Ricoeur: The Hermeneutics of Action,
Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1996.
Ritu, Moshahida Sultana. 2012. Ethnic Cleansing in Myanmar. New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/13/opinion/ethnic-cleansing-of-myanmars-
rohingyas.html?_r=4&ref=global [accessed 12th July 2012].
Roberts, Peri, and Peter Sutch. An Introduction to Political Thought: Key Concepts
and Thinkers., Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2004.
Rockmore, Tom. Fichte, Marx, and the German Philosophical Tradition.,
Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1980.
———. “Heidegger After Farias.” History of Philosophy Quarterly (1991): 81-
102.
———. “Fichte, Lask, and Lukács's Hegelian Marxism.” Journal of the History of
Philosophy 30, no. 4 (1992): 557-77.
———. Heidegger and French Philosophy: Humanism, Antihumanism and Being.,
———. Cognition: An Introduction to Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit.,
———. On Heidegger's Nazism and Philosophy., Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1997.
———. Heidegger, German Idealism and Neo-Kantianism., New York: Humanity
Books, 2001.
———. Before and After Hegel: A Historical Introduction to Hegel's Thought.,
Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 2003.
———. Hegel, Idealism, and Analytic Philosophy., New Haven: Yale University
Press, 2005.
———. On Constructivist Epistemology., Carbondale: Southern Illinois University
Press, 2005.
———. Kant and Idealism., New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007.
———. Before and After 9/11: A Philosophical Examination of Globalization,
Terror, and History., London: Continuum, 2011.
———. Kant and Phenomenology., Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011.
Rogers, Benedict. 2012. Is Burma Ready to Embrace Diversity? Democratic Voice
of Burma. 7th August. [accessed 12/08/2012].
Rorty, Richard. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature., Oxford: Blackwell, 1980.
———. An Ethics for Today: Finding Common Ground Between Philosophy and
Religion., New York: Columbia University Press, 2011.
Rorty, Richard. Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity., Cambridge: Cambridge
Rose, David. “Hegel’s Theory of Moral Action, Its Place in His System and the
‘Highest’ Right of the Subject.” Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural
434

and Social Philosophy 3, no. 2-3 (2007):

Rose, Gillian. Hegel Contra Sociology., London: Athlone, 1981.
Rosenzweig, Franz, and Barbara Ellen Galli. The Star of Redemption., Madison:
University of Wisconsin Press, 2005.
Roth, Kenneth. “The Case for Universal Jurisdiction.” Foreign Affairs September /
October (2001):
Ruggie, John. “Territoriality and Beyond: Problematising Modernity in
International Relations.” International Organization 47, no. 1 (1993): 139-
73.
———. Constructing the World Polity: Essays on International
Institutionalisation., London: Routledge, 1998.
Ruin, Hans. “The Destiny of Freedom: In Heidegger.” Continental Philosophy
Review 41, no. 3 (2008): 277-99.
Salem-Wiseman, Jonathan. “Heidegger's Dasein and the Liberal Conception of the
Self.” Political Theory 31, no. 4 (2003): 533-77.
Sandel, Michael J. Liberalism and the Limits of Justice., Cambridge: Cambridge
———. Liberalism and Its Critics., Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1984.
———. Justice: A Reader., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
———. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do., New York: Farrar, Straus and
Giroux, 2009.
Sartre, Jean-Paul. Existentialism is a Humanism., New Haven: Yale University
Press, 2007.
Sax, Benjamin C. “Active Individuality and the Language of Confession: The
Figure of the Beautiful Soul in Lehrjahre and the Phenomenologie.” Journal
of the History of Philosophy 21, no. 4 (1983): 437-66.
Schalow, Frank. “The Anomaly of World: From Scheler to Heidegger.” Man and
World 24, no. 1 (1991): 75-87.
Scheler, Max. On the Eternal in Man. Translated by Bernard Noble., New York:
Harper & Brothers, 1960.
———. Selected Philosophical Essays., Evanston, IL: Northwestern University
Press, 1973.
———. Problems of a Sociology of Knowledge., London: Routledge, 1980.
———. Gesammelte Werke. Edited by Maria Scheler and Manfred S. Frings.,
Bonn: Bouvier Verlag, 1986.
———. On Feeling, Knowing, and Valuing: Selected Writings., Chicago:
———. “From Lebensphilosophie to Phenomenology of Life.” Phenomenological
Inquiry (2001):
———. On the Eternal in Man., New Jersey: Transaction, 2009.
———. The Nature of Sympathy., New Jersey: Transaction, 2010.
Scheler, Max, and Hans Meyerhoff. Man's Place in Nature., New York: Farrar
Straus & Giroux, 1961.
Schelling, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph. Ideas for a Philosophy of Nature.,
———. Philosophical Inquiries Into the Nature of Human Freedom. Translated by
James Guttman., LaSalle: Open Court, 1992.
———. System of Transcendental Idealism., Charlottesville: University of
435

