[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” _builder_version=”3.0.47″][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” _builder_version=”3.0.48″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.0.47″ parallax=”off” parallax_method=”on”][et_pb_text admin_label=”Text” _builder_version=”3.17.6″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat”]<\/p>\n
Conveners<\/strong><\/p>\n Davide Pala<\/strong> (University of Manchester)<\/p>\n Jeannine Bringmann<\/strong>\u00a0(University of Manchester)<\/p>\n *All times are British Summer Time (BST)<\/p>\n 14.00 \u2013 14.50<\/strong> – \u201cTBA\u201d – Dorothea G\u00e4deke<\/strong><\/p>\n 15.00 \u2013 15.50<\/strong> – \u201cNon-domination and Rights\u201d – Davide Pala<\/strong><\/p>\n 16.00 \u2013 16.50<\/strong> – \u201cWhere are we at with global non-domination? The case for re-embracing civic virtue\u201d Sarah-Lea Effert<\/strong><\/p>\n 17.20 \u2013 18.10<\/strong> – \u201cAnother Arbitrary Power\u201d Christopher McCammon<\/strong><\/p>\n 18.20 \u2013 19.10<\/strong> – \u201cTBA\u201d Frank Lovett<\/strong><\/p>\n 14.00 \u2013 14.50<\/strong> – \u201cTBA\u201d – Christian Schemmel & Miriam Ronzoni<\/strong><\/p>\n 15.00 \u2013 15.50<\/strong> – \u201cSome Lessons of Structural Racial Injustice for Rawlsian Ideal Theory\u201d – Henry Richardson<\/strong><\/p>\n 16.00 \u2013 16.50<\/strong> – \u201cSystemic Domination and Collective Action: A Response to Ingham and Lovett (2019)\u201d – Stefano Merlo & Marina Uzunova<\/strong><\/p>\n 17.20 \u2013 18.10<\/strong> – \u201cNon-domination and Self-governance\u201d – Jeannine Bringmann<\/strong><\/p>\n 18.20 \u2013 19.10<\/strong> – \u201cNorms, domination, and autonomy\u201d – Cillian McBride<\/strong><\/p>\n 14.00 \u2013 14.50 –<\/strong> \u201cFree economy and Capitals in the Twenty-First Century: How sufficient opportunities help preserving the free status of people in commercial society\u201d – Tawan Manakun<\/strong><\/p>\n 15.00 \u2013 15.50 –<\/strong> \u201cData-Owning Democracy: Citizen Empowerment through Data Ownership\u201d – Roberta Fischli<\/strong><\/p>\n Confirmed Speakers: D. G\u00e4deke, A. Gourevitch, F. Lovett, C. McBride, C. McCammon, H. Richardson, M. Ronzoni, C. Schemmel, A. Schmidt<\/p>\n Pettit\u2019s 1997 seminal book Republicanism revived a tradition of political thought that had for some time been obscured by liberalism: as the book\u2019 title makes explicit, that of republicanism. At the heart of republican political theory is the idea of freedom as non-domination, that is, a kind of freedom whose antonym is dependence and servility rather than mere interference. On the republican view, freedom requires that people are robustly protected from others\u2019 very capacity to interfere. Ensuring this, then, depends at least on the presence of appropriate institutions such as free states, where individuals equally enjoy citizenship (Pettit 1997; see also Skinner 1997; Richardson 2002; Bellamy 2007; Laborde 2008; Lovett 2010). Since then, republicanism has established itself as an autonomous and distinctive approach to morality and politics, which can be fruitfully applied to a vast array of issues in both the domestic and international realm, as the burgeoning republican literature of the last decades well-illustrates (Lovett, Pettit 2009).<\/p>\n Yet, many questions remain unanswered by republicans or have not been explored enough. For instance, republicans have not yet found an agreement on what counts as an act of arbitrary interference (Lovett 2012). Furthermore, republicans have only started exploring questions of distributive or social justice (Pettit 2012). This panel aims at bringing together scholars whose work engages with republicanism broadly conceived of, or that employs the concept of non-domination to address contemporary problems and challenges. The aim is to ascertain where we are at with republicanism, and, more ambitiously, to clarify some of its tenets.<\/p>\n We invite further contributions that address, but are not limited to, the following questions:<\/p>\n Submission Guidelines<\/strong><\/p>\n If you want to apply, please submit an approx. 