Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Philosophy of State PDF
Philosophy of State PDF
*Corresponding editor.
doi:10.1057/eps.2010.56
Abstract
In a lecture given in 1991, while working on the never finished third volume
of his series on theories of justice, Brian Barry gave a rare glimpse into the
ideas with which he was wrestling – twenty years ahead of present-day
political theorists. What is the role of the state, how are we to conceptualize
it, in a world if globalization, and against the background of a legitimate
appeal for international distributive justice?
T
he structure of this text deviates book manuscript he was working on at
markedly from that of an ordinary the time – the never completed third
scientific article. It is not the orderly volume of his treatise on social justice.
organized and carefully revised article in Brian felt that turning the lecture into an
which contributions to conferences usual- article would add little to, and only
ly find their last resting place. Instead, it distract from his work on, the book – but
consists of the transcription of a lecture he did not mind publication in the form I
given by Brian Barry (1936–2009) and a proposed: authorized lecture notes dis-
summary of the ensuing debate during playing one of the best political philoso-
the founding conference of the Dutch phers of our days struggling to perfect
Graduate School for Political Science and further develop his ideas though
in Wassenaar, the Netherlands, 9–10 debate with his critics. The text was
January 1991. The rationale behind this offered for publication in the journal of
choice of form is simple and unscientific. the Dutch Political Science Association in
Brian Barry himself lacked the time and the autumn of 1991, but its editors neither
interest to rearrange the notes he used appreciated the format, nor were they
92 european political science: 10 2011
(92 – 102) & 2011 European Consortium for Political Research. 1680-4333/11 www.palgrave-journals.com/eps/
impressed by the novelty of what Barry had ‘y American academics
to offer. It was rediscovered in 2009 in the
process of converting files, created with
in general attach far too
now defunct word processing software, to a much importance to the
more current format. I have added nothing state and far too easily
to the original text, except a couple of
references to Brian Barry’s own (later) work.
assume that only a world
Although little of what Barry had to say state can be an
is really surprising, from the point of view alternative for the
of 2009, the text does offer a rare glimpse
into the ideas with which Theories of
classical nation-state’.
Justice: Volume III might have begun,
and for the biographer it shows the very injustice and of moral obligations towards
first signs of his growing impatience with the world’s poor, the 1991 lecture illustrates
academic political philosophy. that, and why he had little faith in global
The 1991 lecture was prepared while redistributive institutions or powers.
he was working on the final draft of his Justice requires a commitment, a sense
second volume in the Theories of Justice of belonging, to a cooperative venture,
series – or so he thought at the time. and it requires strong institutions to
However, Brian Barry always refused effectively implement redistribution,
to publish any text he was not deeply neither of which a global society or world
satisfied with; hence, Justice as Impar- state can offer in any foreseeable future.
tiality did not appear until 1995. Volume A position like this might be taken as
III – which, as Barry announced in 1991, support for Rawls’ later rejection of global
would discuss international justice – was justice; for Rawls (1999), the reciprocity,
never finished. Moreover, he soon changed broadness, intensity and duration of the
his plans and intended to devote Volume III ties that make a people a people justify
to the institutions of justice (cf. Dowding, limiting social justice to within the bor-
2009). Instead, after a period during ders of its state, and justify the rejection
which Barry wrote about environmental of global redistribution. Yet the most
and intergenerational justice, he aban- important message in Barry’s 1991 lec-
doned purely ‘academic’ political theory ture is that Rawls and – as we can sense
completely in favour of more involved in Barry’s reply to a comment by Stanley
writing like Culture and Equality (2002) Hoffmann – American academics in gen-
and Why Social Justice Matters (2005). eral attaches far too much importance to
As Keith Dowding (2009) noted, Barry the state and far too easily assumes that
left behind the manuscript of a book on only a world state can be an alternative
international social justice, all but finished for the classical nation-state. Barry calls
in 1980: Rich Countries and Poor Coun- for a far more flexible understanding of
tries. Had it been published then, the structures of social cooperation, reflecting
book would have set him on a collision a political reality in which state authority
course with Charles Beitz (1979) and ‘leaks away’ to sub- and supranational
Thomas Pogge (1989), the first major institutions, and in which peoples, socie-
thinkers to apply John Rawls’ theory of ties and cooperative ventures are not
social justice on a global scale (the oracle necessarily identical (cf. also Wissenburg,
himself remained silent on global justice 2007). In this respect, Barry was at least a
until 1997; cf. Rawls, 1999). While Barry decade ahead of, and may still inspire,
certainly agreed with the cosmopolitans current academic debates on the right to
on the existence of global distributive partial or total secession, on the justification
brian barry and marcel wissenburg european political science: 10 2011 93
of borders per se, and about the (at least Now Rawls is important for two reasons.