Virginia Press, 1993.

———. “Kant, Fichte, and the System of Transcendental Idealism.” On the
History of Modern Philosophy (1994):
———. On the History of Modern Philosophy., Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1994.
———. The Ages of the World., New York: SUNY Press, 2000.
Schiller, Friedrich. Werke. Nationalausgabe. Vol. 1-42 Edited by Julius Petersen
et. al., Weimar: Böhlau, 1943.
Schmidt, Dennis J. Ubiquity of the Finite: Hegel, Heidegger and the Entitlements
of Philosophy., Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1988.
Schopenhauer, Arthur. The World as Will and Idea. Vol. 2, Edinburgh: The
Edinburgh Press, 1906.
Schweller, Randall L. “Fantasy Theory.” Review of International Studies 25, no. 1
(1999): 147-50.
Scott, James C. The Moral Economy of the Peasant: Rebellion and Subsistence in
Southeast Asia., New Haven: Yale University Press, 1976.
———. Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance., New
———. Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts., New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1990.
———. Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human
Condition Have Failed., New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998.
———. The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland
Southeast Asia., New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009.
Scruton, Roger. The Face of God: The Gifford Lectures., London: Continuum,
2012.
Sedgwick, Sally. “The State as Organism: The Metaphysical Basis of Hegel's
Philosophy of Right.” The Southern Journal of Philosophy 39, no. S1 (2001):
171-88.
Sen, Amartya. Development as Freedom., New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2001.
———. Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny., New York: W.W. Norton,
2006.
Shapcott, Richard. “Communicative Co-Existence: Gadamer and the Interpretation
of International Society.” Millennium-Journal of International Studies 23, no.
2 (1994): 57-83.
———. Justice, Community and Dialogue in International Relations., Cambridge:
———. International Ethics: A Critical Introduction., Cambridge: Polity Press,
2010.
Shapiro, Michael J. Language and Political Understanding: The Politics of
Discursive Practices., New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1981.
———. Reading the Postmodern Polity: Political Theory as Textual Practice.,
———. “Moral Geographies and the Ethics of Post-Sovereignty.” Public Culture
6, no. 3 (1994): 479-502.
———. Challenging Boundaries: Global Flows, Territorial Identities.,
———. Violent Cartographies: Mapping Cultures of War., Minneapolis:
436

University of Minnesota Press, 1997.