400-words abstract of your paper prepared for blind-review by the 3rd May 2021<\/strong>. We will respond within two weeks. All abstracts and enquiries about the workshop should be sent to manceptrepublicanism2021@gmail.com<\/a>. We aim to allow for 15-20 minutes per presentation and 25-30 minutes for Q&A. However, this may be subject to change.<\/p>\n Please note that we especially welcome and encourage abstracts from groups that are traditionally underrepresented in political theory.<\/strong><\/p>\n Registration will open in May. All participants must register in order to attend.<\/p>\n This year\u2019s fees are<\/strong><\/p>\n Academics: \u00a345<\/p>\n Graduate students, retirees, and unaffiliated attendees: \u00a320<\/p>\n Non-speaker\/non-presenting attendees: \u00a315<\/p>\n A small number of bursaries (for graduate students only) are available. Please state in your application to our panel whether you intend to apply for a bursary.<\/p>\n We look forward to reading your abstracts,<\/p>\n Davide Pala and Jeannine Bringmann<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][\/et_pb_section]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Where Are We at with Republicanism? Conveners Davide Pala (University of Manchester) Jeannine Bringmann\u00a0(University of Manchester) *All times are British Summer Time (BST) Date: 8th September 2021 Redefining Republicanism 14.00 \u2013 14.50 – \u201cTBA\u201d – Dorothea G\u00e4deke 15.00 \u2013 15.50 – \u201cNon-domination and Rights\u201d – Davide Pala 16.00 \u2013 16.50 – \u201cWhere are we at […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4408,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"on","_et_pb_old_content":"Conveners<\/strong>\r\n\r\nDavide Pala<\/strong> (University of Manchester)\r\n\r\nJeannine Bringmann<\/strong>\u00a0(University of Manchester)\r\n\r\n
\nDate: 8th September 2021<\/h4>\n
Redefining Republicanism<\/em><\/h6>\n
9th September 2021<\/h4>\n
Is Non-domination Enough? Critical Perspectives<\/em><\/h6>\n
Date: 10th September 2021: Old and New Questions<\/em><\/h6>\n
\n
\r\n\r\nConfirmed Speakers: D. G\u00e4deke, A. Gourevitch, F. Lovett, C. McBride, C. McCammon, H. Richardson, M. Ronzoni, C. Schemmel, A. Schmidt\r\n\r\nPettit\u2019s 1997 seminal book Republicanism revived a tradition of political thought that had for some time been obscured by liberalism: as the book\u2019 title makes explicit, that of republicanism. At the heart of republican political theory is the idea of freedom as non-domination, that is, a kind of freedom whose antonym is dependence and servility rather than mere interference. On the republican view, freedom requires that people are robustly protected from others\u2019 very capacity to interfere. Ensuring this, then, depends at least on the presence of appropriate institutions such as free states, where individuals equally enjoy citizenship (Pettit 1997; see also Skinner 1997; Richardson 2002; Bellamy 2007; Laborde 2008; Lovett 2010). Since then, republicanism has established itself as an autonomous and distinctive approach to morality and politics, which can be fruitfully applied to a vast array of issues in both the domestic and international realm, as the burgeoning republican literature of the last decades well-illustrates (Lovett, Pettit 2009).\r\n\r\nYet, many questions remain unanswered by republicans or have not been explored enough. For instance, republicans have not yet found an agreement on what counts as an act of arbitrary interference (Lovett 2012). Furthermore, republicans have only started exploring questions of distributive or social justice (Pettit 2012). This panel aims at bringing together scholars whose work engages with republicanism broadly conceived of, or that employs the concept of non-domination to address contemporary problems and challenges. The aim is to ascertain where we are at with republicanism, and, more ambitiously, to clarify some of its tenets.\r\n\r\nWe invite further contributions that address, but are not limited to, the following questions:\r\n\r\n \t