Rawls, Liberalism and the long 20th Century

Katrina Forrester‘s In the Shadow of Justice: Postwar Liberalism and the Remaking of Political Philosophy is a book worthy of multiple readings. Nominally about John Rawls and the impact of his work, especially his 1971 classic, A Theory of Justice, Forrester’s book is ambitious and expansive. Forrester provides a solid and brief overview of Rawls’ life and key ideas. She follows that with an extensive, truly encyclopedic reading of political philosophers’ ideas and efforts in relation to and opposition from Rawls, really for the latter half of the twentieth century. The book is comprehensive, fair, and guided with an underlying sense of coherence that allows for reading – and understanding – a massive amount of philosophy in the context of Rawls and his thinking. In essence, In the Shadow of Justice is a course on political philosophy.

Rawls’ ideas emerged out of the horrors of WWI. The war was no abstraction for him; he served in the Pacific and saw battle. When he left the military to return to higher education, concerns about strengthening the liberal order were paramount to his priorities. Rawls worked on his ideas for decades, and as his thinking was published, he methodically responded to colleagues and critics. Through and through, Rawls was an academic who wrote, rewrote, and wrote more. His theory of justice, accordingly, shifted and expanded over time. Forrester’s tracking of this, her attention to the nuance of context, collaboration and contestation is outstanding. Reading In the Shadow is extremely educational. It is very strong intellectual history.

One key takeaway, beyond the massive material that awaits reading, rereading and consideration for this reader, is a question of who pays attention to political philosophy. Despite the widespread affirmation of much of the Rawlsean project, there seems to have been little impact on policy or politics on the part of political philosophers. Yes, there was alignment with legal studies, but when it comes to shaping political movements, parties or broad understanding of trends, there is little evidence. That is not Forrester’s primary question, but it hangs over the broader project. Why doesn’t it have greater relevance?

One reason might be that the scholars who did this work, through their their academic appointments, backgrounds or training, or some other factors, mostly avoided the public intellectual space. Liberal political philosophers seem to have engaged mostly with each other through a limited number of publications at a small number of elite institutions. They are not household names, even though there ideas undergird the liberal order. It is no small irony that broad scale liberalism, particularly when it affirmed global aspirations, is often distanced from the give and take of politics.

Forrester explores this. While her book is roughly chronological, her periodization frames debates, be it conservation and the fear of the future or the impact of the Vietnam War and what it meant to be a conscientious objector. Rawls’ justice expanded and shifted focus, accordingly, to address these and other issues. Did it lose its essence? Forrester returns to this issue several times, exploring where and how its alterations exacerbated internal tensions. Many of those tensions are with us today as many have come to question the backbone of the liberal political philosophical consensus.

I plan to return to In the Shadow. First, though, much homework awaits. There is much to read and consider. One critical question: when, where, who and why certain political philosophers have been able to move beyond academia and influence larger discussions.

David Potash

May 28, 2025 Reviews

Democracy Reconsidered Decades On

More important, more needed, and very much contested, democratic values and structures are increasingly under the microscope. Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of democracy in its many forms is a vitally important issue for the United States and, in many ways, the entire world. How do we govern, govern ourselves, and make good faith efforts to live fair and just lives in unfair and unjust times? There are no easy answers.

My knowledge and questions about democracy have been substantially aided of late through reading an important book, one that I missed for decades. First published in 1998 (with a big thanks to my daughter for the recommendation), Carol C. Gould’s Rethinking Democracy: Freedom and Social Cooperation in Politics, Economy and Society is a rigorously argued work of political philosophy. Gould makes bold claims, offers tightly structured arguments, and systematically advances and critiques other’s work in the field. Rethinking Democracy challenges established thinking (at least at the time it was written), and for someone new to book, clearly has made an outsize impact on the field. Be warned, though: this is not a book to skim. It requires close reading and attention. Gould is a very well-respected scholar whose work spans disciplines and centuries.

At a high-level, Gould’s agenda is this volume has multiple aims. She looks to establish democratic decision-making and processes as foundational to social and economic life, not just politics. Democracy, in other words, cannot only be found at the ballot box. It matters in the workplace and in our lives. To achieve this claim, Gould carefully builds an understanding of freedom, liberty and rights that affirm both the individualist perspective and the demands of social equality and cooperation. That is an important shift. Many think of freedom as an individual’s right to do what they want, and that this kind of freedom is essential to a democracy. Others consider freedom that can only be established through a cooperation and structured equality. Think of socialism in this example.

Gould’s argument is multi-layered. Along like lines, Gould acknowledges the power of negative and positive freedom as a construct (“no one can constrain me” and “I can do what I want”). She demonstrates the ineffectiveness of relying on the framework to construct a foundation for democracy. This takes a lot of work, for Gould does not simply propose. Instead, she summarizes thinking, considers the benefits and shortcomings of other thinkers, and constructs her arguments deliberately and with purpose. The very definitions of freedom and equality are sought. Although Gould claims the book to be constructive, not critical, it is only through her systematic work that construction takes place.

Freedom, Gould persuasively argues, is a condition for individual self-development, which is essential our purpose and lives as humans. Self-development is not atomistic and isolated. Instead, it is only possible in conditions of cooperation and participation. Democracy in a healthy state, accordingly, offers individual self-development and social cooperation. It has an ethical and ontological foundation.

Multiple books and articles have emerged in the decades since Rethinking Democracy was published, as well as fields within philosophy. Social ontology stands as a good example. One not be a philosophy student or philosopher to appreciate the potential consequences and questions that emerge from Gould’s ideas. Rethinking Democracy is a powerful work.

I plan on more reading and research, based on this book and subsequent scholarship. Learning more about how to advance democratic values strikes me as a most relevant area of inquiry. And if current affairs has one thinking, it is clear that there is much to learn and consider.

David Potash

March 1, 2024 Reviews