———. “Textualizing Global Politics.” In International/Intertextual Relations:
Postmodern Readings of World Politics, edited by James Der Derian and
Michael J. Shapiro, Lanham: Lexington Books, 1998.
———. “Globalisation and the Politics of Discourse.” Social Text 60 (1999): 111-
29.
———. “The Ethics of Encounter: Unreading, Unmapping the Imperium.” In
Moral Spaces: Rethinking Ethics and World Politics, edited by David
Campbell and Michael J. Shapiro, 57-91. Minneapolis: University of
———. “National Times and Other Times: Re-Thinking Citizenship.” Cultural
Studies 14, no. 1 (2000): 79-98.
———. Reading "Adam Smith": Desire, History and Value., Oxford: Rowman &
Littlefield, 2002.
Shilliam, Robbie, (ed.) International Relations and Non-Western Thought:
Imperialism, Colonialism, and Investigations of Global Modernity. London:
Routledge, 2010.
Shinko, Rosemary E. “Thinking, Doing, and Writing International Relations
Theory.” International Studies Perspectives 7, no. 1 (2006): 43-50.
Siep, Ludwig. Grundlinien Der Philosophie Des Rechts. Vol. 9, Berlin: Akademie
Verlag, 2005.
Simmons, William. “The Third: Levinas' Theoretical Move From an-Archical
Ethics to the Realm of Justice and Politics.” Philosophy & Social Criticism
25, no. 6 (1999): 83-104.
Singer, Peter. “Famine, Affluence, and Morality.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 1,
no. 1 (1972): 229-43.
Sinnerbrink, R.S. “Metaphysics of Modernity: The Problem of Identity and
Difference in Hegel and Heidegger.” School of Philosophy, Ph.D. Thesis,
University of Sydney, 2001.
———. “Sein Und Geist: Heidegger’s Confrontation With Hegel’s
Phenomenology.” Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and Social
Philosophy 3, no. 2-3 (2007): 132-52.
———. “The Hegelian "Night of the World:" Žižek on Subjectivity, Negativity,
and Universality.” International Journal of Žižek Studies 2, no. 2 (2008): 1-
28.
Slote, Michael A. Goods and Virtues., Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983.
Sloterdijk, Peter. Spheres. Vol. 1: Bubbles Translated by Wieland Hoban., Los
Angeles: Semiotext(e), 2011.
Smart, Steven J. “Joint Targeting in Cyberspace.” Air & Space Power Journal 25,
no. 4 (2011):
Smith, Gregory Bruce. Nietzsche, Heidegger, and the Transition to Postmodernity.,
———. Martin Heidegger: Paths Opened, Paths Taken., Plymouth: Rowman &
Littlefield, 2007.
Smith, Murray E.G. “Against Dualism: Marxism and the Necessity of Dialectical
Monism.” Science & Society 73, no. 3 (2009): 356-85.
Smith, Steve. “Positivism and Beyond.” In International Theory: Positivism and
Beyond, edited by Steve Smith, Ken Booth, and Marysia Zalewski,
437


———. “Singing Our World Into Existence: IR Theory and September 11.”
International Studies Quarterly 48, no. September (2004): 499-515.
Smith, Steve, Ken Booth, and Marysia Zalewski, (eds.) International Theory:
Positivism and Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
———. “Introduction.” In International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, edited by
Steve Smith, Ken Booth, and Marysia Zalewski, Cambridge: Cambridge
Soble, Alan. Eros, Agape, and Philia: Readings in the Philosophy of Love., Saint
Paul: Paragon House, 1989.
Spegele, Roger D. Political Realism in International Theory., Cambridge:
Spiegelberg, Herbert. The Phenomenological Movement: A Historical
Introduction., The Hague: Nijhoff, 1969.
Sprinker, Michael. Ghostly Demarcations: A Symposium on Jacques Derrida's
Specters of Marx., London: Verso, 1999.
Steiner, Rudolf. Fruits of Anthroposophy., London: Ruldolf Steiner Press, 1986.
Roach, Stephen C., (ed.) Critical Theory and International Relations: A Reader.
Baur, Stephen Houlgate and Michael, (ed.) A Companion to Hegel. Oxford: Wiley-
Blackwell, 2011.
Stern, Robert. Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Hegel and Phenomenology of
Spirit., Routledge, 2002.
———. Understanding Moral Obligation: Kant, Hegel, and Kierkegaard.,
Stewart, Frances and Sam Daws. 2001. An Economic and Social Security Council
At the United Nations.
http://www3.qeh.ox.ac.uk/RePEc/qeh/qehwps/qehwps68.pdf
Stewart, Jon. Idealism and Existentialism: Hegel and Nineteenth- and Twentieth-
Century Philosophy., London: Continuum, 2010.
Stocker, Michael. “The Schizophrenia of Modern Ethical Theories.” The Journal
of Philosophy 73, no. 14 (1976): 453-66.
Strange, Susan. The Retreat of the State., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1976.
———. States and Markets., London: Continuum, 1988.
Strauss, Leo. The Rebirth of Classical Political Rationalism: An Introduction to the
Thought of Leo Strauss. Edited by Thomas Pangle., Chicago: University of
Suganami, Hidemi. “Reflections on the Domestic Analogy: The Case of Bull,
Beitz and Linklater.” Review of International Studies 12, no. 2 (1986): 145-
58.
———. The Domestic Analogy and World Order Proposals., Cambridge:
———. On the Causes of War., Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996.
———. “Narrative Explanation and International Relations: Back to Basics.”
———. “Understanding Man, the State, and War.” International Relations 23, no.
3 (2009): 372-88.
438

