Description
The project PRIN 2022/PNRR "Democracy & Citizenship: Kantian and Post-Kantian Perspectives" aims to analyze the views of democracy and citizenship to be found in Kant and in the most representative post-Kantians up to Fichte. Our interest originates from the belief that, in relation to both concepts, evidently crucial for contemporary political theory, the scholarship has been unable 1) to unpack the whole theoretical lesson one can learn from Kant and 2) to do justice to the complexity of the debate that was generated immediately after the appearance of Kant’s political writings among his often more ‘radical’ followers.
On the one hand, Kant’s views of democracy – the idea that democracy "is necessarily a despotism" (ZeF 8: 352) – have been traditionally defused with the consideration that the champion of the Enlightenment is averse to direct democracy only. However, what Kant says ‘to prevent the republican constitution from being confused with the democratic one, as commonly happens’ (ZeF 8: 351) appears to be valid also against democracy as we know it (Caranti 2022b). Moreover, Kant’s own changing attitude towards democracy –the worst regime in 1795 and the best only two years later, suggests a theoretical struggle still awaiting proper analysis. Not accidentally, the disciples and followers of Kant had complex views, often more favourable to democracy. With the Kantian views of democracy reconstructed, the project intends to reconsider and advance today’s burgeoning debate on democracy, with its alleged ‘remedies’ – participatory, deliberative, reflective – to its populist degeneration.
On the other hand, the potential of Kant's theoretical lesson cannot be fully deployed without reconsidering, in an innovative perspective, Kant’s account of citizenship. The aim is that of exploring the alleged “paradoxes” of Kant’s account of citizenship (Beiner 2011), with again echoes in Kant’s followers, in light of what Benhabib calls the “paradox of democratic legitimacy” (Benhabib 2004, 47). We shall focus on the tension between universal human rights claims – in the name of which modern democracies act – and the cultural particularism underlying the self-legislation and self-constitution through which democratic peoples define their territorial and civic boundaries. Such particularism tends to exclude, via a sanctification of the status quo unsupported by clear normative argument, not only those living outside the territorial boundaries who wish to enter, but also those who, residing within the territory, enjoy the protection of certain rights, short of full citizenship – a phenomenon reminiscent of what happened to women, slaves, non-owners, non-Christians, blacks, foreign residents, etc. Unlike Benhabib, we believe that Kant’s notion of cosmopolitan right, properly reconsidered against the Kantian and post-Kantian views of democracy, can open promising perspectives on the proper integration of migrants and on the normative criteria for grating them citizenship.
Coordination:
Prof. Luigi Caranti - Project Leader - University of Catania - Italy
Prof. Angela Taraborrelli - University of Cagliari- Italy
Prof. Roberta Picardi - University of Molise - Italy
On the one hand, Kant’s views of democracy – the idea that democracy "is necessarily a despotism" (ZeF 8: 352) – have been traditionally defused with the consideration that the champion of the Enlightenment is averse to direct democracy only. However, what Kant says ‘to prevent the republican constitution from being confused with the democratic one, as commonly happens’ (ZeF 8: 351) appears to be valid also against democracy as we know it (Caranti 2022b). Moreover, Kant’s own changing attitude towards democracy –the worst regime in 1795 and the best only two years later, suggests a theoretical struggle still awaiting proper analysis. Not accidentally, the disciples and followers of Kant had complex views, often more favourable to democracy. With the Kantian views of democracy reconstructed, the project intends to reconsider and advance today’s burgeoning debate on democracy, with its alleged ‘remedies’ – participatory, deliberative, reflective – to its populist degeneration.
On the other hand, the potential of Kant's theoretical lesson cannot be fully deployed without reconsidering, in an innovative perspective, Kant’s account of citizenship. The aim is that of exploring the alleged “paradoxes” of Kant’s account of citizenship (Beiner 2011), with again echoes in Kant’s followers, in light of what Benhabib calls the “paradox of democratic legitimacy” (Benhabib 2004, 47). We shall focus on the tension between universal human rights claims – in the name of which modern democracies act – and the cultural particularism underlying the self-legislation and self-constitution through which democratic peoples define their territorial and civic boundaries. Such particularism tends to exclude, via a sanctification of the status quo unsupported by clear normative argument, not only those living outside the territorial boundaries who wish to enter, but also those who, residing within the territory, enjoy the protection of certain rights, short of full citizenship – a phenomenon reminiscent of what happened to women, slaves, non-owners, non-Christians, blacks, foreign residents, etc. Unlike Benhabib, we believe that Kant’s notion of cosmopolitan right, properly reconsidered against the Kantian and post-Kantian views of democracy, can open promising perspectives on the proper integration of migrants and on the normative criteria for grating them citizenship.
Coordination:
Prof. Luigi Caranti - Project Leader - University of Catania - Italy
Prof. Angela Taraborrelli - University of Cagliari- Italy
Prof. Roberta Picardi - University of Molise - Italy