Category Archives: Comparative Political Theory

New Book: Kim, Theorizing Confucian Virtue Politics

Sungmoon Kim’s latest book, Theorizing Confucian Virtue Politics: The Political Philosophy of Mencius and Xunzi, has been published by Cambridge. The Amazon link is here; a flyer from Cambridge (with a 20% discount) is here. More information follows.

Continue reading →

New book: Mastery, Dependence, and the Ethics of Authority, by Aaron Stalnaker

Oxford University Press has just published my new book on early Confucian social thought, and what contemporary people might learn from it: Mastery, Dependence, and the Ethics of Authority.  The publisher’s page is here.  At present the cheapest way to purchase it is directly from Oxford, with a discount code for 30% off (AAFLYG6).

This comes with hearty thanks to Steve Angle and Bryan Van Norden, who were belatedly revealed as the press’s referees.

Continue reading →

New Journal / Roundtable on Kim, Confucian Public Reason

Thanks to Kyung Rok Kwon for sharing the following information and the linked PDF of the the journal’s roundtable!

The Hong Kong Journal of Law and Public Affairs (HKJLPA) is the first student-edited
law and political science journal in all of Asia, established by the Government and Laws
Committee, Politics and Public Administration Association, with full support
from the Bachelor of Social Sciences (Government and Laws) and Bachelor of Laws
Programme (BSocSc (Govt&Laws) & LLB / Government and Laws / GLaws) at The University
of Hong Kong in 2018.

The theme of the inaugural volume is “Confucian Democracy and Constitutionalism”. In this volume, not only four articles on the theme but also book symposium for Prof. Kim’s Public Reason Confucianism will be published. The full text of the issue is available for download here.

New Book: O’Dwyer, Confucianism’s Prospects


SUNY Press has published Shaun O’Dwyer, Confucianism’s Prospects: A Reassessment. SUNY’s website is here.

The publisher’s blurb: In Confucianism’s Prospects, Shaun O’Dwyer offers a rare critical engagement with English-language scholarship on Confucianism. Against the background of historical and sociological research into the rapid modernization of East Asian societies, O’Dwyer reviews several key Confucian ethical ideas and proposals for East Asian alternatives to liberal democracy that have emerged from this scholarship. He also puts the following question to Confucian scholars: what prospects do those ideas and proposals have in East Asian societies in which liberal democracy and pluralism are well established, and individualization and declining fertility are impacting deeply upon family life? In making his case, O’Dwyer draws upon the neglected work of Japanese philosophers and intellectuals who were witnesses to Japan’s pioneering East Asian modernization and protagonists in the rise and disastrous wartime fall of its own modernized Confucianism. He contests a sometimes Sinocentric and ahistorical conception of East Asian societies as “Confucian societies,” while also recognizing that Confucian traditions can contribute importantly to global philosophical dialogue and to civic and religious life.

Winston Reviews Kim, Democracy After Virtue

Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews

2019.07.20 View this Review Online   View Other NDPR Reviews

Sungmoon Kim, Democracy After Virtue: Toward Pragmatic Confucian Democracy, Oxford University Press, 2018, 255pp., $74.00 (hbk), ISBN 9780190671235.

Reviewed by Kenneth Winston, Harvard University

As Asian countries reclaim their former prominence on the world stage, many Asian scholars are engaged in an ardent effort to respond to the new reality by reexamining basic political principles. The effort is not only academic or philosophical; it is deeply moral — an effort to preserve what is of value in one’s own culture or tradition while adapting to new geopolitical circumstances and engaging in new relationships. Sungmoon Kim is a member in good standing of an international group of scholars who join this intellectual conversation with the general aim of reconciling Confucianism and democracy — with an agenda and vocabulary taken primarily from contemporary English-language analytic philosophy. While written at a fairly abstract level, this book can be read as a search for identity or self-understanding in an evolving world.

Continue reading →

Book: The Global Encyclopedia of Informality

 

While scouring the web for freebies this morning, I came across something that may be of interest to many readers here: The Global Encyclopedia of Informality, University College London, 2018, in two volumes.

http://oapen.org/search?identifier=642570;keyword=informality

 

Here’s the table of contents for Volume 1:

Continue reading →

Book Symposium on Kim, Public Reason Confucianism

The latest issue of the Journal of Social Philosophy includes a Book Symposium on Sungmoon Kim’s Public Reason Confucianism (Cambridge, 2016):

  • Joseph Chan, Public Reason Confucianism Without Foundation?
  • Baldwin Wong, A Non‐Sectarian Comprehensive Confucianism?—On Kim’s Public Reason Confucianism
  • Franz Mang, Why Public Reason Could Not Be Too Modest: The Case of Public Reason Confucianism
  • Stephen C. Angle, Does Confucian Public Reason Depend on Confucian Civil Religion?
  • Sungmoon Kim, In Defense of Public Reason Confucianism: Reply to Chan, Mang, Wong, and Angle

New “Elements” Series on Comparative Political Theory

Leigh Jenco is the series editor for a new series at Cambridge Univeristy Press that adopts their novel “elements” approach. Leigh explains that an “element” is a “work of up to 30,000 words, is peer-reviewed, efficiently published, fully searchable and downloadable online with print-on-demand, and can be enhanced with images, videos, sound files, etc.” She adds that “the format is, in other words, combining the best features of books and journal articles at the same time. I think it is very well-suited to comparative philosophy and political theory, because it gives space to say more about background and context while also allowing the development of a substantive argument.” For more information, see here.