———. “Rethinking Patrick Thaddeus Jackson’s Conduct of Inquiry.”

Millennium-Journal of International Studies (Forthcoming 2012)
———. “Understanding Sovereignty Through Kelsen/Schmitt.” Review of
Sussman, David. “Something to Love: Kant and the Faith of Reason.” In Kant's
Moral Metaphysics, edited by Benjamin J. Bruxvoort Lipscomb and James
Krueger, New York: DeGruyter, 2010.
Sutch, Peter. “Global Civil Society and International Ethics: Mervyn Frost's
Restatement of Constitutive Theory.” Review of International Studies 26
(2000): 485-89.
———. “Human Rights as Settled Norms: Mervyn Frost and the Limits of
Hegelian Human Rights Theory.” Review of International Studies 26, no. 02
(2000): 215-31.
———. Ethics, Justice, and International Relations: Constructing an International
Community., London: Routledge, 2001.
Taylor, Charles. “Interpretation and the Sciences of Man.” The Review of
Metaphysics (1971): 3-51.
———. Hegel., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977.
———. Hegel and Modern Society., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1979.
———. Human Agency and Language. Vol. 1, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1985.
———. Philosophy and the Human Sciences. Vol. 2, Cambridge: Cambridge
———. Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity., Harvard: Harvard
———. The Ethics of Authenticity., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1991.
———. “The Politics of Recognition.” New Contexts of Canadian Criticism
(1994): 98-131.
———. Philosophical Arguments., Harvard: Harvard University Press, 1995.
———. “The Dialogical Self.” In Rethinking Knowledge: Reflections Across the
Disciplines, edited by Robert F. Goodman, New York: SUNY, 1995.
———. Modern Social Imaginaries., Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2004.
———. “Engaged Agency and Background in Heidegger.” In The Cambridge
Companion to Heidegger, edited by Charles B. Guignon, Cambridge:
———. A Secular Age., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Templeton, John. Agape Love: A Tradition Found in Eight World Religions.,
Radnor: Templeton Foundation Press, 1999.
Teschke, Benno. The Myth of 1648: Class, Geopolitics and the Making of Modern
International Relations., London: Verso, 2003.
Thame, Charlie. “Demurring Discourse Ethics: Hegel, Love and Human
Community.” Paper presented at the International Studies Association,
Montreal, 2011.
———. “Review: Critical Theory and World Politics.” Global Discourse 1(1), no.
1 (2010):
Theunissen, Michael. Sein Und Schein: Die Kritische Funktion Der Hegelschen
439

Logik., Frankfurt-Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1978.

