In Search of Judith Shklar’s Liberalism

Session Submission Type: Full Paper Panel

Session Description

This panel will consider the distinct voice which Judith Shklar had as a 20th century liberal political theorist, and the contemporary relevance of her perspective for present day political concerns such as injustice. In particular, this panel seeks to expand the scholarly consideration of Shklar’s works beyond her “Liberalism of Fear” to illuminate other key characteristics of her thought. This panel will consist of four papers. One which contextualizes her in reference to Isaiah Berlin, two which consider her normative aspirations as a liberal, and one which addresses the relevance of her approach for contemporary democratic theory.
In “As Different as Two Liberals Can Be”? Joshua Cherniss (Georgetown) aims to clarify the affinities and differences between these two postwar liberal theorists, and to work out how the liberalisms–and intellectual style, sensibility, and practice–of each are related, and might be brought into mutually illuminating (and, perhaps, corrective) conversation. Cherniss compares them in light of the following themes: their political positions and putative identification with “Cold War liberalism”; their use, and views, of the history of ideas, especially the Enlightenment and Romanticism; their orientation to and views on moral psychology and political ethics; the role in their thinking about liberalism of ethical pluralism; and their accounts of liberty, and the bearing of these accounts on their understanding of the type of politics and/or citizenship involved in liberalism. This will expand upon the work Cherniss has done on Isaiah Berlin and his recently published work, Liberalism in Dark Times.
Michelle Schwarze (Wisconsin-Madison) will offer an account of political faith, in her paper, After Liberal Utopia: Judith Shklar on Injustice and Political Faith. She address how although some recent scholarship has tried to broaden our view of Shklar’s thought by returning to her earlier work (e.g., Gatta 2018; Misra 2016; Moyn 2019, 2023), the deep connection between her articulation and defense of political hope (albeit one firmly grounded in skepticism) and the insistence on political theory’s proper focus on social injustice throughout her career has been overlooked. A liberal political faith like the one Shklar develops in her earlier writings is necessary to address injustice, and should be central to any liberal theory. This can address the twin challenges liberalism faces in the rise of authoritarianism and its continued blindness to social injustices. This relates to the current book project which Schwarze is working on, that deals with Shklar’s skeptical liberalism.
Shal Marriott (McGill) will offer an account of the distinctly normative set of liberal commitments, which depict the “good liberal character” that Shklar describes in Ordinary Vices, in her paper “Reconciling the Two Judith Shklar’s.” Although scholars have observed that Shklar provides a character-based account of liberalism (Cherniss, 2022) this seems in tension with the procedural account of liberalism found in the “Liberalism of Fear” that rejects it as a “philosophy of life” (Shklar, 1989). To reconcile these two seemingly incompatible perspectives, Marriott contends that Shklar, in her emphasis on political pluralism, simultaneously provides an account of what a good liberal ought to do as a member of a political community. These normative commitments, Marriott argues, emerge most saliently through Shklar’s integration of literature into her works which provide further insight into her specific approach to liberal political theory.
Finally, Kristen Collins (George Mason University) will look at the relationship between Shklar’s conception of the public sphere and its relationship to democratic principes in “Judith Shklar’s Ocular Liberalism.” Democratic theorists have recently turned to an ocular model of democratic sovereignty, wherein the people exercise a popular gaze, as an audience that watches the rulers. Shklar’s analysis of contemporary electoral competition sometimes takes a distinctly dramaturgical––thought not dramatic––tone. Collins argue that Shklar’s work showcases the inevitability of performances in politics, by rulers and ruled alike. Shklar’s perspective, particularly on injustice, can be expanded into a “back-stage view” of representative democracy that emphasizes how practices of concealment and representation enable collective action against injustices while mitigating the risks of direct exposure.
Discussants Philip Bunn (Clemson) and Shannon Stimson (Georgetown) will provide commentaries on this panel. Bunn works on the liberal tradition, and has a background in the overlap between politics and literature. Stimson shares a specialization in the intersection of dramatic works with political theory, and her wide range of expertise across the history of political thought will allow for her to have a distinct perspective on these papers.

Sub Unit

• Division 2: Foundations of Political Theory

Individual Presentations

• “As Different as Two Liberals Can Be”? Isaiah Berlin and Judith Shklar - Joshua L. Cherniss, Georgetown University

• After Liberal Utopia: Judith Shklar on Injustice and Political Faith - Michelle Schwarze, University of Wisconsin, Madison

• Judith Shklar’s Ocular Liberalism - Kristen R. Collins, George Mason University

• Reconciling the Two Judith Shklar’s - Shal Marriott, McGill University

Chair

• Philip D. Bunn Covenant College

Discussants

• Philip D. Bunn Covenant College

• Shannon C. Stimson Georgetown University