contractual) justification of governance Firstly, he is politically important. Ever
and institutions of governance. since the publication of his book, it seems
clear to us that if a moderately redistribu-
BRIAN BARRY’S LECTURE tive welfare state – like ours – can be
defended, then Rawls’ theory would be
Undoubtedly, John Rawls’ A Theory of best suited. Secondly, he is intellectually
Justice (1971) has been responsible for important as he has set the agenda for
an upsurge in the production of political political philosophy, leaving open numer-
philosophical literature. Yet little of what ous lines for criticism and revision.
has been written since – including my Let me illustrate four possible types of
own work – concerns the concept of the move towards Rawls. Firstly, Rawls’ argu-
state. Modern political philosophy takes ments can be criticized, especially his
the state and its boundaries as a given, in Original Position and the derivation of his
sharp contrast to classic contract theor- principles from this version of the state of
ists like Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. nature. There are other conceivable ori-
Rawls himself is a good example: his ginal positions, and I think mine is one of
theory is built on the assumption of a the more interesting (cf. Barry, 1989).
certain kind of society, characterized as Secondly, there are internal problems
a group of people living in a state, with a of consistency in his theory. His principle
common sense of justice, and rules to of distributive justice – the ‘difference
which they agree and generally adhere. principle’ – for instance combines two
A society is, furthermore, supposed to political theories in one: Pareto’s, which
know no immigration or emigration, to be is welfare-based, and his own, which is
economically self-sufficient, and to have resource-based. The effect of applying
no external obligations of any kind. In this principle might be that someone gets
short, Rawls’ view of society is not ade- paid more (resources) as an incentive to
quate for this century; an organization work harder in the interest of society, but
like the UN does not fit into his theory. in fact works less hard, and therefore
Within this framework, Rawls develops a has more welfare. The difference principle
social-democratic theory of the rights of is intuitively appealing, but cannot be
citizens. His explicit aim is the reconcilia- taken seriously as it stands now.
tion of liberty and equality by means of his Thirdly, the underlying ideas of the
two principles. Liberty in these principles is theory can be modified. The difference
represented by civil liberties and the free- principle – again – forbids the use of
dom to follow one’s preferences; equality merit-arguments in distribution. But can
is the basic principle of distribution. How- this be reconciled with Rawls’ ideas about
ever, the theory has a hidden third leg – rights and opportunities, which imply
efficiency. Rawls turns the Pareto-principle that what people get should reflect what
of rationality or efficiency into a principle they choose to do? In other words, can
of justice. He allows deviations from desert or merit be included in his theory?
equality in those cases where an unequal Finally, the implications of Rawls’ theory
distribution would make someone better can be explored. Rawls has, for example,
off than she was before, without making little to say about the intra-state and
anyone else worse off. From these possi- inter-class exchanges needed to finance
ble Pareto-optimal distributions, Rawls the social security of a welfare state.
then selects the most equal distribution, I now switch to autobiography for a
the one that makes the worst-off in society short personal statement. I feel com-
best off – the so-called maximin-rule. mitted to both the political and the
94 european political science: 10 2011 the concept of the state in political philosophy
intellectual programme of Rawls: I think ‘The most fruitful
the Western European arrangements of
societies are better than any existing
approach to political
alternative, and I think that changes in theory is contractual,
these arrangements must be defended i.e., justification of
from within the existing framework.
The most fruitful approach to political
theories by agreement
theory is contractual, that is, justification of under ideal conditions’.
theories by agreement under ideal con-
ditions. Charles Beitz’ Political Equality state became a second religion, but na-
(1990) is an excellent example of this tionalism as it used to be has passed away.
approach, as is my own three-volume The modern forms of nationalism are not
treatise on social justice1 – though I fear it focused on purifying and regenerating
will turn out in the same way as my Political man; rather, they are born out of fear of
Argument (Barry, 1968), which seems to bad treatment. Like socialism, once a
have been the last contribution to linguistic regeneration theory, nationalism now is a
philosophy. My book on social justice may theory combining efficiency and equity. If
be seen as the end of the line, while the ideology means the belief in a finite
philosophical debate is moving into new struggle for an aim that will change people,
territory. I do not think that I am saying the then ideology is indeed dead.