———. The Other: Studies in the Social Ontology of Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre,
and Buber., Cambridge: MIT Press, 1984.
Thiele, Leslie Paul. “Heidegger on Freedom: Political Not Metaphysical.”
American Political Science Review 88, no. 2 (1994): 278-91.
Thompson, Janna. Justice and World Order: A Philosophical Inquiry., London:
Routledge, 1992.
Thompson, John B., and David. Held. Habermas, Critical Debates., Basingstoke:
Macmillan, 1982.
Thomson, Alex. Deconstruction and Democracy: Derrida's Politics of Friendship.,
Thomson, Iain. “Transcendence and the Problem of Otherworldly Nihilism:
Taylor,
Heidegger, Nietzsche.” Inquiry 54, no. 2 (2011): 140-59.
Tilley, Charles. The Formation of National States in Western Europe., Princeton:
———. Coercion, Capital and Western States: Ad 990-1992., Cambridge, MA:
Blackwell, 1992.
Tronto, Joan C. Moral Boundaries: A Political Argument for an Ethic of Care.,
Vacek, Edward V. “Scheler's Phenomenology of Love.” The Journal of Religion
62, no. 2 (1982):
Vaughan-Williams, Nick. “Beyond a Cosmopolitan Ideal: The Politics of
Singularity.” International Politics 44 (2007): 107-24.
———. “Protesting Against Citizenship.” Paper presented at the International
Studies Association, Montreal, 2004.
Velleman, J.D. “Love as a Moral Emotion.” Ethics 109, no. 2 (1999): 338-74.
Vij, Ritu. “G.W.F. Hegel.” In Critical Theorists and International Relations, edited
by Jenny Edkins and Nick Vaughan-Williams, London: Routledge, 2009.
Waibel, Violetta L., Daniel. Breazeale, and Tom Rockmore, (eds.) Fichte and the
Phenomenological Tradition. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010.
Wake, Peter. “Ethical Life and the Natural Law.” In The Death of Metaphysics; the
Death of Culture: Epistemology, Metaphysics and Morality, edited by Mark
J. Cherry, Dordrecht: Springer, 2006.
Walker, R.B. J. and Saul H. Mendlovitz, (ed.) Contending Sovereignties:
Redefining Political Community. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1990.
Walker, R.B.J. World Politics and Western Reason: Universalism, Pluralism,
Hegemony., World Order Models Project, 1982.
———. “Realism, Change, and International Political Theory.” International
Studies Quarterly (1987): 65-86.
———. “Genealogy, Geopolitics and Political Community: Richard K. Ashley and
the Critical Social Theory of International Politics.” Alternatives 13: 77 102
(1988):
———. One World, Many Worlds: Struggles for a Just World Peace., Boulder,
———. “The Prince and 'the Pauper': Tradition, Modernity, and Practice in the
Theory of International Relations.” In International/Intertextual Relations:
Postmodern Readings of World Politics, edited by James Der Derian and
440

Michael J. Shapiro, New York: Lexington Press, 1989.

———. “Security, Sovereignty, and the Challenge of World Politics.”
Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 15, no. 1 (1990): 3-27.
———. Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory., Cambridge:
———. “The Subject of Security.” In Critical Security Studies: Concepts and
Cases, edited by Michael C. Williams and Keith Krause, Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press, 1997.
———. “The Hierarchicalization of Political Community.” Review of
———. “International/Inequality.” International Studies Review 4, no. 2 (2002): 7-
24.
———. “Polis, Cosmopolis, Politics.” Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 28,
no. 2 (2003): 267-86.
———. After the Globe, Before the World., London: Routledge, 2010.
Wallace, Robert M. Hegel's Philosophy of Reality, Freedom, and God.,
Wallace, William. “Truth and Power, Monks and Technocrats: Theory and Practice
in International Relations.” Review of International Studies 22, no. 3 (1996):
301-21.
Waltz, Kenneth N. Theory of International Politics., Reading, MA: Adison
Wesley, 1977.
———. Man, the State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis., New York: Columbia
Walzer, Michael. Radical Principles: Reflections of an Unreconstructed
Democrat., New York: Basic Books, 1980.
———. “The Moral Standing of States: A Response to Four Critics.” Philosophy
& Public Affairs 9, no. 3 (1980): 209-29.
———. “Philosophy and Democracy.” Political Theory 9, no. 3 (1981): 379-99.
———. Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality., New York:
Basic Books, 1983.
———. “Liberalism and the Art of Separation.” Political theory 12, no. 3 (1984):
315-30.
———. Exodus and Revolution., New York: Basic Books, 1986.
———. “Terrorism: A Critique of Excuses.” Problems of International Justice:
Philosophical Essays (1988): 237–47.
———. “Nation and Universe.” The Tanner Lectures on Human Values (1990):
508-56.
———. “The Communitarian Critique of Liberalism.” Political Theory 18, no. 1
(1990): 6-23.
———. Interpretation and Social Criticism., Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1993.
———. Thick and Thin: Moral Argument At Home and Abroad., Notre Dame:
University of Notre Dame Press, 1994.
———. “Response to Veit Bader.” Political Theory 23, no. 2 (1995): 247-49.
———. On Toleration., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
———. “Governing the Globe: What is the Best We Can Do?” Dissent 47, no. pt.
4 (2000): 44-52.
441

———. “Five Questions About Terrorism.” Dissent 49, no. 1 (2002): 5-11.
———. Arguing About War., New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004.
———. Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument With Historical Illustrations.,
New York: Basic Books, 2006.
———. Politics and Passion: Toward a More Egalitarian Liberalism., New
———. Thinking Politically: Essays in Political Theory., Cambridge: Cambridge
Ward, Ian. Justice, Humanity and the New World Order., Aldershot: Ashgate,
2003.
Warner, Daniel. “Levinas, Buber and the Concept of Otherness in International
Relations: A Reply to David Campbell.” Millennium-Journal of International
Studies 25, no. 1 (1996): 111.
Weber, Cynthia. International Relations Theory: A Critical Introduction. 2nd ed.,
Weber, Eric Thomas. Rawls, Dewey, and Constructivism: On the Epistemology of
Justice., London: Continuum, 2010.
Weber, Martin. “Engaging Globalization: Critical Theory and Global Political
Change.” Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 27, no. 3 (2002): 301-25.
———. “Hegel Beyond the State? Left-Hegelian Thought and Global Politics.”
Paper presented at the ISA Annual Convention, Chicago, 2007.
———. “The Concept of Solidarity in the Study of World Politics: Towards a
Critical Theoretic Understanding.” Review of International Studies 33, no. 4
(2007): 693.
———. “Critical Theory and Contemporary World Politics.” International Studies
Review 12, no. 3 (2010): 444-50.
———. “Ontologies, Depth and Otherwise: Critical Notes on Wight's Meta-
Theoretical Proposal of a Scientific Realist IR.” Review of International
Studies 38, no. 1 (2012): 223-34.
Weil, Simone. The Need for Roots: Prelude to a Declaration of Duties to
Mankind., London: Routledge, 1952.
Welz, Claudia. Love's Transcendence and the Problem of Theodicy. Vol. 30,
Tuebingen: Mohr Siebrek Ek, 2008.
Wendt, Alexander. “The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations
Theory.” International Organization 41, no. 3 (1987): 335-70.
———. “Anarchy is What States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power
Politics.” International Organization 46, no. 2 (1992): 391-425.
———. “Constructing International Politics.” International Security 20, no. 1
(1995): 71-81.
———. Social Theory of International Politics., Cambridge: Cambridge
———. “What is International Relations for? Notes Towards a Postcritical View.”
In Critical Theory and World Politics, edited by Richard Wyn Jones,
Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2001.
Werner, Laura. “The Restless Love of Thinking: The Concept of Liebe in Hegel's
Philosophy.” Department of Social and Moral Philosophy, Ph.D. Thesis,
University of Helsinki, 2007.
White, Stephen K. Political Theory and Post-Modernism., Cambridge: Cambridge
442