last word on the subject, but perhaps our Political philosophy has not yet come to
energy can be spent in better ways. terms with the ‘leakage’ of the state up
Now why do I say this? Because build- and downwards. Yet the foundations of
ing theories of this kind is more costly Rawls’ theory, the idea of a contract etc.,
than beneficial. The advantages are real; do not have to be changed, nor are the
there is now a well-worked out tradition underlying ideas of the Rawlsian theory –
for analysing states – but the problem is Western social democracy – too ‘institu-
that the conceptual net catches too little tionally bound’. Ideas like eliminating
reality. Compare Rawls’ assumptions morally arbitrary features in society –
about the state: the facts are that there compensating brute bad luck – and reflec-
are many political decisions taken outside ting the voluntary choices of people in the
the state’s borders – for example in the outcome of their actions – the problem of
E.C. – that there is a massive capital flow desert, discussed earlier – can and must
between states (GATT etc.), and an un- be saved. However, this does not mean
deniable interdependence of economies. that it is clear what exactly a voluntary
Rawls’ assumptions about the state’s choice or bad luck is.
sovereignty thus have to be revised. Other features of Rawls’ theory, how-
On the other hand, what comes out of ever, must be rebuilt if we drop his defini-
the state nowadays is less; the Scottish tion of social justice as the subject
educational system, for instance, was and of ‘the basic structure of society’. The
perhaps still is the best in Britain. It allowed idea of equal opportunity on the national
Scots to fill jobs all over the British Empire, labour market must be rethought for
an opportunity they would not have had if non-national labour markets such as
Scotland had been independent. But being the European Community, where equal
part of the UK now no longer offers them opportunity now already is a serious pro-
any advantages in this respect. The ideo- blem. The same goes for equal opportu-
logical high tide of the state has also nity as far as educational opportunity is
passed. Following the religious decline concerned. We have to design Rawlsian
since the sixteenth century, service to the distributive arrangements next to that of
brian barry and marcel wissenburg european political science: 10 2011 95
the state, working on a lot of different levels our times sometimes seem to take over
and each affecting the overall pattern of the role of national beliefs) – and I think
distribution. No one knows as yet how to this is a serious challenge to Rawls.
deal with this; the debate on international Brian Barry: Concerning (2), I think the
justice is still far too little developed. And, communitarians are a very small, confu-
finally, questions of non-state political sed and not a serious or interesting move-
institutions and political accountability ment. The question – as far as Sandel is
have to be taken more seriously. concerned – is even whether Rawls used
There is a lot of capital locked up in our the assumptions that Sandel ascribes to
state framework, but it will take time to him, such as disembodied people in a
include the actual changes in institutional contract situation. My alternative to Rawls
frameworks in political theory. I expect is, by the way, an original position with
that if the discomfort about the mismatch real people, who imagine changes in their
between theoretical assumptions and relative power positions and not in their
reality induces such a change in political beliefs.
theory, then it will happen in Western and There are some elements of truth in
Central Europe rather than in the United the, otherwise very confused, premises of
States, as there is in fact less pressure in the communitarians, but I think these can
the US to think about the diminishing be incorporated in a contractual frame-
sovereignty of the state. The US political work. Contractual theorists do not deny
philosophers will continue to write about that states can be concerned with cultural
and along the lines of the Constitution and matters, as the communitarians seem
decisions taken by the Supreme Court, to suppose. The communitarian critique
whereas their European colleagues will of Rawls’ and Dworkin’s enthusiasm
be driven to rethink the foundations of the for neutrality is misplaced. The stress
state. on neutrality is a peculiarity of modern
liberals; it is not inherent to liberalism.
DEBATE Their objections to neutrality are sound,
but they do not stab into the heart of the
Question by Stanley Hoffmann, Harvard contractual framework. Another objection
University: I have two points to make: to the communitarian desire to ‘kill the
(1) I do not see the decline in nationalism contract’ is that the costs will be too
you refer to, and (2) there is controversy high; it implies, for instance, that educa-
about a lot of Rawls’ conceptions, such as tional systems should be killed as well –
his view on liberalism, and his idea of whereas there are, I am sure, things
the state as a contract among indivi- every person needs to know.
duals. Most notably, there is a US reaction With regard to your first remark, I
to Rawls by the so-called communi- won’t deny that national identification is
tarians (Taylor, Walzer, and my colleague still important, and that more blood will
Sandel) – a confused and, in my opinion, be spilled on it than on other issues.