———. Sustaining Affirmation: The Strengths of Weak Ontology in Political
Theory., Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000.
Wight, Colin. Agents, Structures and International Relations: Politics as
Ontology., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
———. “A Manifesto for Scientific Realism in IR: Assuming the Can-Opener
Won't Work!” Millennium-Journal of International Studies 35, no. 2 (2007):
379-98.
Wight, Martin. “Why is There No International Theory?” International Relations
2, no. 1 (1960): 35-48.
Wildt, Andreas. Autonomie Und Annerkennung: Hegel’s Moralitatskritik Im Lichte
Seiner Fichte-Rezeption., Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1982.
Williams, Huw Lloyd. On Rawls, Development and Global Justice: The Freedom
of Peoples., Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.
Williams, Michael C. The Realist Tradition and the Limits of International
Relations., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
———. Realism Reconsidered: The Legacy of Hans Morgenthau in International
Relations., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Williams, Robert R. Recognition: Fichte and Hegel on the Other., New York:
SUNY Press, 1992.
———. Hegel's Ethics of Recognition., Berkeley: University of California Press,
2000.
———. “Love, Recognition, Spirit: Hegel's Philosophy of Religion.” In A
Companion to Hegel, edited by Stephen Houlgate and Michael Baur, 385-
413. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011.
Wilson, Andrew Norman. God's Funeral: The Decline of Faith in Western
Civilisation., London: W.W. Norton, 1999.
Winnicott, Donald Woods. Playing and Reality., London: Routledge, 1971.
Wirzba, Norman and Bruce Ellis Benson. Transforming Philosophy and Religion:
Love's Wisdom., Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2008.
Wolf, Susan. “Morality and Partiality.” Philosophical Perspectives 6 (1992): 243-
59.
Wolin, Richard. “The French Heidegger Debate.” New German Critique 45
(1988): 135-61.
———. The Politics of Being: The Political Thought of Martin Heidegger., New
York: Columbia University Press, 1990.
Wood, Allen W. Hegel's Ethical Thought., Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1990.
———. Kant's Ethical Thought., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
Wyn Jones, Richard. “Introduction: Locating Critical International Relations
Theory.” In Critical Theory and World Politics, edited by Richard Wyn
Jones, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2001.
Yalvaç, Faruk. “Critical Realism, International Relations Theory and Marxism.” In
Scientific Realism and International Relations, edited by Jonathan Joseph and
Colin Wight, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.
Yannaras, Christos. On the Absence and Unknowability of God: Heidegger and the
Areopagite., London: T&T Clark, 2005.
Young, Iris Marion. Justice and the Politics of Difference., Princeton: Princeton
443


———. Intersecting Voices: Dilemmas of Gender, Political Philosophy, and
Policy., Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997.
Zalewski, Marysia. “'All These Theories Yet the Bodies Keep Piling Up': Theory,
Theorists, Theorising.” In International Theory: Positivism and Beyond,
edited by Ken Booth Steve Smith, and Marysia Zalewski, Cambridge:
Zehfuss, Maja. Constructivism in International Relations: The Politics of Reality.,
———. “Constructivism in International Relations: The Politics of Reality.”
International Politics 44, no. 1 (2007): 58-71.
———. “Forget September 11.” Third World Quarterly 24, no. 3 (2003): 513-28.
———. “Constructivism and Identity: A Dangerous Liaison.” European Journal
of International Relations 7, no. 3 (2001): 315-48.
Žižek, Slavoj. “I Have a Dream.” The Guardian, February 4th 2011.
———. Tarrying With the Negative: Kant, Hegel, and the Critique of Ideology.,
Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1993.
———. The Sublime Object of Ideology., London: Verso, 1996.
———. The Ticklish Subject: The Absent Centre of Political Ontology., London:
Verso, 1999.
———. The Fragile Absolute, Or, Why is the Christian Legacy Worth Fighting
for?, London: Verso, 2000.
———. Iraq: The Borrowed Kettle., London: Verso, 2004.
———. Interrogating the Real., London: Continuum, 2005.
———. The Neighbor: Three Inquiries in Political Theology., Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 2005.
———. The Parallax View., Cambridge: MIT Press, 2006.
———. Violence: Six Sideways Reflections., London: Profile, 2008.
———. First as Tragedy, Then as Farce., London: Verso, 2009.
———. Hegel and the Infinite: Religion, Politics, and Dialectic., New York:
Columbia University Press, 2011.
———. “Is it Still Possible to be a Hegelian Today?” In The Speculative Turn:
Continental Materialism and Realism, edited by Nick Srnicek Levi Bryant,
Graham Harman, Melbourne: re.press, 2011.
———. “Hegel Versus Heidegger.” E-Flux 32, no. 02 (2012):
———. Less Than Nothing: Hegel and the Shadow of Dialectical Materialism.,
London: Verso, 2012.
Žižek, Slavoj and Schelling, F.W.J. The Abyss of Freedom / Ages of the World.,
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1997.
444

445

Thame C PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thame C PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thame C PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Love, Ethics, and Emancipation

The Implications of Conceptions of Human Being and Freedom

In partial fulfilment of requirements

Aberystwyth, Wales, United Kingdom,

This thesis is an original contribution to critical international relations

Critical International Relations Theory, Critical Theory, Andrew Linklater,

I have incurred many debts writing this thesis. Although I cannot

Whilst at Cardiff as an undergraduate I was fortunate enough to be taught by

In their respective roles as the convenors of my masters’ courses in

I was fortunate enough to spend seven months on an exchange at the

Lastly, though by no means least, I thank Sophia. Her ceaseless, untiring,

Signed: Charlie Thame (candidate)

Other sources are acknowledged by footnotes giving explicit references.

Signed: Charlie Thame (candidate)

I hereby give consent for my thesis, if accepted, to be available for photocopying

Signed: Charlie Thame (candidate)

I hereby give consent for my thesis, if accepted, to be available for photocopying

Signed: Charlie Thame (candidate)

Political and Historical Contexts .................................................................................1

Political and Theoretical Contexts ...........................................................................370

For this reason meta-theoretical discussions about the importance of

During my masters studies I was introduced to the work of Andrew

For instance, Booth discusses 'the meaning of freedom' as part of a defence

It struck me that Booth's position here involves a whole raft of

A similar contradictory combination of sympathy for the overarching

Political and Historical Contexts

Globally we confront shared crises such as climate change, resource

These developments testify to the fact that political life is becoming

Similarly Richard Beardsworth has argued that 'the material conditions of

including '[m]igration, human trafficking, climate change mitigation and adaption,

In short, the modern political imaginary, where a person's primary fealty is

It is both necessary and profoundly challenging to at least partially extirpate

Given the material transformations discussed above, such a deferral is no

Such a trajectory is demonstrated by Hartmut Behr in his recent Ontologies

Echoing an argument made by Heikki Patomäki in After International

Behr's persuasive conclusion is that, given the conditions of twenty-first-

Our Problematic and Conceptual Remarks

This is the problematic to which we respond. Given the material

As a branch of philosophical speculation, ontology only really begins after

Cosmopolitans will often respond to these sorts of issues by insisting that

Our approach to universality is of a different kind; it is not one of moral

as political subjects? Does an ethical relation to non-citizens consist in the non-

Love, Ethics, and Emancipation: An Overview of Our

The Nature of the Complaint:

Ontological assumptions and commitments underwrite our understandings

Rawls and Frost

Keen to avoid contestable meta-theoretical commitments and recognise the

By circumscribing their approaches to world politics and ethics in this way,

foundational commitments; commitments that reflect a shallow interpretation of

In response to Frost we explicitly situate ourselves within a left-Hegelian

Andrew Linklater's Critical Approach to International Relations Theory

Not content to remain caught within the solipsistic particularism that

However, we later find Linklater's emancipatory cosmopolitanism, the

Largely a consequence of his reliance on Kant, Marx, and Habermas, this

There are two essential components to Linklater's dualism: an ontological

In light of this objection to Linklater’s critical theory we make the broader

A Non-Dualist Approach to the Human Being: the Meta-Theoretical

By the end of Part 1 we demonstrate that Linklater's emancipatory

arguments in this regard help us to develop an alternative, praxeological