bad, movement of left, right, and catholic Yet there is a decline in nationalism in
writers, who have in common that they Western Europe (even in Britain); and
always take tradition and authority as their nationalism is now more an ideology of
point of departure. They want to conceive collective selfishness and less one of
of the state in a different way, and argue universalistic, regenerative sentiments
that Rawls’ conception of a contract is not than it was before World War II.
consistent or realistic. Sandel’s critique of
Rawls, for instance, is based on Rawls’ not Question by Ido de Haan, University of
taking seriously religious beliefs (which in Amsterdam: Rawls presupposes a ‘we’, a
96 european political science: 10 2011 the concept of the state in political philosophy
community. What happens when you ‘The weakness of
bring in other people, when you skip the
idea of a community? Doesn’t this mean
liberalism is that it must
that there can no longer be a neutral always come to terms
position – and that consequently Rawls’ with the question why
framework cannot be used as the basis of
our thought about modern society?
people want to be
Brian Barry: You are correct in saying associated with one state
that Rawls’ theory itself is state-based, or community rather
and that he presupposes the boundaries
of states but never talks about what these
than another’.
boundaries should be. Rawls’ reply would
be that it took him over 500 pages to about states and world-wide arran-
develop his theory, working with these gements. In non-universal structures
assumptions, let others do the rest if they there are boundaries and non-members,
like to. strangers.
I think the real question is: what is left, Brian Barry: In Rawls’ theory, one is
if we abstract from Rawls’ state-based allowed to do more for one’s family than
theory? You are implicitly saying that his for others. On a world scale, we would still
theory stands or falls with that assump- have such differential political authorities,
tion, and I do not agree. The framework lower-level institutions with boundaries.
is much more robust than that; it is not Critics of the idea of impartiality in con-
necessarily bound to the idea of a pre- tract situations, like Sandel and Bernard
existing society with only one level of Williams, have not understood this idea
authority. The weakness of liberalism is too well. Basically, it only means that I
that it must always come to terms with cannot make claims on my behalf without
the question why people want to be accepting that others can do the same
associated with one state or community on their behalf – a more or less Kantian
rather than another. The answer to such premise. There is no more to it, no other
questions about the boundaries of politi- implications than to beware of writing off
cal authorities cannot only be based on the perspectives of others, building in a
technical demands or on calling national- veto, and accepting that whatever we
ism for instance romanticism, irrational- decide must make sense to everybody.
ism, or a thing of the Right. Distributive And what makes sense now, in our
justice, for example, asks for something days, is differential political authority –
that binds people together; there is a so contract theories can very well deal
relation between the degree of identifica- with that problem.
tion and the degree of willingness to give,
the degree of redistribution. Contract Question by Stanley Hoffmann: My pro-
theories can deal with such questions. blem is: who are ‘we’, for whom do we
They must be more intricate than they accept, for example, Rawls’ difference
are at the moment, but the idea is not principle? Lots of people do not want to
basically wrong. Basically, you can put grant rights to others, simply because
everyone in the contract situation and let these others are ‘not-we’. Secondly, even
them talk about the political structure. if people in a world-wide original position
decided in favour of the difference princi-
Question by Grahame Lock, University of ple, will or must they also decide on the
Nijmegen, chair: We haven’t talked about shape of political institutions, the educa-
non-universal political institutions, only tional system, immigration policy, etc.?
Note
1 Volume I had already appeared in 1989, Brian was still revising Volume II but expected it to be ready by
July 1991, and he had just started work on what he thought would be the final Volume III.
References
Barry, B. (1968) Political Argument, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Barry, B. (1989) Theories of Justice, Berkeley: University of California Press.
Barry, B. (1990) ‘How not to defend liberal institutions’, British Journal of Political Science 20(1): 1–14.
Barry, B. (1995) Justice as Impartiality, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Barry, B. (2002) Culture and Equality, Oxford: Polity.
Barry, B. (2005) Why Social Justice Matters, Oxford: Polity.
Beitz, C. (1979) Political Theory and International Relations, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Beitz, C. (1990) Political Equality, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Dowding, K. (2009) ‘Obituary: Brian Barry (1936–2009)’, Political Studies 57(2): 459–463.
Pogge, T. (1989) Realizing Rawls, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Rawls, J. (1971) A Theory of Justice, Harvard: Harvard University Press.
Rawls, J. (1999) The Law of Peoples, Harvard: Harvard University Press.
Wissenburg, M. (2007) Political Pluralism and the State, Abingdon: Routledge.
102 european political science: 10 2011 the concept of the state in political philosophy
Copyright of European Political Science is the property of Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.